Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17560 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2605 Feb 19, 2013
Jerald wrote:
Still can't come up with an argument?
Still can't explain why your argument fails to address the need of children in marital, or potential marital situations other than OS, or SS?
I'm not arguing polygamy or plural marriage. Apparently you want to shift the topic because you're unable to make a solid case. Or perhaps you might have to make an argument that you know will sound bigoted, heartless, or irrational.
Did you just say "bigoted"? Do you not see the obvious? You allege bigotry because I oppose redefining marriage, or the the legalization of SSM, and yet you display bigotry towards plural marriage. Interesting.
This thread is about same-sex couples in civil marriage. Want to argue polygamy? Start a new thread.
The key word here being "MARRIAGE", thus both opposite sex binary, same sex binary, and opposite sex plural, marriage, all forms of marriage practiced in this country, thus they are part of the discussion as to how marriage is legally defined, or should be legally defined.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2606 Feb 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender segregation to perfectly diverse, integrated male/female marriage. If you love diversity and hate prejudice; keep marriage one man and one woman.
Nope, sorry.

You might like the way it sounds, but it's not a valid point. There is no such concept as "gender segregation" in marriage law, and a loving couple marrying in no way causes "prejudice".

You are getting farther and farther afield in your desperate attempt to find some reason ANY reason, to prevent gay folks and their families from having the SAME protections as heterosexuals receive.

Face it, married gay people IN NO WAY cause straight people to stop marrying people of the opposite gender.

Not a single heterosexual male/female marriage will ever be harmed or changed by two gay folks legally marrying.

Denying gay couples and their families the SAME protections that marriage brings will harm them, without helping a single soul.

There is no rational argument against that.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2607 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite simply actually. The composition of the adults in question is different, as is their relationship to each other and their children. An opposite sex married couple is more likely to be the child's mother and father. Obviously not the case with a same sex couple, one of whom cannot be the biological mother or father.
.......
Please list the states where all heterosexual married couples are required to be the biological parents of any child in the household.

Note which states ban adoption completely, and prevent blended families by banning divorced and single parents from marrying anyone other than the biological parent of their children.

Then, list your supporting data that shows that gay couples marrying legally will likely cause fewer straight married couples to produce children that are genetically related to both parents.

Face it. Protecting gay couples and their children through marriage law will have zero affect on the numbers of straight folks that marry once and choose to have children biologically.

It WILL have a positive effect on those gay couples themselves, and on any children they have. Yo certainly can't deny that.

Do you have any other arguments?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2608 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Did you just say "bigoted"? Do you not see the obvious? You allege bigotry because I oppose redefining marriage, or the the legalization of SSM, and yet you display bigotry towards plural marriage. Interesting.
......
The word Bigot gets thrown around too much, I think.

But, if you are more worried about your personal interpretation of a word than you are about families and kids, for no rational or logical reason other than stubbornness, then that label can start to apply.

Polygamy is unrelated to same sex marriage, of course, because of the numbers of people involved.

You would need to make a rational argument that allowing people to marry many at the same time benefits them and their children, while not harming others, or society.

We already know that marrying ONE person passes that test.

But, since we know that you are only using polygamy as a straw man in place of a real argument against letting people marrying ONE person of the same gender, it's a moot point.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2609 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
........
Why should the children being raised by same sex couples be denied the benefits and protections that civil conjugal, as in husband and wife, civil marriage afford their peers being raised by opposite sex married couples?
I thought this discussion was about marriage law? Or is it about removing the right for any same sex couple or single person to have or raise children? That seems far outside the scope of allowing same sex couples to legally marry.

If you are going to establish a parental ideal, and enforce it through the law, what will you do with all of the children who do not live in your ideal family?

And who gets to decide the legal definition of that ideal family? Is it to be only based on the gender of the parents, or should it also be based on education levels, geographic locations and the amount of income parents have?

You are opening up quite a can of worms, here.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2610 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
But a man can't get pregnant. Not equal
<quoted text>
But a woman can't produce sperm. Not equal
<quoted text>
Which is why you should say polygamy is a an equal rights issue.
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhh...so that explains it....your mother and father are brother and sister.
Good points, there is no gender equality right on our Constitution.

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2611 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite simply actually. The composition of the adults in question is different, as is their relationship to each other and their children. An opposite sex married couple is more likely to be the child's mother and father. Obviously not the case with a same sex couple, one of whom cannot be the biological mother or father.
Once again, you're defining marriage solely by an attribute that is neither necessary nor sufficient for it's legal establishment.

Marriage without children is still marriage. Marriage without two partners isn't.
Pietro Armando wrote:
...advocate for plural marriage.
Separate issue, not contingent or dependent on the argument for same-sex couples in civil marriage.

You can't make your argument without it? Get a new line.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why should the children being raised by same sex couples be denied the benefits and protections that civil conjugal, as in husband and wife, civil marriage afford their peers being raised by opposite sex married couples?
Feel free to show how government is denying anything in the convoluted linguistic scenario you've offered above.

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2612 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Still can't explain why your argument fails to address the need of children in marital, or potential marital situations other than OS, or SS?
Why should I? The issue is the sex of the partners, not the number of partners.

Sex and number are two different things. Different matters altogether.

You would have to show exactly how one would necessarily cause the other.

How about providing evidence for your claim?

Feel free to show a state or country that has legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples subsequently legalizing civil marriage for multiple partners.

Feel free to show a state or country that has legalized civil marriage for multiple partners and subsequently legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Did you just say "bigoted"? Do you not see the obvious? You allege bigotry because I oppose redefining marriage, or the the legalization of SSM, and yet you display bigotry towards plural marriage. Interesting.
So you're bigoted towards both polygamous groups and same-sex couples, and I'm only bigoted against polygamous groups.

Unless of course you don't think that being against polygamy is bigoted. Then I wouldn't be bigoted, would I?
Pietro Armando wrote:
The key word here being "MARRIAGE", thus both opposite sex binary, same sex binary, and opposite sex plural, marriage, all forms of marriage practiced in this country, thus they are part of the discussion as to how marriage is legally defined, or should be legally defined.
All defining or limiting properties are the same?

Sex is the same as number? Which is the same as consanguinity?

You're going to have to prove that.

All of this is proof that you have no rational argument against civil marriage for same-sex couples. You NEED to bring in arguments against other forms of marriage (polygamy, consanguinitiy) to make your case.

You've failed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2613 Feb 19, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The word Bigot gets thrown around too much, I think.
We agree.
But, if you are more worried about your personal interpretation of a word than you are about families and kids, for no rational or logical reason other than stubbornness, then that label can start to apply.
[QUOTE]

Really Questy, "your personal interpretation" of a word? Which word is that, "marriage", as its defined constitutionally in 32 states, and by most of the globe, that interpretation?

[QUOTE]
Polygamy is unrelated to same sex marriage, of course, because of the numbers of people involved.
You would need to make a rational argument that allowing people to marry many at the same time benefits them and their children, while not harming others, or society.
Actually there's two "unrelations" I can think of, the number two, although technically, to use the Brown family as an example, Kody is married to each wife, the wives are married to each other. The second, is the conjugal, or opposite sex, nature of plural marriage. So in those two regards you're right. However, as with SSM, and OSM, it's still marriage. So there's where the link is.
We already know that marrying ONE person passes that test.
Yes, of the opposite sex, because that is how marriage is defined, at least in 32 U.S. state.
But, since we know that you are only using polygamy as a straw man in place of a real argument against letting people marrying ONE person of the same gender, it's a moot point.
Is there a "real argument" for fundamentally changing marriage at all, let alone for one group but not for another. You may continue to argue, that plural marriage is not part of the discussion, but it only serves to illustrate the major flaw, and intellectual dishonesty in the "marriage equality" movement. Each victory for SSM increases the odds for some form of legal plural marriage. Why not simply embrace it?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2614 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
We agree.
<quoted text>
Actually there's two "unrelations" I can think of, the number two, although technically, to use the Brown family as an example, Kody is married to each wife, the wives are married to each other. The second, is the conjugal, or opposite sex, nature of plural marriage. So in those two regards you're right. However, as with SSM, and OSM, it's still marriage. So there's where the link is.
<quoted text>
Yes, of the opposite sex, because that is how marriage is defined, at least in 32 U.S. state.
<quoted text>
Is there a "real argument" for fundamentally changing marriage at all, let alone for one group but not for another. You may continue to argue, that plural marriage is not part of the discussion, but it only serves to illustrate the major flaw, and intellectual dishonesty in the "marriage equality" movement. Each victory for SSM increases the odds for some form of legal plural marriage. Why not simply embrace it?
Ask us if we care
lamer

Hopkins, MN

#2615 Feb 19, 2013
How many people in this thread are from the baby boomer era? That same era of people who have been going on and on and on and on and on over these same social issues for decades now.

As a generation Xer and speaking with many in the gen Y and Milleniums, its clear that no one outside of the baby boomers and on really care about these social issues at all. Ask any youth and you will see the trend. Faile war on drugs; Cannabis legalization is coming. Same sex equality is passing in more and more states. Abortion isnt an issue we are going to go on and on about. We have our own issues that seem to be outside the scope of amny of you baby boomers.

Point is that you baby boombers seem like you are going to agrue over these same issues for the next decade or two till you are gone. I am hoping at that time we are able to move forward as a country and get past those social issues that we have been over and over again and move on to whats important for this generation.

So im sorry but as far as im concered the church can throw its fissy fit all it wants; but the more it keeps it up the more people will be yelling to tax them.

Its a lose/lose situation and a smarter organization would be backing out of that converstation.

“Marriage Equality”

Level 1

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2616 Feb 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Good points, there is no gender equality right on our Constitution.
There's no right to type of a computer and communicate over the Internet, either. Doesn't that mean you should stop as you're clearly violating the Constitution by continuing to post here?

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2617 Feb 19, 2013
lamer wrote:
How many people in this thread are from the baby boomer era? That same era of people who have been going on and on and on and on and on over these same social issues for decades now.
As a generation Xer and speaking with many in the gen Y and Milleniums, its clear that no one outside of the baby boomers and on really care about these social issues at all. Ask any youth and you will see the trend. Faile war on drugs; Cannabis legalization is coming. Same sex equality is passing in more and more states. Abortion isnt an issue we are going to go on and on about. We have our own issues that seem to be outside the scope of amny of you baby boomers.
Point is that you baby boombers seem like you are going to agrue over these same issues for the next decade or two till you are gone. I am hoping at that time we are able to move forward as a country and get past those social issues that we have been over and over again and move on to whats important for this generation.
So im sorry but as far as im concered the church can throw its fissy fit all it wants; but the more it keeps it up the more people will be yelling to tax them.
Its a lose/lose situation and a smarter organization would be backing out of that converstation.
"Nothing dies so hard, or rallies so often as intolerance." -- Henry Ward Beecher

While there is much truth in what you say, anti-gay prejudice will not be going away anytime soon.

It may be that the majority now reject prejudice and discrimination in the US and even North America. But it is still being taught by those who claim the authority of God, especially in parts of the world where access to information and education is limited. Fear and superstition are powerful tools, and continue to be used to teach and reinforce irrational prejudice.

While not intended to discourage you, unfortunately, I believe you will be exposed to prejudice in one form or another your entire life, just like every other human who has ever walked the earth. But don't give up hope, and don't stop fighting. We have come a long way, even if we still have a long way to go.
Pietro Armando

Newton Center, MA

#2618 Feb 19, 2013
lamer wrote:
How many people in this thread are from the baby boomer era? That same era of people who have been going on and on and on and on and on over these same social issues for decades now.
As a generation Xer and speaking with many in the gen Y and Milleniums, its clear that no one outside of the baby boomers and on really care about these social issues at all. Ask any youth and you will see the trend. Faile war on drugs; Cannabis legalization is coming. Same sex equality is passing in more and more states. Abortion isnt an issue we are going to go on and on about. We have our own issues that seem to be outside the scope of amny of you baby boomers.
Point is that you baby boombers seem like you are going to agrue over these same issues for the next decade or two till you are gone. I am hoping at that time we are able to move forward as a country and get past those social issues that we have been over and over again and move on to whats important for this generation.
So im sorry but as far as im concered the church can throw its fissy fit all it wants; but the more it keeps it up the more people will be yelling to tax them.
Its a lose/lose situation and a smarter organization would be backing out of that converstation.
What are those issues?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2619 Feb 19, 2013
lamer wrote:
How many people in this thread are from the baby boomer era? That same era of people who have been going on and on and on and on and on over these same social issues for decades now.
As a generation Xer and speaking with many in the gen Y and Milleniums, its clear that no one outside of the baby boomers and on really care about these social issues at all. Ask any youth and you will see the trend. Faile war on drugs; Cannabis legalization is coming. Same sex equality is passing in more and more states. Abortion isnt an issue we are going to go on and on about. We have our own issues that seem to be outside the scope of amny of you baby boomers.
Point is that you baby boombers seem like you are going to agrue over these same issues for the next decade or two till you are gone. I am hoping at that time we are able to move forward as a country and get past those social issues that we have been over and over again and move on to whats important for this generation.
So im sorry but as far as im concered the church can throw its fissy fit all it wants; but the more it keeps it up the more people will be yelling to tax them.
Its a lose/lose situation and a smarter organization would be backing out of that converstation.
Please do not lose sight of who changed the social dynamic that allows Gen X and Y to treat their gay and lesbian neighbors equally. The boomers and earlier generations suffered great discrimination, took many chances, and worked very hard to achieve that.

Where I live, most of the boomers support gay rights. Even many of the oldest citizens support their gay and lesbian neighbors here. I don't think I could ever move back to one of those backward areas that seem to make up the majority of America.

I foresee medical marijuana throughout New England and decriminalization within the next decade. This will be brought about by us baby boomers before you seize power from us.

One final note: Attitudes toward gays and lesbians have changed among all age cohorts. Even those Gen X'ers whom you admire are more comfortable than they were ten years ago.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2620 Feb 19, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask us if we care.
Exactly you don't. Its the "ole change it for us, nobody else, and consequences be damned".
AzAdam

United States

#2621 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Lather, Rinse, Repeat, Repeat, Repeat, Repeat
Nothing new in the last hundred pages. Just inadequate answers to valid counterpoints.
lamer

Hopkins, MN

#2622 Feb 19, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Please do not lose sight of who changed the social dynamic that allows Gen X and Y to treat their gay and lesbian neighbors equally. The boomers and earlier generations suffered great discrimination, took many chances, and worked very hard to achieve that.
Where I live, most of the boomers support gay rights. Even many of the oldest citizens support their gay and lesbian neighbors here. I don't think I could ever move back to one of those backward areas that seem to make up the majority of America.
I foresee medical marijuana throughout New England and decriminalization within the next decade. This will be brought about by us baby boomers before you seize power from us.
One final note: Attitudes toward gays and lesbians have changed among all age cohorts. Even those Gen X'ers whom you admire are more comfortable than they were ten years ago.
I am in no way trying to put that entire generation into 1 label. As the orginal post said; there has been a dialog going on for decades. So yes there are those on both sides; but it has again, been going on for decades now. It is time to put these issues to rest as i believe it it fairly clear that gay equality if coming, as well as medical cannabis followed by outright legalization. You will still have backwards states trying to defund abortion like Mississipii but at a federal level, you will see these bills less and less.

To put this in a measure, repubs drafted more state/federal bills last year for abortion than any other, including budgets. They followed that with a huge hit to their electorate, losing seats in both the house and senete. Lets see how many less they try to pass this year.

So while i understand your point, this issue at heart is a issue from a past generation and its time to move on to more pressing matters.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2623 Feb 19, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing new in the last hundred pages. Just inadequate answers to valid counterpoints.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Lather, Rinse, Repeat, Repeat, Repeat, Repeat
Who the heck wrote that? Maybe Troy Palamalu?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2624 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly you don't. Its the "ole change it for us, nobody else, and consequences be damned".
Then why don't you take your list of "consequences" down to the courthouse and file a complaint?
I'm sure NOM would pay you for anything you could actually prove in court.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
president obama black genius elected 2 times 2 min Revolutionary bla... 1
Is Topix Infested With White Insects 2 min Tiffany 4
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 4 min yisarel 130,411
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min John Galt 1,345,802
Dumb white people talk about inventions! 16 min Allans Snackbar 12
black crime is getting out of control 27 min LaTisha 9
I have white wife! 39 min Gremlin 67
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 1 hr TranshumanX 39,833
More from around the web