Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments
3,921 - 3,940 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4106
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Well, with screeds like the above, I don't think the Republicans need to worry about being overrun with black voters any time soon.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4107
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

If you like integration and diversity, keep marriage male female and reject gender apartheid marriage. We don't want our marriage laws tarnished by segregation.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4108
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

It still sucks to be Brian.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4109
May 10, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they do, if they are straight.
Thanks Wastey.
Tikk

Bismarck, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4111
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Liberals have already convinced most black Christians to abandon their principles in regards to gay marriage, abortion, drug-use (marijuana), and religious freedom all for the sake of “racial-PRIDE”.

I wonder if Obama and the Demoncrats are worth the price they’ll have to pay one day.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4112
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tikk wrote:
Liberals have already convinced most black Christians to abandon their principles in regards to gay marriage, abortion, drug-use (marijuana), and religious freedom all for the sake of “racial-PRIDE”.
I wonder if Obama and the Demoncrats are worth the price they’ll have to pay one day.
Why couldn't conservatives counter-convince them to KEEP these "principles"?

“Two Horse Guy in a”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

One Horse Town

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4113
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Why couldn't conservatives counter-convince them to KEEP these "principles"?
because conservatives are hypocrites and everyone with any intelligence knows that

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4114
May 10, 2013
 
iamcuriousnow wrote:
<quoted text>
because conservatives are hypocrites and everyone with any intelligence knows that
Are you implying, then, that blacks are less likely to be fooled than whites? Let's hope you're right!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4115
May 11, 2013
 
nhjeff wrote:
It still sucks to be Brian.
^^^Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies, I prefer reason.

Keeping marriage male/female maintains marriage's diversity and integration standards.

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4116
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies, I prefer reason.
Keeping marriage male/female maintains marriage's diversity and integration standards.
Allowing same-sex couples to obtain civil marriages will not prevent male/female couples from doing so.

Your dropping code-words like "diversity" and "integration" doesn't magically make you an admirable and tolerant liberal. Everyone can see through your fraud.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4117
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing same-sex couples to obtain civil marriages will not prevent male/female couples from doing so.
Your dropping code-words like "diversity" and "integration" doesn't magically make you an admirable and tolerant liberal. Everyone can see through your fraud.
Let's continue that line of reasoning. "Allowing plural marriage practioners to obtain civil marriages will not prevent male/female couples, female/female couples, or male/male couples, from doing so". Why stop at couples?

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4118
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's continue that line of reasoning. "Allowing plural marriage practioners to obtain civil marriages will not prevent male/female couples, female/female couples, or male/male couples, from doing so". Why stop at couples?
So then you approve of civil marriage for same-sex couples?

Or is your approval contingent upon approval for polygamous marriages?

Or isn't it true that polygamy is simply your red herring, since you have long ago demonstrated that your arguments against civil marriage for same-sex couples is hopelessly illogical and irrational?

What's true is that you are an anti-gay opponent of civil marriage for same-sex couples.

You will do ANYTHING to try to argue against it, even using completely illogical arguments (red herrings, strawmen, and circular arguments).

And still you lose.

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4122
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

LawandOrder_ wrote:
<quoted text>What makes you think that you are in effect? SO, you are admitting that you are for adult incest marriages and incest marriages, since they have a more relevant position than yours.
Do you think that gays should be allowed to marry their same sex dog pet? The issue of consent is out, unless you get consent to neuter your dog.
Actually, we do not have to argue against anything, you are the one who wishes a causation for change.
SINCE MOST GAYS WILL LIE, THE BELOW IS AN AUDIO FROM AN APA PRESIDENT.
The APA SAYS YOU HAVE NO CAUSE:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-presi...
Former president of APA says organization controlled by ‘gay rights’ movement
You've thrown logic and reason right out the window. You and Pietro should be very happy together.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4123
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
So then you approve of civil marriage for same-sex couples?
Or is your approval contingent upon approval for polygamous marriages?
I approve of the mongamous standard of husband and wife be maintained as the exclusive legal definition of marriage. I beleive a civil union relationship structure should be allowed for SSCs. Why is there a need to call an apple and orange?
Or isn't it true that polygamy is simply your red herring, since you have long ago demonstrated that your arguments against civil marriage for same-sex couples is hopelessly illogical and irrational?
This the part that I find baffling. SSMers want to break the legal marital standard of one man and one woman as husband and wife, for themselves, but for no one else. I would think you would welcome alternative intimate consenting adult relationships into the fold. Once that standard is discarded, as it has been in several states, why does it matter, that it's changed again? Why does polygamy scare you that much?
What's true is that you are an anti-gay opponent of civil marriage for same-sex couples.
No, I'm a pro conjugal marriage advocate. If a gay opposite sex couple, or a mixed orientation opposite sex couple wish to marry, I fully support that.
You will do ANYTHING to try to argue against it, even using completely illogical arguments (red herrings, strawmen, and circular arguments).
And still you lose.
Jerald

We discussed this issue from various perspectives and angles, I disagree, obviously, but I respect your desire to argue for what you beleive in. All jokes, "homophobe" and "anti-gay" allegations, smart aleck, etc., responses aside. Please answer this question. If marriage, as defined in law, is no longer an exclusive mongamous union of husband and wife, why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4124
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I approve of the mongamous standard of husband and wife be maintained as the exclusive legal definition of marriage. I beleive a civil union relationship structure should be allowed for SSCs. Why is there a need to call an apple and orange?
What rational basis exists to create a "separate but equal" legal construct for establishing kinship between unrelated adults when a perfectly suitable one already exists: civil marriage?

The answer: none.
Pietro Armando wrote:
This the part that I find baffling....
What... that no one buys your red herring?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why does polygamy scare you that much?
It doesn't. Admit it, you're the one who's scared by it. It scares you.

Changing the number of people that one can marry isn't my issue. I'm not arguing for it or against it. I don't care. If pro-polygamy people want to argue for it and make their case, let them.

Apparently, you believe that the two arguments -- marriage limitations based on sex and limitations based on number -- are the same.

But you're wrong. Logically, one is not contingent or dependent on the other. Number and sex are not the same.

That's your problem, not mine.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If marriage, as defined in law, is no longer an exclusive mongamous union of husband and wife, why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?
You clearly believe that some limitations on civil marriage are reasonable. So do I. I just haven't heard one good rational, logical argument in favor of the limitation based solely on the sex of the partners.

Your arguments are illogical, in that they are endlessly circular. Your conclusions are inevitably contained in your premises.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4125
May 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jerald wrote:
Allowing same-sex couples to obtain civil marriages will not prevent male/female couples from doing so. Your dropping code-words like "diversity" and "integration" doesn't magically make you an admirable and tolerant liberal. Everyone can see through your fraud.
I never claimed licensing gender segregation marriage will "prevent male/female couples from doing so." Those are Jerald's words, not mine. I claimed same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender segregation with marriage gender apartheid.

If you don't like the words "segregation" don't advocate same sex marriage; problem solved.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4126
May 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

[QUOTEmk ar who="Jerald"]<quo ted text>
What rational basis exists to create a "separate but equal" legal construct for establishing kinship between unrelated adults when a perfectly suitable one already exists: civil marriage?
The answer: none.
[/QUOTE]

First, marriage exists to join a man and a woman together as husband and wife, hence the pronouncement by the marriage officiating agent, "I now pronounce you husband and wife".

Second, SSM is a graft on to the preexisting structure marital union husband and wife, but without use of those terms, and the corresponding language referencing their sexual relationship. Language such as "consummation", which in some states, failure to do so, is grounds for a annulment, "marital relations", etc. Even the concept of "presumption of paternity", is contains an implied sexual reference. So yes, SSM is seperate and "unequal" as in not the same.

Lastly, first cousins can marry in several states so your "unrelated adults" claim is false.
What... that no one buys your red herring?
However it is delicious over pasta. Nice dodge.
It doesn't. Admit it, you're the one who's scared by it. It scares you.
You're the one who dodged the question.
Changing the number of people that one can marry isn't my issue. I'm not arguing for it or against it. I don't care. If pro-polygamy people want to argue for it and make their case, let them.
Why not answer the question?
Apparently, you believe that the two arguments -- marriage limitations based on sex and limitations based on number -- are the same.
Apparently you are dodging the question and this a same sex pair is the same as an opposite sex relationship, monogamous or polygamous.
But you're wrong. Logically, one is not contingent or dependent on the other. Number and sex are not the same.
That's your problem, not mine.
Exactly, two of a kind does not trump king AND queen.
You clearly believe that some limitations on civil marriage are reasonable. So do I. I just haven't heard one good rational, logical argument in favor of the limitation based solely on the sex of the partners
Marriage is a union of both sexes, remove one, and you no longer have marriage, something else has been created.
Your arguments are illogical, in that they are endlessly circular. Your conclusions are inevitably contained in your premises.
Dodger

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4127
May 12, 2013
 
LawandOrder_ wrote:
<quoted text>What makes you think that you are in effect? SO, you are admitting that you are for adult incest marriages and incest marriages, since they have a more relevant position than yours.
Do you think that gays should be allowed to marry their same sex dog pet? The issue of consent is out, unless you get consent to neuter your dog.
Actually, we do not have to argue against anything, you are the one who wishes a causation for change.
SINCE MOST GAYS WILL LIE, THE BELOW IS AN AUDIO FROM AN APA PRESIDENT.
The APA SAYS YOU HAVE NO CAUSE:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-presi...
Former president of APA says organization controlled by ‘gay rights’ movement
You are too funny! Do you also wet your pants when you read articles from the Onion, Free Wood Post, and the Daily Currant?

The respected group to which nearly every practicing psychologist in America belongs is the American Psychiatric Association. The American Psychological Association to which your quote is attributed is a group of homophobic psychiatrists trying to impart legitimacy on their reparative theory practices. They deliberately try to conflate themselves with the APA.

So the article quotes the former head of the APA (American Psychological Association) denouncing the APA (American Psychiatric Association) as if here were condemning the organization that he, himself, once headed.

The APA in question is just a few dozen charlatans trying to give themselves legitimacy when their views have been thoroughly rejected by vast majority of legitimate practitioners.

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4128
May 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage is a union of both sexes, remove one, and you no longer have marriage, something else has been created.
This is precisely why your argument is illogical. Your premise is contained in your conclusion.

Essentially, your claim is that the reason that civil marriage should be restricted on the basis of the sex of the partners is because it is restricted on the basis of the sex of the partners.

Begging the question. Circular argument. Fail Logic 1.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Polygamy...
I don't care about polygamy. It's not my argument. The topic is civil marriage for same-sex couples. Why can't you stay on topic?(I know that answer to that -- you've lost this topic long ago.)

Since you can't provide a rational basis for limiting civil marriage on the basis of sex, you choose to argue about limitations based on number.

Red herring. Fail Logic 2.

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4129
May 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I never claimed licensing gender segregation marriage will "prevent male/female couples from doing so." Those are Jerald's words, not mine. I claimed same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender segregation with marriage gender apartheid.
If you don't like the words "segregation" don't advocate same sex marriage; problem solved.
Word games don't suit you, Brian. When all your arguments have failed, I suppose it's kind of cute to play word games. But now "apartheid"? That's too funny.

Recognizing the right of same-sex couples to obtain civil marriages doesn't make same-sex coupling the "standard" in civil marriage. It removes the limitation based on sex. That's all. Opposite-sex couples can still marry, so they don't have to abide by your fake "standard."

In recognizing civil marriage for same-sex couples, no one is segregated. Individuals now have MORE options, not fewer. No one is denied freedoms or liberty. Those who wish to marry a partner of the same sex may do so. Those who wish to marry a partner of the opposite sex may do so.

Limiting civil marriage on the basis of sex limits freedom and liberty.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••