Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4130 May 13, 2013
Jerald wrote:
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.
If I was promoting gender segregation marriage and I was called on it, I might dismiss the argument as a 'word game' too. I don't promote segregation, I'm defending the gender diversity and integration of marriage so I don't have to defend the bigotry like segregationists.

This issue isn't about freedom; gays can cohabit or have a religious marriage ceremony in every state. Brother/sister incest couples and polygamists face criminal prosecution but same sex couples don't. The issue is changing marriage law for everybody; I'm opposed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4133 May 13, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
This is precisely why your argument is illogical. Your premise is contained in your conclusion.
Is it your contention that by removing one of two core components, the husband or the wife, and replacing it with a gender duplicate, it is still the same?
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.
Why contention is that the marital relationship is , comprised of, pertains to, and is legally defined, at least in 32 states, as a union of husband and wife. SSM is still a novelty, and it raises a number of questions. What does the state pronounce an SSC? "Spouses for life", "husband and husband", "wife and wife", etc. What constitutes "consummation" for a SSC?, etc.
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.)
Why does it matter if the standard, monogamous union of husband and wife, is no longer the sole marital definition?
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.
What is the rational reason to designate a personal intimate relationship as "marriage"?

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#4134 May 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it your contention that by removing one of two core components, the husband or the wife, and replacing it with a gender duplicate, it is still the same?
<quoted text>
Why contention is that the marital relationship is , comprised of, pertains to, and is legally defined, at least in 32 states, as a union of husband and wife. SSM is still a novelty, and it raises a number of questions. What does the state pronounce an SSC? "Spouses for life", "husband and husband", "wife and wife", etc. What constitutes "consummation" for a SSC?, etc.
<quoted text>
Why does it matter if the standard, monogamous union of husband and wife, is no longer the sole marital definition?
<quoted text>
What is the rational reason to designate a personal intimate relationship as "marriage"?
You keep repeating the same tired circular argument by defining the term civil marriage by the attribute you are unable to prove is necessary or sufficient for its legal establishment -- the sex of the partners.

Allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage doesn't magically change an opposite-sex couples's marriage into something else. It's still a civil marriage. You make the same logical error that Brian does. A new limitation or "standard" isn't created. All couples don't have to be same-sex in a civil marriage. An unnecessary barrier is eliminated.

Civil marriage doesn't require opposite-sex couples to make it civil marriage. You can keep repeating the same claim until you're blue in the face, but more and more nations and states are proving you wrong, and just as many times as you repeat your error.

The rational basis for government's recognition of a civil marriage is that such recognition benefits the individuals that enter into it, any children they may have, and the larger community and society.

Level 3

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#4135 May 13, 2013
People need to read the constitution America is not a christian nation, its a nation of freedom and choice.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4136 May 13, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep repeating the same tired circular argument by defining the term civil marriage by the attribute you are unable to prove is necessary or sufficient for its legal establishment -- the sex of the partners.
How so? The establishment of marriage as a union of husband and wife is the definition of marriage, in all fifty states prior to 2004, and currently in 32 states. One must be a male to marry a female, and vice versa. Their union is what establishes civil marriage. A man and woman is pronounced by the state to be husband and wife. Both sexes are necessary.
Allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage doesn't magically change an opposite-sex couples's marriage into something else. It's still a civil marriage.
As individuals, the parties to a same sex relationship have the same right to marry as any other person of their respective sex. Designating a same sex intimate sexual relationship as marriage changes the standard. What is the rational reason for designating the aforementioned relationship as "marriage", by the state?
You make the same logical error that Brian does. A new limitation or "standard" isn't created. All couples don't have to be same-sex in a civil marriage.
A new standard is created. "Husband and wife" are eliminated in favor of "spouses for life" regardless of gender composition.
An unnecessary barrier is eliminated.
No such barrier exists. Thus no need to eliminate it.
Civil marriage doesn't require opposite-sex couples to make it civil marriage. You can keep repeating the same claim until you're blue in the face, but more and more nations and states are proving you wrong, and just as many times as you repeat your error.
Thirty states prove me correct. Civil marriage is created by the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Civil marriage recognizes the sexual union of said husband and wife. The union can be consummated, the couple can engage in "marital relations", and if said consummation/marital relations results in conception, the husband is presumed to be the father, maintaining the marital legal presumption of paternity.
The rational basis for government's recognition of a civil marriage is that such recognition benefits the individuals that enter into it, any children they may have, and the larger community and society.
You have yet to answer the question of why it is necessary for the state to designate a same sex intimate personal sexual relationship as "marriage"?

Simply saying it "benefits" the individuals is not sufficient, and could used to establish legal plural marriage.

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#4137 May 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How so? The establishment of marriage as a union of husband and wife is the definition of marriage, in all fifty states prior to 2004, and currently in 32 states. One must be a male to marry a female, and vice versa. Their union is what establishes civil marriage. A man and woman is pronounced by the state to be husband and wife. Both sexes are necessary.
<quoted text>
As individuals, the parties to a same sex relationship have the same right to marry as any other person of their respective sex. Designating a same sex intimate sexual relationship as marriage changes the standard. What is the rational reason for designating the aforementioned relationship as "marriage", by the state?
<quoted text>
A new standard is created. "Husband and wife" are eliminated in favor of "spouses for life" regardless of gender composition.
<quoted text>
No such barrier exists. Thus no need to eliminate it.
<quoted text>
Thirty states prove me correct. Civil marriage is created by the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Civil marriage recognizes the sexual union of said husband and wife. The union can be consummated, the couple can engage in "marital relations", and if said consummation/marital relations results in conception, the husband is presumed to be the father, maintaining the marital legal presumption of paternity.
<quoted text>
You have yet to answer the question of why it is necessary for the state to designate a same sex intimate personal sexual relationship as "marriage"?
Simply saying it "benefits" the individuals is not sufficient, and could used to establish legal plural marriage.
Pietro, drop it already.

You have my answers, with which you don't agree. Fine. I don't agree with your arguments and claims. We dropped it quite some time ago, but had to jump back in with your polygamy arguments again here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TP39MT577...

Arguing with you is a complete waste of time since you keep repeating your self ad infinitum.

Despite your denial of the obvious, civil marriage for same-sex couples exists both in law and in fact. Come August, it will be in 13 jurisdictions in the US and several nations across the globe.

You can continue to maintain that it isn't so, but you aren't the arbiter of civil law anywhere.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#4138 May 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How so? The establishment of marriage as a union of husband and wife is the definition of marriage, in all fifty states prior to 2004, and currently in 32 states. One must be a male to marry a female, and vice versa. Their union is what establishes civil marriage. A man and woman is pronounced by the state to be husband and wife. Both sexes are necessary.
<quoted text>
As individuals, the parties to a same sex relationship have the same right to marry as any other person of their respective sex. Designating a same sex intimate sexual relationship as marriage changes the standard. What is the rational reason for designating the aforementioned relationship as "marriage", by the state?
<quoted text>
A new standard is created. "Husband and wife" are eliminated in favor of "spouses for life" regardless of gender composition.
<quoted text>
No such barrier exists. Thus no need to eliminate it.
<quoted text>
Thirty states prove me correct. Civil marriage is created by the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Civil marriage recognizes the sexual union of said husband and wife. The union can be consummated, the couple can engage in "marital relations", and if said consummation/marital relations results in conception, the husband is presumed to be the father, maintaining the marital legal presumption of paternity.
<quoted text>
You have yet to answer the question of why it is necessary for the state to designate a same sex intimate personal sexual relationship as "marriage"?
Simply saying it "benefits" the individuals is not sufficient, and could used to establish legal plural marriage.
No one has to explain anything to you. The right of Gay Americans and Gay People Worldwide to marry is being realized in spite of your elitist attitude. The real question is why do you think you’re more special or deserving of special rights than Gay Americans? I’ll give you hint since you’re so stupid……you’re not.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4139 May 14, 2013
Same sex marriage supporters are using the IRS to leak donor names:

In April 2012, the Huffington Post and the Human Rights Campaign posted documents showing GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney donated $10,000 to NOM in 2008. The anti-gay marriage group immediately cried foul and called for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration — the same investigators who are set to release a report on the IRS targeting later this week — to investigate, accusing IRS employees of leaking the documents.

TIGTA has questioned both Brown and the group’s board chairman, but Brown said there was nothing in their questions to indicate TIGTA thought the release of their IRS information was related to a broader plot to target conservatives. Still, Brown believes the IRS’ centralization of handling of nonprofit groups in a Cincinnati, Ohio, office may have given the same employees now blamed for the targeting an opportunity to leak the documents.

Brown said the group wants a congressional hearing to look into the document release, since the group’s attempts to use the Freedom of Information Act to stay updated on the case have been unsuccessful.

“Without a congressional hearing and Congress’ subpoena power, where are we?” Brown asked.“All we’re getting is what [the IRS] wants to say.”

The IRS apologized Friday for singling out tea party groups’ application for nonprofit status for further scrutiny. A draft copy of the TIGTA report, obtained Monday by POLITICO, shows the IRS also targeted a broader array of political groups. The revelations have driven bipartisan outrage, with Republicans relentlessly hammering the agency and President Barack Obama calling the targeting “outrageous.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/nom-wan...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4140 May 14, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has to explain anything to you.
So much for a forum, an exchange of thoughts and ideas, spirited debate and discussion.....

[QUOTE[
The right of Gay Americans and Gay People Worldwide to marry is being realized in spite of your elitist attitude
[/QUOTE]

Uhhhhhh.....huh.....I don't think it's as "wide" as you make it out to be. The number of countries that maintain marriage as a exclusive male female union far outweigh countries that don't.
. The real question is why do you think you’re more special or deserving of special rights than Gay Americans? I’ll give you hint since you’re so stupid……you’re not.
I'll give you a hint, you have the same right to marry as I do, no more no less. You simply don't wish to exercise it, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, as any other American, at least like those in 32 states do. Sooooooo......you're just as special as I am.

Perhaps you'd like to answer the questions posed.

What is the rational reason for designating a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship as marriage?

If the legal standard for marriage, the exclusive monogamous union of husband and wife is no longer maintained, why does it matter that other consenting adult relationships, other than same sex, are designated marriage? Or to put it another way, why does it matter than the number prohibition, beyond two, and the prohibition against siblings, at least same sex, be maintained?

“sly as a fox”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#4141 May 14, 2013
Ash7231 wrote:
People need to read the constitution America is not a christian nation, its a nation of freedom and choice.
Marriage has,from the beginning,been a union between man and woman-male and female. That is why God created male and female no law can change that. A civil union is no more than an excuse for homosexuality,which is a perversion. No offspring can come for a perversion so civil unions(perversions)can never be legal in the eyes of God or man.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4142 May 14, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, drop it already.
You have my answers, with which you don't agree. Fine. I don't agree with your arguments and claims. We dropped it quite some time ago, but had to jump back in with your polygamy arguments again here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TP39MT577...
Jerald, obviously we disagree, but that shouldn't stop a discussion. I asked a few questioned hoping to get a intelligent response, not avoidance and/or rejection.

Once the opposite sex requirement is removed, legal marriage is no longer an exclusive monogamous union of husband and wife, why does it matter, to the state who marries who's long as they're consenting adults? It seems as though SSM advocates, some not all, are of the opinion, that as long as SSM is legal, who cares what happens after that.
Arguing with you is a complete waste of time since you keep repeating your self ad infinitum.
Why not try simply discussing the issue instead of arguing?
]
Despite your denial of the obvious, civil marriage for same-sex couples exists both in law and in fact. Come August, it will be in 13 jurisdictions in the US and several nations across the globe.
I never denied that, and its intellectually dishonest for you to state, or imply that I did?
You can continue to maintain that it isn't so, but you aren't the arbiter of civil law anywhere.
See above.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#4143 May 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it your contention that by removing one of two core components, the husband or the wife, and replacing it with a gender duplicate, it is still the same?
<quoted text>
Why contention is that the marital relationship is , comprised of, pertains to, and is legally defined, at least in 32 states, as a union of husband and wife. SSM is still a novelty, and it raises a number of questions. What does the state pronounce an SSC? "Spouses for life", "husband and husband", "wife and wife", etc. What constitutes "consummation" for a SSC?, etc.
<quoted text>
Why does it matter if the standard, monogamous union of husband and wife, is no longer the sole marital definition?
<quoted text>
What is the rational reason to designate a personal intimate relationship as "marriage"?
Marriage establishes legal kinship between two consenting adults

“Marriage Equality”

Level 1

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#4144 May 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>....What is the rational reason for designating a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship as marriage?....
Name the reason for designating an opposite sex personal intimate sexual relationship as marriage and you'll have your answer.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4145 May 14, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage establishes legal kinship between two consenting adults
Marriage, at least in 32 states, and most of the world, establishes a man and woman as legally recognized husband and wife. The "kinship" you speak of is established between husband and wife. Any children born into the marital union are presumed to be the husband's. Thus extending the kinship to the couples' children.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4146 May 14, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Name the reason for designating an opposite sex personal intimate sexual relationship as marriage and you'll have your answer.
Ohhhhhh.......geeeee....oh by gosh by golly Johnneeee....ya stumped me on that one. Perhaps it's based on thousands of years of societal evolution throughout time and place, that defined marriage as a union of male and female. It might of have someone to do with that pesky sex between men and women makes babies.....even ones who grow up to post on Internet forums under r name of eJohn

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4147 May 14, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Name the reason for designating an opposite sex personal intimate sexual relationship as marriage and you'll have your answer.
Besides what pre existing relationship structure is SSM based on? Hmmmmmmm.......yes you there in the back row....eJohn is it......do you know the answer?

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#4148 May 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage, at least in 32 states, and most of the world, establishes a man and woman as legally recognized husband and wife.
Because no one has ever bothered to regard gay relationships as valid. Until now.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The "kinship" you speak of is established between husband and wife.
It's established between the two people who marry. If the two people marrying are a same-gender couple, then kinship is established for them.

It really isn't difficult.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Any children born into the marital union are presumed to be the husband's.
Tell that to my cousin. Wife after wife, child after child, marriage after marriage. No one can make any assumptions about HIS family, you have to ASK to get the clear story.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thus extending the kinship to the couples' children.
Complete nonsense, and a misunderstanding of the concept of kinship extended by marriage.

Kinship between a parent and child AlWAYS exists, with or without marriage. A lack of marriage between the parents does NOT invalidate the kinship between parent and child, ever. Ever.

The kinship established in marriage is between the marrying couple, ONLY. Their marriage does not strengthen their kinship to their children, and a lack of marriage (or an end to the marriage) does not weaken the kinship to their children. No children are asked to join in the vows at a wedding, nor to sign the marriage license. The kinship of children is not affected one way or the other by marriage. Only the kinship of the couple is established.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4149 May 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Jerald, obviously we disagree, but that shouldn't stop a discussion. I asked a few questioned hoping to get a intelligent response, not avoidance and/or rejection.
Oh come on! We've responded to your nonsense ad nauseum. Repeating the same misinformation and asking the same questions over again is not "discussion." It's more like a single track on indefinite repeat: Annoying!
Once the opposite sex requirement is removed, legal marriage is no longer an exclusive monogamous union of husband and wife, why does it matter, to the state who marries who's long as they're consenting adults? It seems as though SSM advocates, some not all, are of the opinion, that as long as SSM is legal, who cares what happens after that.
The problem with you repeating that question for the thousandth time is that we've already answered a thousand times:(1) There is nothing wrong with groups of people who find a way to love each other in harmony.[But I suspect few of us are capable of making such arrangements work.](2) You have never explained how you will change the law to accommodate the needs of such groups. Therefore, it is completely disingenuous to ask us if we support such changes. It's kind of like asking townspeople if they want to cut spending without telling them which spending will be cut. Only an idiot says yes without knowing what you have in mind.(3) It's not our issue. Let the people who want support for their polygamous relationships tell us what they want. Then we'll decide if we support the changes.
Why not try simply discussing the issue instead of arguing?
Funny coming from the guy who's been beating the same drum for five months without saying anything new or listening to the answers people give. How 'bout you just stop beating that poor dead horse?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4150 May 14, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh come on! We've responded to your nonsense ad nauseum. Repeating the same misinformation and asking the same questions over again is not "discussion." It's more like a single track on indefinite repeat: Annoying!
<quoted text>
The problem with you repeating that question for the thousandth time is that we've already answered a thousand times:(1) There is nothing wrong with groups of people who find a way to love each other in harmony.[But I suspect few of us are capable of making such arrangements work.](2) You have never explained how you will change the law to accommodate the needs of such groups. Therefore, it is completely disingenuous to ask us if we support such changes. It's kind of like asking townspeople if they want to cut spending without telling them which spending will be cut. Only an idiot says yes without knowing what you have in mind.(3) It's not our issue. Let the people who want support for their polygamous relationships tell us what they want. Then we'll decide if we support the changes.
<quoted text>
Funny coming from the guy who's been beating the same drum for five months without saying anything new or listening to the answers people give. How 'bout you just stop beating that poor dead horse?
Waitaminit here! I don't need to change the law, nor you, to discuss the issue of polygamy. If marriage, as an exclusive monogamous union of husband and wife, is no longer the legal standard, why does it matter if polygamy is legalized in addition to, SSM? You can't argue that SSM won't stop OSCs from marrying, or effect their marriage in anyway, without that same reasoning be applied to consenting plural marriages. That's my point. Isn't that ultimately the goal of the movement? To break the monopoly that OSCs have on marriage? That is in essence what is happening. So why rant about red herrings, fear mongering, anti gay, etc? Unless you're arguing that SSM is the "line in the sand".

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4151 May 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Waitaminit here! I don't need to change the law, nor you, to discuss the issue of polygamy. If marriage, as an exclusive monogamous union of husband and wife, is no longer the legal standard, why does it matter if polygamy is legalized in addition to, SSM? You can't argue that SSM won't stop OSCs from marrying, or effect their marriage in anyway, without that same reasoning be applied to consenting plural marriages. That's my point. Isn't that ultimately the goal of the movement? To break the monopoly that OSCs have on marriage? That is in essence what is happening. So why rant about red herrings, fear mongering, anti gay, etc? Unless you're arguing that SSM is the "line in the sand".
The difference is that we've told you exactly how we want the marriage laws to change: Simply stop excluding us. That doesn't work with multiple partners. Marriage laws in the West have evolved to support reciprocal commitment and benefits to just two people. Other societies practice polygamy, and none of those societies treat women by the standards we expect in the West--inside or outside of marriage.

Will changing marriage laws to accommodate multiple partners affect the laws for those who prefer single partners? How can we know if we don't know what the changes are.

There is no reasonable comparison between the changes required to support same sex couples (none) and the unknown changes required to support multiple partners.

Insisting that they are the same only makes you foolish.

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
The Black Race - Gods Chosen People! (Mar '13) 6 min africa 259
News Black therapist with hands up shot by cops whil... 12 min U Make Me Laugh 147
Check your friends request on Facebook. 15 min LMLWAO 2
NEANDERTHALS made WHITES more INTELLIGENT (Apr '13) 34 min Curious Me 1,641
Black men are the most sell out race of men. As... (May '12) 37 min blacks unlimited ... 602
Africans did not teach Greeks anything! (Aug '10) 41 min Redefined 473
What music are you listening to right now? (Sep '08) 1 hr zulu 35,052
Dallas Shooter wrote "RB" in blood 1 hr bluestreak returns 291
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 2 hr Moses 47,283
More from around the web