Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5195 Jul 3, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, no you idiot, polygamy is marriageS, not a form of marriage. The wives are not married to each other you moron. Each pairing of husband and wives is an INDEPENDENT marriage. MULTIPLE marriages is not marriage. 1 does not equal greater than one.
Forget it. You're a moron. Carry on with your blathering. It's the same on this string as all your other strings. Pure idiocy.
Even in polygamous marriages in the past, there was but one primary wife and successor. It was still about property rights and inheritance which became the province of the primary wife. There was no contract or mutual agreement. The arrangement was unilateral.

“Emblem of the Brave and True”

Level 1

Since: Sep 10

Los Angeles, CA

#5196 Jul 3, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I liked your post. The sentiments were spot on, and the overreaching religious tyranny is something we battle on a daily basis.
If you don't mind, I was hoping I could just point out one thing as you proceed forward to represent right and justice!
You stated "if homosexuality is immoral or lewd" in a manner that implied that homosexuality is an act. It isn't. Homosexuality is an innate characteristic. Homosexual is something I am, not something I do.
This distinction is important. It's one created by the religiously intolerant as a way of trying to portray us as "different". The "behavior" that they love to try and tell us is deviant is "sex". It's the SAME behavior they engage in. But by deceitfully calling our sex "homosexual behavior", they get to pretend that we engage in some behavior that they don't. Which is a lie. The gender of the participants doesn't change what the behavior is called.
I'm a homosexual 24/7, not just when I have sex. Driving a car, brushing my teeth, getting the mail, putting on my socks, changing the channel....would all have to be considered "homosexual behaviors"!! In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of homosexuals that have never had sex yet. They are still homosexuals, even though they haven't engaged in this mythical "homosexual behavior".
You were spot on regarding "morality". Homosexuality has as much to do with morality as gravity does!!
We appreciate the support! Thanks for the post!!
I was speaking to the act as the distinction that homosexuals are treated less by. Without the act we would not be. I understand the 24/7 orientation but its not necessary nor productive to be a constant subdivision of humanity. I can not turn off my gay any more than someone could change their skin color. Agreed but I am not defined by my sexuality nor will I allow others the opportunity to define me by it 24/7. I wouldn't bind anyone who has never had sex as homo or hetero either. You seem to make the case that orientation is absolute and constant throughout ones day that it is foremost in defining ones self. It is not those who oppose the lifestyle using our sex against us anymore. Now it is ourselves defining who we are by our attraction to others who will only recognize the sexual act in understanding how to define us. Sexuality must be reserved and private otherwise it will be construed as lewd and inappropriate. When we come out of the closet we still don't leave the bedroom. Defining a section of society by sexual orientation also creates a seperation by which oppression can form. I understand we must be proud of who we are as long as we are being shamed for it. But since alot of us have marriage now can't we just be people and end all the sexual labeling. Im not homosexual when i get dressed for work. I'm tired. I'm not homosexual at work i'm a private employee. My orientation is know to those i wish to share it with abd everyone else can mind their own.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5197 Jul 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ditto
Ditto?? This is seriously your reply to my charge that you only provide vague and non-committal replies to direct and specific questions?

You've claimed that civil unions are necessary for gay couples because marriages won't work. I've asked for a list of the specific ways that marriage won't work for gay couples. I've gotten nothing.

I've asked for a list of which specific marriage rights won't function for same-sex couples, or which civil union rights won't function for opposite-sex couples. I've asked what troubles you think will arise in states where same-sex marriages are recognized. Nothing.

I've asked whether you think Lawrence v. Texas should be repealed. I've asked if you thought that repealing DADT was a mistake. I've even asked whether you actually support polygamy, or if you're just arguing hypothetically. I have no idea where you stand on any of those issues.

You've claimed that same-sex marriage will "weaken" opposite-sex marriages, or that it will have negative consequences on society. I still have no suggestions from you on what those consequences might be (not "will" be, but only "might" be).

This is how ALL arguments against marriage equality go. No specifics. No ennumerations. Wild, deadly, society-threatening CLAIMS about all the horrible things down the road, but with zero concrete examples of what those things could be. All this vague, eely dissembling adds up to one thing: fearmongering.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes it is.
Then you understand why the government will always be involved in enforcing it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Where is this number from? Are they all "federal and state benefits (and responsibilities)"? This number is put forth like its gospel, but with no clear explanation.
Try this, if you have a PDF reader:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

From the US General Accounting Office, to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, January 23rd, 2004:

"Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a
total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which
marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges."

I'd like to hear your list of which of these 1,138 rights are not present in civil unions, or which of them are present but function differently.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or not even a couple, any two people.
Couple = two.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not impossible.
At no point have I said it's impossible. Over and over again, I've said that it IS possible, it's VERY possible, it would just take a concerted effort by many well-trained individuals, working with the advocates THEMSELVES.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It could be a matter of distribution, or assigning certain ones that are applicable to certain wives,.....or husbands. Maybe even a seniority system. The possibilities are endless.
Yes, they ARE "endless", making this restructuring all the MORE drastic, unwieldy, an unrelated to the issues before the court last week.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's gotta be exciting, marriage equality for all. And to think, the poly people have their lesbian sisters, and gay brothers to thank for blazing the trail.:)
I hope one day they do.

But there's no reason to pretend that a person's desire for unlimited partner after partner after partner is at ALL comparable to a person's orientation, which actually limits their choices rather than expanding them.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5198 Jul 4, 2013
Most Americans understand male/female differences and don't want to live in a unisex society. If same sex marriage were law, government would be forced to treat husbands and wives as if they were disposable in marriage.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5199 Jul 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Most Americans understand male/female differences and don't want to live in a unisex society. If same sex marriage were law, government would be forced to treat husbands and wives as if they were disposable in marriage.
Most Americans don't care if people of the same sex get married either. What is you point?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5200 Jul 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Most Americans don't care if people of the same sex get married either. What is you point?
Most Americans seem it to care about marriage in general, if they did, would SSM be legal at all?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5201 Jul 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Even in polygamous marriages in the past, there was but one primary wife and successor. It was still about property rights and inheritance which became the province of the primary wife. There was no contract or mutual agreement. The arrangement was unilateral.
Thanks for the assist, Wastey. Did ya read that Joh-née?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5202 Jul 4, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
Then you understand why the government will always be involved in enforcing it.
Try this, if you have a PDF reader:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
From the US General Accounting Office, to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, January 23rd, 2004:
"Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a
total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which
marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges."
I'd like to hear your list of which of these 1,138 rights are not present in civil unions, or which of them are present but function differently.
" Marital status is a factor in....." So, not everything is a "right"?
Couple = two.
To use your reasoning there's no reason why a "two person" marriage model regardless of gender composition, could not be applied to ANY two consenting adults. If its simply a benefits package, there's no need to exclude siblings, at least not same sex ones.
At no point have I said it's impossible. Over and over again, I've said that it IS possible, it's VERY possible, it would just take a concerted effort by many well-trained individuals, working with the advocates THEMSELVES.
Your peeps have blazed the trail, and the poly people thank you.
Yes, they ARE "endless", making this restructuring all the MORE drastic, unwieldy, an unrelated to the issues before the court last week.
Polygamy is just as relevant, to the question, as is SSM. The question which is at the heart of the issue. How do we as a society, define marriage, at least legally? Ultimately, that is what is issue is.
I hope one day they do.
But there's no reason to pretend that a person's desire for unlimited partner after partner after partner is at ALL comparable to a person's orientation, which actually limits their choices rather than expanding them.
First, unlimited is not possible, there's only so many hours in a day. Second the current marriage law, limits them, as it limits you. SSM seeks to change the nature, conjugal as in husband and wife,,while polygamy, seeks to change the number, two. Third, your "orientation" does not physically prevent you from marrying, entering into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. No state in the union requires a "statement of sexual orientation" prior to issuing a marriage license. Should that be required? If so should the state prevent people from marrying outside their declared orientation? If one's marriage choice, as recognized by law, is based on one's orientation, where do bisexuals fit it? Is that not a call for polygamy?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5203 Jul 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Most Americans don't care if people of the same sex get married either. What is you point?
That's true, but they care about rewriting marriage law for everyone. That's why most states have laws defining marriage as one man and one woman.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#5204 Jul 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's true, but they care about rewriting marriage law for everyone. That's why most states have laws defining marriage as one man and one woman.
How is it "rewriting marriage law for everyone" ?! That's NONSENSICAL !

Hod does the marriage a gay or lesbian couple in new York, under New York State law, affect your life ON IOTA ?!

Prior to 1967, many states prohibited interracial marriage. When SCOTUS ruled those laws unconstitutional, did were they SUDDENLY "rewriting marriage law for everyone" ?! How wee couples, who were ALREADY MARRIED affected by the Loving v. Virginia (1967) decision ? THEY WEREN'T !

The only people affected by the recent SCOTUS rulings are LGBT people who want to marry the person they LOVE !

WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU ???!!!

(And as I am a devout Protestant, I am EXTREMELY OFFENDED by Catholic people being allowed to marry because it has a HUGE impact on my life ! The VERY FIRST thing I ask a person when I first meet them is: "Are you Catholic ?! Are you actually MARRIED ?! Because if you are, I am greatly offended by you and will not talk to you !" <s>)

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5205 Jul 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Most Americans understand male/female differences and don't want to live in a unisex society. If same sex marriage were law, government would be forced to treat husbands and wives as if they were disposable in marriage.
Most Americans aren't idiots who oversimplify everything.

Allowing equal protection for same sex couples to marry in no way impacts one's ability to enter into a traditional marriage. Just as allowing interracial marriage had no impact upon one's ability to marry someone of the same race.

Were you not a moron, you would understand that.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#5206 Jul 4, 2013

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5207 Jul 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
That's true, but they care about rewriting marriage law for everyone. That's why most states have laws defining marriage as one man and one woman.
Brian, can you indicate a compelling state interest served by such a restriction, which expressly denies same sex couples equal protection of the law, that would render such a restriction constitutional, or are you ready to admit that you are an irrational imbecile?

What will you do with your copious free time once marriage equality comes to pass, and it has no impact whatsoever upon your life?

Level 2

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

#5209 Jul 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Most Americans understand male/female differences and don't want to live in a unisex society. If same sex marriage were law, government would be forced to treat husbands and wives as if they were disposable in marriage.
I don't follow you? Disposable in marriage? "Unisex society"? Do you think legalizing same sex marriage somehow outlaws marriage between a man and a woman?

I live in CA. Same sex marriage resumed in the state last Friday. It will be 1 week tomorrow and CA is not a state with a "unisex society". I've woken up every single morning this week next to the same man I've been married to for 10 years. Somehow the legalization of same sex marriage didn't magically transform my marriage into a "unisex" marriage, or into anything other than what it has been all along.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5210 Jul 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the assist, Wastey. Did ya read that Joh-née?
You agree with my assessment then?

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5211 Jul 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's true, but they care about rewriting marriage law for everyone. That's why most states have laws defining marriage as one man and one woman.
Not really. Opposite sex couples can still marry. Limiting marriage to opposite sex couples is discriminatory and an unconstitutional denial of citizenship rights.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5212 Jul 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Most Americans seem it to care about marriage in general, if they did, would SSM be legal at all?
Care to paraphrase this? As it stands, it is gibberish.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5213 Jul 4, 2013
Ooops. I goofed too. I meant rephrase. (Damn spell checkers.)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5214 Jul 4, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it "rewriting marriage law for everyone" ?! That's NONSENSICAL !
It fundamentally changes the definition from a monogamous union of husband and wife, to two persons, regardless of gender composition, "spouses for life". Yeah, that changes it for everyone.
Hod does the marriage a gay or lesbian couple in new York, under New York State law, affect your life ON IOTA
Ahhhhhh...the old "how does it affect your life" question? How would any redefinition of marriage affect my life or yours? Polygamy? No prob.....won't affect me or u? Siblings? Ditto
Prior to 1967, many states prohibited interracial marriage. When SCOTUS ruled those laws unconstitutional, did were they SUDDENLY "rewriting marriage law for everyone" ?
Of course not, marriage remained a union of husband and wife, regardless of ethnicities. No brainier.
! How wee couples, who were ALREADY MARRIED affected by the Loving v. Virginia (1967) decision ? THEY WEREN'T !
They weren't, they were still, just like the Lovings, husband and wife. We're on a roll here.
The only people affected by the recent SCOTUS rulings are LGBT people who want to marry the person they LOVE !
They could do that before. Walk into whatever house of worship or non worship, and have the clergy of the house declare them married. Call it a "spiritual marriage", just like the FDLS.
(And as I am a devout Protestant, I am EXTREMELY OFFENDED by Catholic people being allowed to marry because it has a HUGE impact on my life ! The VERY FIRST thing I ask a person when I first meet them is: "Are you Catholic ?! Are you actually MARRIED ?! Because if you are, I am greatly offended by you and will not talk to you !" <s>)
Marriage, in the eyes of The Church, is a sacrament. C'mon home to Rome.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5215 Jul 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Ooops. I goofed too. I meant rephrase.(Damn spell checkers.)
They're both a blessing and a curse.

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
ir bw ,I hate you 5 min Tamale 47
Why CIA tries to replace "track record" with "... 7 min Tme 3
Blacks, Use of whiteys english language weakens... 10 min Tme 4
Toxic people (racists) need Toxic people (blacks) 15 min Tme 2
Why no mention of nutrition? 16 min I Know 1
Why do Blacks Wear Dreadlocks 19 min Asho 13
I like this girl but she might not like me back. 29 min Deshawn Carter 2
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 1 hr Fact 120,635
Van Sertima debunked! Afronazis Drowning in Tears! 2 hr African AE 376
34 Murdered in Baltimore Since Freddie Gray Died 4 hr jimp 106
why do white people hate other races so much 4 hr siftvanilla 399
All women prefer white men 5 hr jimp 4,655
More from around the web