Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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

#5318 Jul 7, 2013
TrueAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Two consenting adults who wish to make a life long commitment to one another. Sometimes that doesn't work out and they get divorced but that is the idea.
That would be the revisionist, devoid of gender references, view of marriage.

Here's another. A man and a woman, both consenting adults, who wish to make a life long commitment to eqch other, join together, as husband and wife, in a publicly, culturally, socially, and legally recognized union, orientated around both their emotional bond and physical sexual union, the latter, connects them to any children their union may produce.
And as far as married couples raising their own children, my husband and I have been married for 10 years and are raising our 5 year old son. And yes I know several others, I using the other couples / parents I know to show it's not all the same. You may not like or approve of it, but that's not your call to make for other people, is it?
It's not an issue of whether or not I approve, disapprove, or "...not your call to make", but rather what is best for society as a whole. There are a variety of family structures in our society, including families headed by SSCs, plural marriage families. But the state does not confer on the adults in those variety of non nuclear families, the designation, "marriage".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5319 Jul 7, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not? You are spouting the official Catholic line aren't you?
I don't know, I haven't submitted my posts to the local diocese for review.
I see no reason to prevent SSM. There is no downside.
There's no upside.
The kids is a fallacy on your part for the following reasons.
1. SS couples already have kids. That will not change.
2. SS couples already adpt kids. That will not change.
3. Opposite sex couples already have kids. That will not change.
4. 50% of marriages will fail. That will not change.
If nothing will change, there's no need to change the definition of marriage then.,
No fault divorce is also a fallacy. People would get divorced anyway. Many people end abusive relationships.
That could be don before. Why lower the bar?
Would it be of any benefit to make is harder for people to get divorced from an abusive spouse? How would this help the kids?
Who said anything about abuse?....., that is a "fault" reason for divorce, and possible criminal action.
Your claim that SSM has any impact on opposite sex marriage is false. There is none.
You MUST be kidding.
Would plural marriage have any impact on SSM, or OSM? No reason to deny legalization of it then.
Want to buy some rat's asses? I'm selling them gift wrapped ten for a dollar.
All out of gerbils I see......must of had a big sale after the latest pride parade. "Ouch".......all right....all right...that was bad.....I know..:)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5320 Jul 7, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
That's interesting. Now please share the connection to SSM if you will.
Too much spiked rainbow punch again......helllooooooo......o ur previous posts discussing world population....thought you might like the info.....keeps us both informed.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5321 Jul 7, 2013
Earlier I posted an interview with John Eastman where he told Dennis Prager exactly what the evidence was in regards to the IRS committing a felony and the PDF document. This is video of Dr. Eastman in front of Congress explaining quickly the felonious actions of the IRS as well as the pressure put on his donors by the IRS giving out this confidential information.

http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/professor-joh...

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5322 Jul 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Giving government the power to redefine marriage to facilitate a homosexual lobby might not be the wisest policy. New standards of gender segregation in marriage defy our perfectly diverse and integrated male/female marriage model. Wasteful government spending on entitlements for same sex dependent beneficiaries, higher taxes to pay those new entitlements and new intrusive regulations around marriage will all be worsened by licensing same sex marriage.
Every child should have a mother and father, basing marriage on dysfunctional families is tragic.
Fallacy. SSM will have no impact on families in that regard. Why do you hate children who are raised in same sex families?

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5323 Jul 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Too much spiked rainbow punch again......helllooooooo......o ur previous posts discussing world population....thought you might like the info.....keeps us both informed.
Yes it is interesting. Did you know that many SS couples adopt children who would otherwise be either institutionalized or in foster care?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5324 Jul 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's simply the matter of the logic of sexual orientation, as advocated by SSM activists. The argument is gay people should be allowed to marry according to their orientation. If that is so, then why can't bisexuals, who are orientated towards both sexes, marry one of each, if they so choose? Just answer the question.
I did. You were too stupid to comprehend it.

You know nothing about bisexuality, this is demonstrated by your posts.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5325 Jul 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's simply the matter of the logic of sexual orientation, as advocated by SSM activists. The argument is gay people should be allowed to marry according to their orientation. If that is so, then why can't bisexuals, who are orientated towards both sexes, marry one of each, if they so choose? Just answer the question.
You avoided this part of my post. "Where did I say that Pietro? Which post? I'd especially love to see the part where I mentioned "denying". I'm very curious where I mentioned my view on the subject."

Will you be presenting that soon, or will you be acknowledging that you deceitfully made it up?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5326 Jul 7, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutually supported by whom? Not the state dear. Sorry. It would seem you have fallen on your head again.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If the women are bisexual, who are represented on the BGLT marquee, that could proved to be a mutually support arrangement. So it would seem polygamy is part of the SSM movement after all

so wouldn't that be discriminatory? denying to lesbians or bisexuals the right to choose a male partner for the purposes of reproducing and providing a father to help raise their children? why should the state have a right to deny them their happiness and long term security?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5327 Jul 7, 2013
TrueAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I think this logic is flawed. By your logic, allowing heterosexual marriage should leave room for a straight person to marry more than one person of the opposite sex. I don't believe that to be the case. Allowing two consenting adults to get married doesn't carry with it the same logic to allow polygamy.
Pietro doesn't really believe it does either, but he can't find a logical argument to deny gays the right to marry so he just plays this card over and over and over. He's been basically making the same posts for years. He can't comprehend that the marriages of gay people is the exact same institution that straight people enter into. So if this institution were going to "lead to" polygamy, it would have already done so. Pietro still thinks there is a separate institution called "same sex marriage".

He's an idiot.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5328 Jul 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Just how dumb are you? Many bisexuals enter into monogamous relationships.
Three is still greater than two. I'm still sorry you can't count or engage in basic logic
what is so important about two?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5329 Jul 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is like mob violence.
Brian_G is like a fly eating shyt.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5330 Jul 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Speak for yourself, lides.
He spoke for pretty much everyone.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5331 Jul 7, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is interesting. Did you know that many SS couples adopt children who would otherwise be either institutionalized or in foster care?
Yes I do, they should be commended for it. Bravo!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5332 Jul 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>what is so important about two?
For much of human history, including today, polygamous marriage is the norm. Even here in America, although some Americans engage in polygamy on the installment plan.....or u could just call them serial mongamists. Or, if they're gay men, "monogamish", to quote Dan Savage.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5333 Jul 7, 2013
barry wrote:
what is so important about two?
It is the number accepted by every state in the union as a legally acknowledged legal couple. Any more would be... Well... More.

Anyone who is not mentally deficient would see as much.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5334 Jul 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Earlier I posted an interview with John Eastman where he told Dennis Prager exactly what the evidence was in regards to the IRS committing a felony and the PDF document. This is video of Dr. Eastman in front of Congress explaining quickly the felonious actions of the IRS as well as the pressure put on his donors by the IRS giving out this confidential information.
http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/professor-joh...
You've posted the allegation ad nauseum. Can you support it with fact?

Brian, I can claim that you have stolen $100 from me. I could make a you tube video repeating this allegation. The youtube video is not proof of the allegation, it is merely reiteration of the allegation.

If you were intelligent, you would understand this simple fact.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5335 Jul 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do, they should be commended for it. Bravo!
Thank you. I know you are a very good person. In fact I've grown very fond of you.

Peace be with you my friend.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5336 Jul 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
For much of human history, including today, polygamous marriage is the norm. Even here in America, although some Americans engage in polygamy on the installment plan.....or u could just call them serial mongamists. Or, if they're gay men, "monogamish", to quote Dan Savage.
Dan Savage? He is not a nice man like you.

Guess what? Given every state and country where SSM has become legal, not one has legalized polygamy. Nothing has changed for opposite sex marriages either other than the fact many in those places now embrace the gay and lesbian brothers and sister a little more. What's wrong with that?

Level 2

Since: May 12

Woodland Hills, CA

#5337 Jul 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
That would be the revisionist, devoid of gender references, view of marriage.
Here's another. A man and a woman, both consenting adults, who wish to make a life long commitment to eqch other, join together, as husband and wife, in a publicly, culturally, socially, and legally recognized union, orientated around both their emotional bond and physical sexual union, the latter, connects them to any children their union may produce.
That may be the idea you like. But I just recently made legal a marriage I performed 2 years ago, that IS a couple who are both consenting adults, who have made a life long commitment to each other, joined together, in a publicly, culturally, socially, and legally recognized union, oriented around both their emotional bond and physical sexual union. The weren't legally married when they had their first child back in May. But they DO have and are raising a child. A child with 2 mothers.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Yeah 1,548,253
Why are my opioid epidemic threads being deleted? 13 min Just a thought 7
Why all the hates here? 1 hr T-BOS 15
Why blacks share so many different Women so much 1 hr Rich stars of the... 2
Does anyone else here feel bad for blacks whom ... 1 hr Harrisson 2
black men i know why u bash ur women! 1 hr Harrisson 14
African-American Culture Is Backwards! 2 hr Truthcentric 16
Will Democrats ever win another election? 2 hr Reymundo Mejia Gu... 111
Are liberals getting too unstable? 4 hr Redefined 57
Why Do White People Love Dogs So Much (Aug '14) 8 hr misfit 0676 128
Italians are NOT White!!!! (Feb '12) 12 hr jjohnson00 6,733
More from around the web