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.

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8770 Aug 29, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP)— The government on Thursday said that all legally married gay couples will be able to file joint federal tax returns even if they reside in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages.

----

Tick Tock Tick Tock

Time is running out on the homophobes....

Tick Tock Tick Tock

For businesses, their accounting hassles for gay couples has been reversed. It used to be more complex for businesses to do their accounting for benefits to gay couples in the states that allowed marriage equality (two separate systems). Now it will be more complex for business to do their accounting for benefits to gay couples in those states that refuse to recognize marriage equality. How much pressure will those businesses now place on those holdout states to allow equality?

Tick Tock Tick Tock

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8771 Aug 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Gays" have the same right to marry as "straights", as marriage is defined by the state. Always have, long before "gay" was used to denote homosexuality.
This old, disingenuous excuse, fails to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for refusing to treat the marriages of same sex couples equally under the law.

Meanwhile, 6 counties in NM now recognize marriage equality when issuing licenses.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8772 Aug 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it seems that more agreed with Marriage Equality in France than disagreed and still you nor Brian have given ANY evidence to just how "MANY" Gays and Lesbians agree with your definition of Marriage.......where we can provide voting evidence of straights who support Marriage Equality....all one has to do is look at the CURRENT Ballot box victories!!!
By the way, Congratulations to New Mexico for FINALLY joining the Marriage Equality train....even if it is 1 County at a time:-)
There was one, and the anti-gay forces made use of it. The person is an entertainer, not a social scientist, law scholar, nor someone with any credentials that makes their uninformed opinion any more relevant than anyone else. But the concept of finding and promoting discrimination using a member of the group targeted for discrimination, is nothing new. This is an old tactic which has nothing to do with the merits of the arguement. It fails to provide any rational excuse for legal discrimination.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8773 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
It is the tradition of exclusion from the same rights and protections opposite sex couples enjoy that is harmful.
It is not "the tradition of exclusion". Opposite sex couples "enjoy" the rights and protections because marriage is based on, orientated towards, and the recognition of, their union.
The fact exclusion has been a tradition, does not make it any less harmful, nor does it make it valid.
No exclusion, both men and women are included.
What you continue to miss is that these court cases specifically state procreation is not required. They even make it clear; sex is not required. The fundamental right of marriage remains a fundamental right, independent of the desire to procreate and independent of the ability to have sex. You keep missing the court has made it clear, biology is independent from fundamental rights.
The fundamental right is founded on the male female relationship.

All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
You also keep ignoring the fact many same sex couples are raising children who, like the children of many straight couples, are adopted, or biologically related to one or both parents.
Children are raised in a variety of family structures, including plural family, and yet the adults raising said children are not automatically designated married by the state.
"Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.
"Equal protection"? Where is the equal representation of the child's mother and father, biological, and/or adopted? If the court wishes to employ such arguments in favor of children "of" same sex couples, they should be prepared to use said reasoning for children of plural marriage families who are the biological offspring of both husband and wife.
Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate." (Gill)
It can, and has been used as a rational basis by some courts, state legislatures, and constitutional ballot initiated measures, voted on by the people.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8774 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
There was one, and the anti-gay forces made use of it. The person is an entertainer, not a social scientist, law scholar, nor someone with any credentials that makes their uninformed opinion any more relevant than anyone else. But the concept of finding and promoting discrimination using a member of the group targeted for discrimination, is nothing new. This is an old tactic which has nothing to do with the merits of the arguement. It fails to provide any rational excuse for legal discrimination.
If one does a quick google search....

http://youcatholic.com/2013/06/27/gays-agains...

https://www.facebook.com/defendtradmarriage...

http://www.againstequality.org/about/marriage...

MARRIAGE

When it comes to gay marriage, the times, they are a-confusing. For instance, we recently overhead some people extolling the virtues of marriage, and how it allowed them to finally join in family gatherings as respectable married people, instead of skulking in as shamefully unmarried partners. They reminisced about the joys of being able to walk up to coworkers and introduce their husbands, the sparkle of their wedding rings legitimizing their socially sanctioned and forever-to-be unions.

by Conrad and Castonguay (2007)
You might wonder: Were we somewhere near the extreme right-wing group Focus on the Family? Perhaps we were taking a tour of the Jerry Falwell museum, which houses his wife’s wedding dress?

No. Those words came from the mouths of gays arguing that gay marriage is necessary for the well being of the world. In fact, we hear rumors that rainbows appear every day in all the states where gay marriage is legal; that the children of gay married couples are healthier, wiser, kinder; that they can and do beat up the nasty illegitimate spawn of those who dare to remain unmarried; and that the cats of married gay men regularly crap nuggets of gold.

Gay marriage apes hetero privilege and allows everyone to forget that marriage ought not to be the guarantor of rights like health care. In their constant invoking of the “right” to gay marriage, mainstream gays and lesbians express a confused tangle of wishes and desires. They claim to contest the Right’s conservative ideology yet insist that they are more moral and hence more deserving than sluts like us. They claim that they simply want the famous 1000+ benefits but all of these, like the right to claim protection in cases of domestic violence, can be made available to non-marital relationships.

We wish that the GM crowd would simply cop to it: Their vision of marriage is the same as that of the Right, and far from creating FULL EQUALITY NOW! as so many insist (in all caps and exclamation marks, no less) gay marriage increases economic inequality by perpetuating a system which deems married beings more worthy of the basics like health care and economic rights.

***

Against Equality is committed to archiving radical work from all parts of our collective queer history, which is as messy, complex, and complicated as any other. We archive pieces without censorship or exegesis because we believe that an unclouded historical overview is preferable to one that is apologetic or revisionary – after all, our collective began as an effort to combat the erasure of queer radical history and activism by the mainstream gay and lesbian community. To that end, we recognize that, sometimes, the pieces we archive demonstrate language or ideology that is not seamlessly in line with what we might consider preferable today. Rather than revise or erase, we leave all that in as part of our ongoing effort to document queer history as what it was, not what we wish it would have been. In the same way, we also ask that any submissions to the archive be exactly as they originally appeared, without revisions to language or politics.

“A long time ago”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#8775 Aug 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
It is not "the tradition of exclusion". Opposite sex couples "enjoy" the rights and protections because marriage is based on, orientated towards, and the recognition of, their union.
Same-sex couples enjoy the same rights in many parts of the country and the world, because their marriages are based on, and oriented toward, the recognition of THEIR union.

But in those places where they do NOT enjoy these rights, it is largely because of a tradition of exclusion. The same tradition which prevented gay people the right to serve their country openly, or to become public school teachers.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No exclusion, both men and women are included.
But when they are a same-sex couple, exclusion is often sought.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The fundamental right is founded on the male female relationship.
With the modern recognition that gay people have a fundamental right to exist, and to be with a partner which suits them, then their relationships should also enjoy this fundamental right.

There isn't any reason that it should be withheld from them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species…
If only all heterosexuals were so fundamentally competent at RAISING the children they produce. Since many of them aren't, there is no reason to value parents who PRODUCE children over parents who simply RAISE children that they themselves might not have produced.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
They're going to slowly come around to the realization that even putting in the effort to raise someone ELSE'S child is far more valuable than simply shooting genetic goo at each other.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Children are raised in a variety of family structures, including plural family, and yet the adults raising said children are not automatically designated married by the state.
Because marriage is for THE COUPLE, not their children. Children do not make a marriage, and lack of children do not prevent one. Marriage describes the relationship one adult has for the other. It does not describe their parental status. Never has.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Equal protection"? Where is the equal representation of the child's mother and father, biological, and/or adopted?
Equal protection for what?
Pietro Armando wrote:
If the court wishes to employ such arguments in favor of children "of" same sex couples, they should be prepared to use said reasoning for children of plural marriage families who are the biological offspring of both husband and wife.
Maybe they should. As it stands, a man can father a child with as many different women as he likes, with no legal penalty. Of course, if each of these genetic couplings were called "marriage", then the family structure would quickly become unwieldy. The benefits of marriage would become too complex to apply.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It can, and has been used as a rational basis by some courts, state legislatures, and constitutional ballot initiated measures, voted on by the people.
Sounds like a tradition of exclusion, to me.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8776 Aug 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not "the tradition of exclusion". Opposite sex couples "enjoy" the rights and protections because marriage is based on, orientated towards, and the recognition of, their union.
<quoted text>
No exclusion, both men and women are included.
<quoted text>
The fundamental right is founded on the male female relationship.
All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
<quoted text>
Children are raised in a variety of family structures, including plural family, and yet the adults raising said children are not automatically designated married by the state.
<quoted text>
"Equal protection"? Where is the equal representation of the child's mother and father, biological, and/or adopted? If the court wishes to employ such arguments in favor of children "of" same sex couples, they should be prepared to use said reasoning for children of plural marriage families who are the biological offspring of both husband and wife.
<quoted text>
It can, and has been used as a rational basis by some courts, state legislatures, and constitutional ballot initiated measures, voted on by the people.
Your objection still relies on the false assertion the fundamental right of marriage relies on procreation. Property has often historically been a more important consideration.

Your quote ignores that the Supreme Court has specifically rejected that argument. They ruled procreation is not a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right. Procreation is a private choice of the individual, and while also protected by the government, it is never required by the government for any reason, including marriage. They also said marriage remains a fundamental right even when the ability to have sex does not exist. Your personal requirement is fine for you and perhaps your church, but it is not and has never been a valid requirement of the law. Even anti-gay Justice Scalia admits this fact of law.

While procreation has been used as an excuse to deny marriage through popular votes of both legislative bodies and ballot initiatives, that does not make it rational. We have voted in all sorts of discriminatory laws that have eventually been demonstrated to be irrational, and provide no legitimate governmental interest. Popular opinion does not determine whether the earth is flat or round. Prejudice, no matter how popular, fails as a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal protections of the law, as required by the constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8777 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your objection still relies on the false assertion the fundamental right of marriage relies on procreation. Property has often historically been a more important consideration.
[QUOTE]

What exactly are you confused about in this:

[QUOTE]The fundamental right is founded on the male female relationship. All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species…
No mention of a procreation requirement, but the fundamental right is founded on the male female relationship. Not the male male one, or the female female one.
Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
Again, no requirement indicated, but simply the "institution's inextricable link to procreation..." No mention of same sex procreation.
Your quote ignores that the Supreme Court has specifically rejected that argument. They ruled procreation is not a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right.
Why do you continue the "procreation requirement" falsehood?
Procreation is a private choice of the individual, and while also protected by the government, it is never required by the government for any reason, including marriage. They also said marriage remains a fundamental right even when the ability to have sex does not exist. Your personal requirement is fine for you and perhaps your church, but it is not and has never been a valid requirement of the law. Even anti-gay Justice Scalia admits this fact of law.
"All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship...."
While procreation has been used as an excuse to deny marriage through popular votes of both legislative bodies and ballot initiatives, that does not make it rational.
Marriage is not denied, rather simply confirmed, through those mechanisms.
We have voted in all sorts of discriminatory laws that have eventually been demonstrated to be irrational, and provide no legitimate governmental interest. Popular opinion does not determine whether the earth is flat or round. Prejudice, no matter how popular, fails as a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal protections of the law, as required by the constitution.
Nor does popular opinion deny the biological foundations of life, it's marital connection, and the state's interest in the male female relationship.
The U.S. Supreme Court: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Rights which you are just as entitled to as any other man or woman, no more, no less.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8778 Aug 29, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Same-sex couples enjoy the same rights in many parts of the country and the world, because their marriages are based on, and oriented toward, the recognition of THEIR union.
Which in turn is founded on marriage, the union of husband and wife, just without all that opposites sex stuff.
But in those places where they do NOT enjoy these rights, it is largely because of a tradition of exclusion.
Or a tradition of inclusion, as in both sexes in one publicly recognized union, also known as marriage.
But when they are a same-sex couple, exclusion is often sought.
Thus this debate.
With the modern recognition that gay people have a fundamental right to exist,
"....gay people" are a modern invention. Same sex sexual behavior is to new, and its accepted, tolerated, and/or even celebrated to a degree, depending on the time and place. The "gay" identity, complete with parades, rainbow flags and bumper stickers, his and his towels, etc., is a virtual new concept, at least in the West, if it the U.S.
and to be with a partner which suits them, then their relationships should also enjoy this fundamental right.
There isn't any reason that it should be withheld from them.
They can be with whatever partner they so choose, which does not require state recognition, not state obligation.
If only all heterosexuals were so fundamentally competent at RAISING the children they produce. Since many of them aren't, there is no reason to value parents who PRODUCE children over parents who simply RAISE children that they themselves might not have produced.
Children are raised in a variety of family structure, not just those headed by SSCs.
They're going to slowly come around to the realization that even putting in the effort to raise someone ELSE'S child is far more valuable than simply shooting genetic goo at each other.
Nice...."shooting goo"...funny stuff. Sounds like it should be on a hallmark card.
Because marriage is for THE COUPLE, not their children. Children do not make a marriage, and lack of children do not prevent one. Marriage describes the relationship one adult has for the other. It does not describe their parental status. Never has.
Marriage is recognized because, there are two sexes, sex between men and women makes babies.
Maybe they should. As it stands, a man can father a child with as many different women as he likes, with no legal penalty.
Exactly....and the women seem to allow it.
. Of course, if each of these genetic couplings were called "marriage", then the family structure would quickly become unwieldy. The benefits of marriage would become too complex to apply.
Difficult, yes, complex, absolutely, but is that a reason to deny rights?
Sounds like a tradition of exclusion, to me.
Wow....that ties in with that last statement. Exclusion of loving men and women joined together in plural marriage, from having the state recognize their relationships. They need some of that "marriage equality" that we hear so much about.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#8779 Aug 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Difficult, yes, complex, absolutely, but is that a reason to deny rights?
Who is it that you claim is being denied rights, Men or Women?

What would be the logical conclusion if all relationships were of the same sex?

Also, if you are truly interested in equality would you then support the genetic engineering of sexes to make future generations sexually neutral?

“A long time ago”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#8780 Aug 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Which in turn is founded on marriage, the union of husband and wife, just without all that opposites sex stuff.
What does that mean,“founded on marriage”? Marriage was not discovered lying around, and then we decided to use it as a basis for human relationships. It’s the other way around. The legal set-up of marriage is based on how humans form relationships, the human need for companionship, and the social need for solid, legally-supported contracts.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or a tradition of inclusion, as in both sexes in one publicly recognized union, also known as marriage.
That might make some sense, if people were trying to ban opposite-sex marriages, but no one is doing that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thus this debate.
Well, not for me. I just enjoy it for fun, while I watch the laws turn in our favor. The conversation helps me keep my skills sharp, but there’s really no debate. The people who want to slap bans on everything gay people do are not winning.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"....gay people" are a modern invention
Oh of course not. We may be a modern CONSIDERATION, and “gay” may be a modern label, but please. There have always been gay people.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Same sex sexual behavior is to new, and its accepted, tolerated, and/or even celebrated to a degree, depending on the time and place. The "gay" identity, complete with parades, rainbow flags and bumper stickers, his and his towels, etc., is a virtual new concept, at least in the West, if it the U.S.
Is this an argument against it? Should we abandon forming identities, just because our culture is new? Should we waive our constitutional rights, so that the country can revert to an earlier age? Should we stop seeking acceptance, just because we don’t have it everywhere?
Pietro Armando wrote:
They can be with whatever partner they so choose, which does not require state recognition, not state obligation.
Same to you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Children are raised in a variety of family structure, not just those headed by SSCs.
Children could be raised by wolves, for all I care. It would have no bearing on whether I should be allowed to marry my partner. Marriage is for the couple.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nice...."shooting goo"...funny stuff. Sounds like it should be on a hallmark card.
Where it DOESN’T belong is as a basis for marriage eligibility. And it isn’t, anywhwere.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage is recognized because, there are two sexes, sex between men and women makes babies.
No, marriage is recognized because people who tie every aspect of their lives together demand that this bond be legally upheld. If babies were a requirement, they’d be a requirement.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly....and the women seem to allow it.
The state allows it. Marriage is not a demand that the state puts on people who share a child.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Difficult, yes, complex, absolutely, but is that a reason to deny rights?
If it’s not, then when or where do you predict we will begin seeing legalized polygamy? If marriage is no longer “to the exclusion of all others”, then what number of people is TOO difficult and complex?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Wow....that ties in with that last statement. Exclusion of loving men and women joined together in plural marriage, from having the state recognize their relationships. They need some of that "marriage equality" that we hear so much about.
“Plural” marriage simply means ENDLESS marriage. But since marriage represents commitment, and endless plurality is the OPPOSITE of commitment, I don’t see how marriage can apply. If you’re not promising anything to one exclusive person, or you’re promising everything to endless people, then what is the point of even announcing a bond, or hoping for it to be legally upheld?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8781 Aug 29, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is it that you claim is being denied rights, Men or Women?
Those men and women who choose to enter into plural marriage relationships are denied the right to have their relationships legally recognized.
What would be the logical conclusion if all relationships were of the same sex?
Boredom
Also, if you are truly interested in equality would you then support the genetic engineering of sexes to make future generations sexually neutral?
I don't recall advocating an androgynous society, nor some sci fi means to make it that way.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#8782 Aug 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Those men and women who choose to enter into plural marriage relationships are denied the right to have their relationships legally recognized.
So it is not a man or a woman that is being discriminated against.

Instead, you are arguing that people should be forced to accept any relationship that someone chooses.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8783 Aug 29, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
So it is not a man or a woman that is being discriminated against.
Instead, you are arguing that people should be forced to accept any relationship that someone chooses.
Not at all....have you read the exchange between myself and Edmond. My point, if SSM advocates are going to argue for "marriage equality", other adult relationships, namely polygamy, should be included as well. I have posed this question to said advocates, " If conjugal it's is expendable, why not monogamy?". At what point does it become pointless?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8784 Aug 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all....have you read the exchange between myself and Edmond. My point, if SSM advocates are going to argue for "marriage equality", other adult relationships, namely polygamy, should be included as well. I have posed this question to said advocates, " If conjugal it's is expendable, why not monogamy?". At what point does it become pointless?
and yet SSM is conjugal, so it is not expendable.

of course this has been proven to you many times, yet you still lie about it.

why do you have the need to lie to support your position tvarich Pyoter?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8785 Aug 29, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
What does that mean,“founded on marriage”?
Exactly what I said in response to:
EdmondWA wrote:
Same-sex couples enjoy the same rights in many parts of the country and the world, because their marriages are based on, and oriented toward, the recognition of THEIR union.
Marriage was not discovered lying around, and then we decided to use it as a basis for human relationships. It’s the other way around. The legal set-up of marriage is based on how humans form relationships, the human need for companionship, and the social need for solid, legally-supported contracts.
The legal set up of marriage is based on the male female union.
Well, not for me. I just enjoy it for fun, while I watch the laws turn in our favor. The conversation helps me keep my skills sharp, but there’s really no debate. The people who want to slap bans on everything gay people do are not winning.
The battle rages on
Oh of course not. We may be a modern CONSIDERATION, and “gay” may be a modern label, but please. There have always been gay people.
There have always been people with same sex sexual attraction. As to "gay" another adaptation of opposite sex sexual reference. To think at one time a "gay" man was a womanizer!
Is this an argument against it? Should we abandon forming identities, just because our culture is new?
Does one need a rainbow bumper sticker to form an identity? Wear one "sexual identity" on one's sleeve, so to speak? Same sex sexual behavior existed in Ancient Rome, but I don't think they put rainbow bumper stickers on their chariots.
Should we waive our constitutional rights, so that the country can revert to an earlier age?
The constitution doesn't mention marriage, SMS, nor sex at all.
Should we stop seeking acceptance, just because we don’t have it everywhere?
Seek all the acceptance you want, but.....
Children could be raised by wolves, for all I care. It would have no bearing on whether I should be allowed to marry my partner.
It does have a bearing as to how marriage is defined. You can marry a wolf for all I care, but it has no bearing on the union of husband and wife.
Marriage is for the couple.
But it's the composition of the couple, male female, that marriage is about.
Where it DOESN’T belong is as a basis for marriage eligibility. And it isn’t, anywhwere.
It the basis for the recognition of marriage to begin with.
No, marriage is recognized because people who tie every aspect of their lives together demand that this bond be legally upheld. If babies were a requirement, they’d be a requirement.
It doesn't have to be. Marriage exists, because two sexes exist, and their union makes little Edmonds.
The state allows it. Marriage is not a demand that the state puts on people who share a child.
More of an expecting, a motivation, an obligation....
If it’s not, then when or where do you predict we will begin seeing legalized polygamy? If marriage is no longer “to the exclusion of all others”, then what number of people is TOO difficult and complex?
If marriage is no longer the union of husband and wife......
“Plural” marriage simply means ENDLESS marriage.
"Marriage Equality" is Orwellian newspeak for an androgynous basis for marriage.
But since marriage represents commitment, and endless plurality is the OPPOSITE of commitment, I don’t see how marriage can apply. If you’re not promising anything to one exclusive person, or you’re promising everything to endless people, then what is the point of even announcing a bond, or hoping for it to be legally upheld?
But since marriage represents the commitment of husband and wife, conjugal union, "Marriage equality" is the OPPOSITE of conjugality......

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8786 Aug 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and yet SSM is conjugal, so it is not expendable.
of course this has been proven to you many times, yet you still lie about it.
why do you have the need to lie to support your position tvarich Pyoter?
And men can be lesbians, veggie patties "burgers", up can mean down, gay is happy, or if a man, a womanizer,......
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#8787 Aug 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and yet SSM is conjugal, so it is not expendable.
of course this has been proven to you many times, yet you still lie about it.
why do you have the need to lie to support your position tvarich Pyoter?
Sure, tell us all again how you have 'proven' everything with tons of those phantom so-called "facts" that you claim to have provided somewhere at sometime....we get it, lunch meat.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8788 Aug 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And men can be lesbians, veggie patties "burgers", up can mean down, gay is happy, or if a man, a womanizer,......
yes, we have gone over this...veggie patties are burgers, just like turkey burgers are burgers, and buffalo burgers are burgers. they are not attempting to be HAMburgers, they are just burgers...

why do you still lie about the conjugal thing, Petey? it is really beneath you.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8789 Aug 29, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, tell us all again how you have 'proven' everything with tons of those phantom so-called "facts" that you claim to have provided somewhere at sometime....we get it, lunch meat.
"Lunch meat"? Maybe Woody is full of baloney! Nice set up.

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) 2 min Grey Ghost 1,759,909
Hey Negroes the world is closing in on you! 4 min Jake 7
News Al Sharpton: Royal Wedding Shows 'Last Breath' ... 6 min spam and rice 132
Can we take back topix? 13 min Mewindshieldubug 357
Black people think they're Godly and special! 14 min got rope 1
Achilles Last Stand a rock-and-roll masterpiece 17 min Jake 6
The mighty African American hypocrite! 18 min The Laughing Axe 13
White rage is on the way: White people aren't g... 22 min The Laughing Axe 40
We have another Black royal Queen folks!! 42 min Ihn 138
Megan will NEVER become queen or even a princes... 2 hr Ms Mack 59