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.

Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8810 Aug 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh....so ssm is legal nationwide? Valid in all fifty states?
Reading comprehension problems, eh?

The federal government will recognize ALL legal marriages regardless of where the couple lives. Do I need to spell it out for you?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8811 Aug 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So is that a yes? If "conjugal" no longer exclusively references "husband and wife", as it has been historically, commonly, and/or legally understood to do, then possible to alter the definition of other words, in relation to this issue. A "male lesbian" may seem like a contradiction, but then again, so does "same sex marriage".
LOGIC FOR 1st GRADERS

Check it out of the library and stop embarrassing yourself.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8812 Aug 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi dip****.
Awwwwww.....you say the sweetest things!
You might recall that I told you some time ago that I was going to be away in Seattle for a week.
Seattle? Really? San Francisco, or Province Town, maybe....but Seattle? Anyway....my apologies.
I am sure that in the course of your trolling you had forgotten this simple fact. It's difficult to keep facts in order when you spew spurious opinions without factual support all day, every day. So it comes as little surprise that you cannot remember this, or that you have difficulty with names. I am sorry that you are a dullard, it must be quite a burden to bear.
Such a nobleman you are....willing to suffer the dullards...all for the cause!
Sorry, moron, the constitution mandates equal protection for all persons. Not equal protection for like persons. Try again.
Equal protection does to require dissimilar things be treated the same. Thanks for trying though!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8813 Aug 30, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>just heard on the BBC that some woman did just marry two or three guys in an African nation, i beleive. she couldn't decide between several good suitors, so she didn't decide
Woody....you did some homework. Very good. You get a gold star!
oh, and islam is also an offspring of Judaism. all three sects of that cult worship the same god, the god of abraham...
Another gold star! But I already knew that Islam was one of the three Abrahamic faiths. But you took the time to find out Woody, despite your phobia of all things religious, and for that you get....not a second star, but a third one too! Atta boy!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8814 Aug 30, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>it never exclusively referenced husband and wife, it referenced spouses.
Considering that legal ssm is less than ten years old, not legal in all fifty states, and the word conjugal is commonly understood to reference husband and wife, your contention is moot. Now can men be lesbians?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8815 Aug 30, 2013
Consortium
The marital alliance between a Husband and Wife and their respective right to each other's support, cooperation, aid, and companionship.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8816 Aug 30, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
The cases you've cited, Brian occurred in states before same sex marriage was legally recognized or where it is still prohibited, Brian. So thanks for lying once again.
Two things common with every one of these cases: same sex marriage and a persecuted businessperson.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8817 Aug 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Considering that legal ssm is less than ten years old, not legal in all fifty states, and the word conjugal is commonly understood to reference husband and wife, your contention is moot. Now can men be lesbians?
but now that SSM is legal, anywhere, the definition of conjugal which refers to spouses includes those spouses also.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8818 Aug 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Two things common with every one of these cases: same sex marriage and a persecuted businessperson.
those business owners were in no way persecuted, they broke a very clear and constitutional law and they paid the consequences.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8819 Aug 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Awwwwww.....you say the sweetest things!
I say things that you have fully earned, nothing more.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Seattle? Really? San Francisco, or Province Town, maybe....but Seattle? Anyway....my apologies.
Neither San Francisco, or Provincetown were performing a Ring Cycle. Seattle Opera was.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Such a nobleman you are....willing to suffer the dullards...all for the cause!
I am always willing to educate the great unwashed. Why shouldn't you have an opportunity to better yourself?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Equal protection does to require dissimilar things be treated the same. Thanks for trying though!
Actually, equal protection of the law requires that all people be treated equally under the law.Unless you have grown a brain and found a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples such equal protection, then such a practice is unconstitutional.

It's really quite simple to understand if one isn't stupid.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#8820 Aug 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
You're right Edmond, from a practical standpoint, limits would be necessary. If we were to use religion as a guide, Islam, Judaism, and its offsoring, Christianity, some sects, allow a man to have up to four wives, as long as he can attend to the needs of each. The flips side of that, would be to allow a woman the same number of husbands.
I can't think of ANY reason to use religion as a guide. If anything, religion should generally provide a guide of what NOT to do in any given situation. Deciding to use religious guidelines for secular, government practices is problematic AT BEST.

And, which sects "allow" a man to have up to four wives? Can you name them? I don't remember ever hearing that any religion or denomination actually put a number on polygamous limits. What reasons do these sects give for limiting the number at 4? What about people who want 10 spouses? Are they supposed to limit themselves, just because of someone else's religion?

And why are you still only advocating patriarchal or matriarchal marriages, where ONE man or woman marries SEVERAL of the opposite sex? What's wrong with 5 men marrying 5 women? Why is one of the genders only allowed to have one representative? If you're arguing that same-sex marriages will lead to polygamous marriages, then isn't it likely that some of those polygamous marriages will involve multiple same-sex spouses?

What happens if a man CAN'T attend to the needs of all his wives? Some men can't attend to only ONE wife. Will such men be punished for their inattentiveness? Will they be forcibly divorced? Will their 4 wives be whittled down to 1? Which wives will go? How would that be decided?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Any more than two-four, would be too cumbersome I think. If a man and two women wish to form a family of husband, wife, and wife, and have state recognition, will the courts sympathetic to the "dignity" of SSCs, also be concerned about the dignity of a trio?
Only if they want to also worry about the dignity of a quadruple, or a quintuple, or on and on and on and on. Only if committment no longer has any meaning in marriage.

Your limits are arbitrary. They seem to be based on your own opinions of what these families may need, rather than on any actual conversations with them about their needs. You're suggesting limits that simply sound good to you, but they don't seem to be based on any actual research. You make claims that they're based on religious principles, but besides the obvious dangers of mixing religious policy with civil policy, I'm not sure which religions these limits are truly quoted from.

I'm left with a lot of unanswered questions about your suggestions (and experience tells me not to expect any answers). I don't feel you've properly thought any of this out. If you want to use polgygamous marriage as any kind of an argument, then you'd better be sure it can work. Same-sex marriages have been implemented in 14 US states now, without a single hiccup. I can't seem to make heads or tails of even just a theoretical framework of polygamy from you.

Divorce, inheritance, custody... there are so many factors to consider, which jump exponentially with each added spouse, and the best I can get from you is that it's "complex". It's worse than that, it's very nearly unworkable! The suggestions you've made have done nothing to alleviate this, but only made it all even MORE complex and unsolvable.

Your arguments can't be taken seriously, until you're able to answer at least SOME of these questions. We can't worry about something happening, if it can't be made functional in any way.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8821 Aug 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I say things that you have fully earned, nothing more.
<quoted text>
Neither San Francisco, or Provincetown were performing a Ring Cycle. Seattle Opera was.
<quoted text>
I am always willing to educate the great unwashed. Why shouldn't you have an opportunity to better yourself?
<quoted text>
Actually, equal protection of the law requires that all people be treated equally under the law.Unless you have grown a brain and found a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples such equal protection, then such a practice is unconstitutional.
It's really quite simple to understand if one isn't stupid.
Liddie.....funny stuff...bravo! Thanks for the laugh.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8822 Aug 30, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but now that SSM is legal, anywhere, the definition of conjugal which refers to spouses includes those spouses also.
male lesbian

A male lesbian is a physiologically heteosexual male who wishes he'd been born a girl. He feels alienated by the social standards of gender roles. He may be a crossdresser or consider himself transgendered, but he is probably not transsexual. His ideal would be to be able to be his feminine self in a relationship with a biological female. If he is open about this, he may be ridiculed by both the gay and straight communities.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8823 Aug 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
male lesbian
A male lesbian is a physiologically heteosexual male who wishes he'd been born a girl. He feels alienated by the social standards of gender roles. He may be a crossdresser or consider himself transgendered, but he is probably not transsexual. His ideal would be to be able to be his feminine self in a relationship with a biological female. If he is open about this, he may be ridiculed by both the gay and straight communities.
so you answered your own question. why in the world do you assume such a person would be ridiculed by anyone with a rational, open mind?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8824 Aug 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Two things common with every one of these cases: same sex marriage and a persecuted businessperson.
How about telling the truth: a business person that BROKE THE LAW.
Business people don't get to pick and choose which laws to follow.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8825 Aug 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
male lesbian
A male lesbian is a physiologically heteosexual male who wishes he'd been born a girl. He feels alienated by the social standards of gender roles. He may be a crossdresser or consider himself transgendered, but he is probably not transsexual. His ideal would be to be able to be his feminine self in a relationship with a biological female. If he is open about this, he may be ridiculed by both the gay and straight communities.
Do you believe everything you read, you moron? A lesbian, by definition, is a homosexual FEMALE.

Is it really THAT difficult for you to understand sarcasm and parody? Good grief!
AnswersRus

Lander, WY

#8826 Aug 30, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>those business owners were in no way persecuted, they broke a very clear and constitutional law and they paid the consequences.
What "constitutional law" states that an owner of a private business can be forced to provide services and or products to someone with whom they do not wish to do business?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8827 Aug 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Consortium
The marital alliance between a Husband and Wife and their respective right to each other's support, cooperation, aid, and companionship.
OMG! I think you should take your definition and RUN to SCOTUS. I'm so sure they will reverse all their rulings just to satisfy your definition.
AnswersRus

Lander, WY

#8828 Aug 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
male lesbian
A male lesbian is a physiologically heteosexual male who wishes he'd been born a girl. He feels alienated by the social standards of gender roles. He may be a crossdresser or consider himself transgendered, but he is probably not transsexual. His ideal would be to be able to be his feminine self in a relationship with a biological female. If he is open about this, he may be ridiculed by both the gay and straight communities.
So to paraphrase and reiterate your point, if one has unusual sexual inclinations and tendencies, it is best they keep their mouth shut to avoid ridicule from one group or another or both.
AnswersRus

Lander, WY

#8829 Aug 30, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
How about telling the truth: a business person that BROKE THE LAW.
Business people don't get to pick and choose which laws to follow.
Eaxctly what law was broken?

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
Young ape [email protected] 67 yo woman for 11 hours 2 min Ugly monkeys 1
I wonder where THEY went?... 2 min Yisraelite Suprem... 3
Topix AntiFa Nation 🏴✊🔥 2 min Black God 11
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Canuk 1,601,099
A new mental illness 6 min Yisraelite Suprem... 4
Blacks And Antifa Aren't Held Accountable For T... 7 min Black God 3
Breaking news: fossils unearthed proving blks a... 8 min Yisraelite Suprem... 5
Do You Believe Whites Are 65% Of The Population? 3 hr Paul 12
Do black men really have larger penises? (Sep '10) 4 hr Wolfman Jenkins 1,575
Do African Americans listen to the 'Beatles'? (Apr '08) 10 hr Mr Lee 387
More from around the web