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.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10236 Sep 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It can be done now with, or without legal recognition.
Equal protections under the laws currently in effect is what most of us are discussing.

None of you promoting incest and polygamy have explained how removing the number restriction would change the laws currently in effect.

When a church decides all 5,000 members would benefit from social security when one member dies and all others get their social security, does each new marriage partner also benefit from the deceased person's SS, or only the 4,999 that were already married to the deceased spouse?

This is only one of 1,138 plus areas where "equality" clearly is not equal to the system currently in effect. Different is still not equal, no matter how many times the false claim it is, is made.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10237 Sep 22, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians and educate is not something you should say together. It take a weak uneducated mind to even believe in a god or cult religion....YOU HAVE LOST YOUR CHURCHES ARE CLOSING AND RELIGION IS DYING......GOOD!!!!!!
Perhaps you've heard of Notre Dame, or Georgetown, or Holy Cross......or any of these


Catholic Colleges and Universities

http://www.stirenes.org/information/college_l...

As for the decline......
http://cvcomment.org/2013/03/04/challenging-t...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10238 Sep 22, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but only 2 equals 2. Something else is something very different. Different cannot be equal.
I'm not sure if you read that before you posted it, but it seems like you're arguing against SSM. OSM and SSM are different, and thus, cannot be equal. ".....very different" to uses your words.
Removing the number restriction requires changing the laws that currently determine what marriage is for everyone.
As does removing the nature, male female, upon which the union is legally founded and recognized.
. The current and future marriages of couples would change, while treating the marriages of same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not change the current or future marriages of opposite sex couples.
If SSM doesn't change the current or future marriages of opposite sex couples, how would polygamy in some form change the monogamous, as in two, structure of either SSM, or OSM?
You are free to advocate for changing the social structure and the marriage laws currently in effect for everyone,
As you are in advocating for SSM.
but calling an entirely different social structure and set of laws "equality" fails the test of reason as well as law.
Same sex marriage is also "...an entirely different social structure....", than OSM. Plural marriage maintains the nature, conjugal, of the marital relationship, but not the number, whereas, SSM, simply maintains the number. So which difference is far more significant, and in what way, nature, or number?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10239 Sep 22, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Equal protections under the laws currently in effect is what most of us are discussing.
Equal protection based on a different foundation.
None of you promoting incest and polygamy have explained how removing the number restriction would change the laws currently in effect.
Sibling marriage would preserve the number restriction. As for polygamy, that is a matter for the legislatures, and courts.
When a church decides all 5,000 members would benefit from social security when one member dies and all others get their social security, does each new marriage partner also benefit from the deceased person's SS, or only the 4,999 that were already married to the deceased spouse?
This is only one of 1,138 plus areas where "equality" clearly is not equal to the system currently in effect.
It is it an impossible obstacle to overcome.
Different is still not equal, no matter how many times the false claim it is, is made.
Exactly, two men and two women, are different from a man and a woman, and to quote you, "...no matter how many times the false claim it is, is made".....it's still a false claim.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10240 Sep 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure if you read that before you posted it, but it seems like you're arguing against SSM. OSM and SSM are different, and thus, cannot be equal. ".....very different" to uses your words.
<quoted text>
As does removing the nature, male female, upon which the union is legally founded and recognized.
<quoted text>
If SSM doesn't change the current or future marriages of opposite sex couples, how would polygamy in some form change the monogamous, as in two, structure of either SSM, or OSM?
<quoted text>
As you are in advocating for SSM.
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is also "...an entirely different social structure....", than OSM. Plural marriage maintains the nature, conjugal, of the marital relationship, but not the number, whereas, SSM, simply maintains the number. So which difference is far more significant, and in what way, nature, or number?
The marriages of ss couples and os couples are treated exactly the same under all of the same laws currently in effect for os couples. There is no difference in these marriages. There is only one marriage. Legally, they are exactly the same. 2=2.

Marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual. Gender is not required.

Removing the number restriction, changes the current and future marriages of all couples, by allowing more people into the marriages already in effect as well as future marriages. Treating same sex couples equally under the same laws in effect, does not alter the social structure for os couples. Removing the number restriction changes the social structure for everyone.

Again, number and gender are two, separate restrictions. Removing the gender restriction does not require removing the number restriction, or any other restriction.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#10241 Sep 22, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
I can hear the Judge laughing hysterically....
We can't. What else can you hear?
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#10242 Sep 22, 2013
the light has come wrote:
I have seen this push for marriage is not the end of the gay community trying to force and acceptance in today`s society. Free speech is in jeopardy even with a Constitutional right to speak freely. Hate speech is the next step. Even now if people speak out against the gay agenda, they back peddle in fear of losing their popularity. People in public office finding they can not openly speak against the gay agenda without putting their job in jeopardy. The law makers may be trying to to do the right thing to be PC but not looking at inconsequential results in their decision.
Agenda? What exactly is a gay agenda? For that matter, what is the straight agenda? I wasn't aware that wanting and expecting to have the same right under the law that any other group or single individual, for that matter, is called an agenda. That is, it isn't called that by any rational individual.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10243 Sep 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Equal protection based on a different foundation.
<quoted text>
Sibling marriage would preserve the number restriction. As for polygamy, that is a matter for the legislatures, and courts.
<quoted text>
It is it an impossible obstacle to overcome.
<quoted text>
Exactly, two men and two women, are different from a man and a woman, and to quote you, "...no matter how many times the false claim it is, is made".....it's still a false claim.
You are still confused about equal treatment under the law, and equal abilities.

No two people have equal abilities. We are discussing equal protections of the law. Gender is irrelevant when it comes to the equal protections of the law. Marriage is the same thing for couples, regardless of gender.

If you are going to promote polygamy, it is up to you to promote it, rather than dismissing it a something for the legislature and courts. But as your reply suggests, it would require a different legal as well as social structure, and no one is proposing what the legal changes would be. Are all 10,000 entitled to the social security of the deceased?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#10244 Sep 22, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy is as old as marriage itself. We know from this long history, it concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few at the expense of everyone else, along with many other challenges that make it very different from marriage for couples. I doubt this show will address that, but it may highlight some of the other ways group marriage is entirely different from marriage for couples. How about a show on the Warren Jeffs family?
Your case seems to be polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it's different than same sex marriage. Gay centric much?

How would a marriage of three adult men concentrate wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of everyone else? If they live together without being married is that OK with you? What will change in your world if they marry?
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#10246 Sep 22, 2013
Carol wrote:
Serves these PC, want everybody to like them ministers/pastors right....
They should have stop bowing down to these people with unnatural lusts decades ago...
But they don't want to offend...
When truth is offensive and the truth of the bible is definitely offensive to those who want to disregard God's laws.
Jesus was not a PC go along to get along , hippie type...
But that's the way to many of these present day Pastors/Christians try to portray him now that's offensive.
What exactly did Jesus say one way or the other about gays? I've read the Bible since I was a young boy and have yet to see anything in any translation of the book. The truth about the scripture is that Jesus said we should love everyone equally and that no one should judge. In deed these words seem to have been disregarded for centuries.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#10247 Sep 22, 2013
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
What exactly did Jesus say one way or the other about gays? I've read the Bible since I was a young boy and have yet to see anything in any translation of the book. The truth about the scripture is that Jesus said we should love everyone equally and that no one should judge. In deed these words seem to have been disregarded for centuries.
He did not say anything about pedophilia or bestiality either. So go out and embrace the pedophile and the man who wishes to marry his horse.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#10249 Sep 22, 2013
Chip Westhoven wrote:
<quoted text>
By consent only. No one is suggesting that a man should be allowed another wife against his current wife's will. If she consents, what compelling state interest exists in denying them THEIR equal protection under the law? And while 2 may well "equal" two, AB does NOT equal AA or BB.
Mormons and the dreaded fundies also have a substantial First Amendment claim to marry according to the dictates of their faith.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10250 Sep 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Mormons and the dreaded fundies also have a substantial First Amendment claim to marry according to the dictates of their faith.
The Supreme Court disagrees with your position.
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#10251 Sep 22, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> He did not say anything about pedophilia or bestiality either. So go out and embrace the pedophile and the man who wishes to marry his horse.
Here is the crux then. You decide what Jesus meant by your own definition of what is right and moral. This is not uncommon where gay rights are concerned. As soon as mature individuals express their desire to have rights they should enjoy others seek to confuse the true issue with such things as you have mentioned. There is nothing in common in any of these, except that they vaguely involve sex,(though for all I know the man who wants to marry his horse may only want to use that as a way to gain a new tax break.) I don't see what two individuals do with their own private lives as having anything in common with the perverted practice of forcing sex on children or of having sex with animals, but I suppose if you can't see the difference I can live with it.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10252 Sep 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
:) funny stuff.
The truth often is.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10253 Sep 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your case seems to be polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it's different than same sex marriage. Gay centric much?
How would a marriage of three adult men concentrate wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of everyone else? If they live together without being married is that OK with you? What will change in your world if they marry?
No, my argument is that polygamy is an entirely different legal as well as social structure and therefore cannot be considered "equality". It is something very different and as yet unexplained, while marriage is already spelled out in more than 1,138 laws that apply equally to all couples regardless of gender. Yours is a different argument.

While 3 might not affect others, 10,000 certainly will. How inheritance, social security, taxes, debt, income, and over 1,000 other laws that determine what marriage is for couples would change remains to be explained and determined. Again, you have an entirely different argument.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#10254 Sep 22, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court disagrees with your position.
Indeed they do. And why? Basically because they don't like it. They have compared it to burning your wife alive on your funeral pyre. Nice!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#10255 Sep 22, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
No, my argument is that polygamy is an entirely different legal as well as social structure and therefore cannot be considered "equality". It is something very different and as yet unexplained, while marriage is already spelled out in more than 1,138 laws that apply equally to all couples regardless of gender. Yours is a different argument.
While 3 might not affect others, 10,000 certainly will. How inheritance, social security, taxes, debt, income, and over 1,000 other laws that determine what marriage is for couples would change remains to be explained and determined. Again, you have an entirely different argument.
There you go again it's "different" so it doesn't rate equality.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#10256 Sep 22, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Then that should make you very happy, small Peter, since you've whined incessantly on behalf of your fellow polygamist advocates. Have you found another brain dead woman willing to overlook your abject stupidity and lack of education that's agreeable to become wife number 2??
That's irrelevant of course.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#10257 Sep 22, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
But they apparently gave up on you since you proved yourself to be uneducable.
"uneducable". Priceless.

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
What race are Somalis? (Aug '07) 17 min Moses 14,549
I'm pregnant by a black man....what do I tell m... 25 min Bobby T Canada 17
why do black men act tough ? (Jul '10) 29 min skysthelimit 122
Do black men like petite black women??? (Mar '08) 34 min Raph 435
why are white people so ugly? (Jan '16) 44 min Ensemble 124
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 48 min KiloEcho 47,367
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 50 min RoxLo 1,405,625
BM Thwarts White Rapist & Robber. 2 hr melissa__ 26
Black men need to keep having sex with white women (Jul '14) 3 hr DiamondSmile89 24
Waitress fired over 'N' word rant 5 hr Quantum Smoke 14
More from around the web