Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10696 Sep 30, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a nice little spin you put on re-thinking no fault divorce... yeah.... that'll happen. Think again.
What "spin".....unless you're arguing in favor of easy divorce laws.
I'm glad you brought up that harms aren't always evident at the time. Guess what? We DO have evidence of the harm to society polygamy creates. What does history teach us about polygamy? Please think about the reality of it.
You're confusing polygamy in which women have little or no say, and its practiced on a large scale, at least larger than it is in this country, and those men and women, who CHOOSE to enter into such arrangements.
Start small... if men can have more than one wife, then women are going to be particular about the husband they intend to share. Women gravitate to wealth and power. One man has five wives means FOUR MEN have no wives at all.
Yes start small, because that's how it's practiced, small, as in on a small scale. If women CHOOSE to be a second or third wife, that is her choice. She could just as easily be a mistress, or a "baby's mama". Besides not all women, will want to be a second, or third.
Multiply that out. Who are all those single men supposed to have sex with? Women become more valuable and are married off earlier and earlier. What are all those single men supposed to do?
What do they do now? There seems to be no shortage of women who will have sex with single men, or even married men for that matter.
Crime rates go up. Violence increases. It creates too many problems for it to be sustainable.
So legalize it, and regulate it.
Let me be extra clear: I do not care who anybody sleeps with, or how many. don't care. none of my business. have fun. For me, this has nothing to do with the 'morality' of polygamy, it's about how the practice impacts society in a harmful way.
So let me see if I understand this, Mrs. Blowme's little boy Neil. A man can sleep with as many women as he can, and are willing to, father numerous children out of wedlock,.....and that's okay. But if a man, and several women choose to join together as husband wife, wife, and wife, complete with children and have their unions legally recognized,......you think that's bad? Please clarify....correct me if my assessment is off.
It's not bigotry if the reasons against something are sound. You wanna talk unintended consequences? Talk about the population of young, single men increasing dramatically. Hmmmm.... what does that sounds like.... gang-bait. extremist-bait.
So if one opposes legally redefining marriage, because one thinks its bad public policy, and can have possible long term negative consequences, then one is not a "bigot"? Yes?
What do you suggest we do with all the single men?
What do we do with them now?
[QUOTE
Build them man caves to keep them off the street?
[/QUOTE]
Actually....the number of young men who desire to marry, and actually do has declined over the past several decades. Among young black men, in some communities, marriage is an alien concept, the wife has been replaced by "baby's mama".
Am I making my point?
No....not really. SSM has changed the rules....others, namely polygamists, want "marriage equality" too. Social political movement often travel in directions the original "movers" never intended.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10697 Sep 30, 2013
No Comment wrote:
Your reliance on insults and pejorative terminology doesn't change reality.
Your childish attempt to obfuscate the thread, rather than respond to the simple and direct questions that you had been asked, tends to indicate that you have no valid and on topic argument.

As for "insults and pejorative terminology," they were observations based upon your posts. You are not very smart.
Parson Browne

Georgetown, OH

#10698 Sep 30, 2013
All ye sinners and reprobates repent of your sins and come to the Lord homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God
Ye will be cast into the pit that burns forever and ever

“LIFE'S TO SHORT TO LET TOPIX”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

TROLLS GET YA DOWN:-)

#10699 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why isn't the Brown family in federal prison right now?
This question has already been answered......but that matters little to you just as long as someone will chase the bone you toss,right?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10700 Sep 30, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
He's only legally married to one woman. He never legally married the other women.
Uhhhhh......yeahhhhh...but even in Utah purporting to be married to more than one woman is a crime.

So why shouldn't they be allowed to have their unions legally recognized?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10701 Sep 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
This question has already been answered......but that matters little to you just as long as someone will chase the bone you toss,right?
Now....now...Nor......there's enough "marriage equality" to go around.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10702 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhh......yeahhhhh...but even in Utah purporting to be married to more than one woman is a crime.
So why shouldn't they be allowed to have their unions legally recognized?
Because they seek greater protection of the law for three or more people.

Learn to count.

“LIFE'S TO SHORT TO LET TOPIX”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

TROLLS GET YA DOWN:-)

#10703 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Now....now...Nor......there's enough "marriage equality" to go around.
You AREN'T interested in Marriage Equality.......you just want folks to keep giving you attention on this issue and that is all........why do I say this? Because of the redundancy of the repeated questions you continue to ask even though they have been answered!!!

Get a clue....Marriage has been evolving for some time now and it does INCLUDE Same-Sex couples......and it may include polygamist one day......but as I have always stated......POLYGAMIST DID NOT NEED MARRIAGE RIGHTS TO COME TO GAYS AND LESBIANS in order for them to fight for what they believe in!!!

By the way, Williams is ONLY legally married to one of his supposed wives as is Kody Brown!!!

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10704 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhh......yeahhhhh...but even in Utah purporting to be married to more than one woman is a crime.
So why shouldn't they be allowed to have their unions legally recognized?
Apparently it's not a concern to the Browns since their federal lawsuit doesn't seek to overturn Utah's anti-bigamy law. You're apparently the main cheerleader for something your poster men and women don't even want: legally recognized polygamous civil marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10705 Sep 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they seek greater protection of the law for three or more people.
Learn to count.
Learn anatomy, and biology. SSMers seek greater protection of law for more than one woman, or man.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10706 Sep 30, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently it's not a concern to the Browns since their federal lawsuit doesn't seek to overturn Utah's anti-bigamy law. You're apparently the main cheerleader for something your poster men and women don't even want: legally recognized polygamous civil marriage.
One step at a time Little Terri.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10707 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Learn anatomy, and biology.
Neither are relevant to the topic at hand, namely equality under the law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSMers seek greater protection of law for more than one woman, or man.
You've yet to offer that elusive state interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional, and give your argument a rational foundation.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10708 Sep 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You AREN'T interested in Marriage Equality
I am interested in marriage conjugality.
.......you just want folks to keep giving you attention on this issue and that is all........why do I say this? Because of the redundancy of the repeated questions you continue to ask even though they have been answered!!!
What answers? It's either, "no...no...no....'marriag e equality' is just for us", or "if polygamists want to petition the government....".
Get a clue....Marriage has been evolving for some time now and it does INCLUDE Same-Sex couples.
How does marriage "evolve" by eliminating the wife, or the husband?
.....and it may include polygamist one day..
"One day"? Uhhhhhhh.....Nor.......marriag e throughout history has had two primary dominant forms, both male female. Either monogamous, or polygynous. So I suggest you get a clue.
....but as I have always stated......POLYGAMIST DID NOT NEED MARRIAGE RIGHTS TO COME TO GAYS AND LESBIANS in order for them to fight for what they believe in!!!
Sure they did.....they just needed someone to get the rules changed, fundamentally alter the marital legal foundation.
By the way, Williams is ONLY legally married to one of his supposed wives as is Kody Brown!!!
Oooooooh...."supposed wives"? I'm sure they consider themselves his wives, as does he. I would think as a wife, you would have greater respect for other wives.

“LIFE'S TO SHORT TO LET TOPIX”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

TROLLS GET YA DOWN:-)

#10709 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn anatomy, and biology. SSMers seek greater protection of law for more than one woman, or man.
Really? Why because there are either 2 men or 2 women instead of a man and a woman? What a farce Pete!!!

“LIFE'S TO SHORT TO LET TOPIX”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

TROLLS GET YA DOWN:-)

#10710 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I am interested in marriage conjugality.
Sorry, but what you are interested in simply doesn't exist.......Marriage was NEVER just about conjugal sexual relations and your word "CONJUGALITY" doesn't even exist!!!

By the way Pete.......Marriage has been evolving because back in the early days......marriage has we know it has only existed for roughly 500 years......before that, it was nothing more than a business arrangement between families and the woman was just the property of her father and had NO say in who she was married to.......today, women have as much right in deciding who they marry as men do!!!

I know you want heterosexual married couples to remain superior, but in reality.......they are just a couple who can procreate(SOMETIMES) within the marriage.......but many can't and need outside intervention........and that's where your argument fails and has failed in the Courts as well!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10711 Sep 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but what you are interested in simply doesn't exist.......
Marriage conjugality doesn't exist?!!!!
Marriage was NEVER just about conjugal sexual relations and your word "CONJUGALITY" doesn't even exist!!!
I never said it was just about "conjugal relations".....and the word does exit. Here's a site that even I corporates the word.

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality
By the way Pete.......Marriage has been evolving because back in the early days......marriage has we know it has only existed for roughly 500 years......before that, it was nothing more than a business arrangement between families and the woman was just the property of her father and had NO say in who she was married to.......today, women have as much right in deciding who they marry as men do!!!
Please, Nor, explain how marriage evolves by elimination? Elevating the wife within the marital relationship doesn't mean she should be removed altogether!
I know you want heterosexual married couples to remain superior, but in reality..
Actually it's opposite sex....and it's not a question of "superior"....rather different form, and function.
.....they are just a couple who can procreate(SOMETIMES) within the marriage.......but many can't and need outside intervention........and that's where your argument fails and has failed in the Courts as well!!!
First, it's "not failed" in every court. Second, for many can, then cannot, and third it's the reason marriage is even a privileged relationship to begin with.

“LIFE'S TO SHORT TO LET TOPIX”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

TROLLS GET YA DOWN:-)

#10712 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Please, Nor, explain how marriage evolves by elimination?
Nothing is being ELIMINATED.......opposite-sex couples AREN'T being denied the right to marry......marriage is just now being more INCLUSIVE.......why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

My marriage is not truly ANY different than my aunt and uncle's marriage of 38 years.......and they are not affected by my marriage, nor do they see it different than theirs.......I mean yes, their marriage is an opposite-sex marriage and mine is a Same-Sex marriage........neither of us have children from our marriages, nor do we want children at our ages......but why my wife and I got married is pretty much the same reason my aunt and uncle got married.......oh, there is one small difference......this is my first marriage and for them, it is their second marriage!!!

“LIFE'S TO SHORT TO LET TOPIX”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

TROLLS GET YA DOWN:-)

#10713 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
First, it's "not failed" in every court.
Actually, the procreation argument has failed in just about every RECENT court case.......and according to SCOTUS marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT......NOT a privilege.....and if it is a privilege, then why shouldn't Same-Sex Couples be allowed to participate in it?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10717 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
"Your reliance on insults and pejorative terminology doesn't change reality."
A statement which neither addresses the topic at hand, nor negates the reality that Brian G is, in fact, and idiot.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10718 Oct 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
One step at a time Little Terri.
So you need to mount a recruiting drive to find polygamists that actually want multiple civil marriages?

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
2015 NBA Playoffs 17 min Halle Berry Sister 19
Kenya Moore is with a White Man? 21 min Sovereign 56
African-American women are the world's most bea... (May '09) 21 min bantu 603
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 22 min shinningelectr0n 1,234,749
Why do good looking black women like white men ... (Sep '12) 25 min Janis 6,993
Why do blacks hate seeing asian women with whit... (May '14) 32 min Sovereign 76
What's your favorite song from a traditionally ... 40 min Halle Berry Sister 186
All women prefer white men 53 min Janis 4,717
Why do white women throw themselves at black men? 1 hr Mick 111
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 2 hr African AE 121,004
Blacks Are Biologically Superior To Whites (Sep '12) 2 hr NotSoDivineMsM 428
More from around the web