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

#13059 Nov 11, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Paco, what does polygamy have to do with same sex marriage?
Gee Poofie, what does "same sex" have to do with marriage?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13060 Nov 11, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Read it and weep:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/...
Someone better tell the Feds to arrest the Brown family, and the Darger family too. Come to think of it, Canada should have arrested all those pesky polygamists already.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13061 Nov 11, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't matter. polygamy is irrelevant.
This from a polyphobe.
Poof

Rock Island, IL

#13062 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee Poofie, what does "same sex" have to do with marriage?
Alot Paco, its legal in 15 states. Now when you get off your back side and fight for polygamy like the LGBT have done for same sex marriage we will talk. See ya sport
Poof

Rock Island, IL

#13063 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone better tell the Feds to arrest the Brown family, and the Darger family too. Come to think of it, Canada should have arrested all those pesky polygamists already.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/warr...

Is this what you want??

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13064 Nov 11, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
There’s no “compelling societal need” for ANYONE to marry. You can cohabitate with your favorite humans just as easily as I can.
Society as a whole is stable when men and women. Their children benefit as well.
But when two people pool all their resources and properties, and begin planning all future life decisions in tandem, they will require a legal contract to back all that up.
Why do they require it? People can function without that requirement, yes?
Marriage is that contract. The government recognizes and upholds THAT contract the same as it upholds any OTHER contract.
So if that's what, that contract is, any two people can enter it, yes?
What do rewrites (of what?) have to do with the merits of a polygamy argument?
Isn't that one of your arguments against it, too many laws to rewrite?
I’m sorry, but no. Holding open a revolving door of spouses coming and going does not constitute “commitment”.
Ya might want to check the length of the relationships of the Sister Wives, to Kody. And the Darger family.
And stop pretending to play bleeding-heart on behalf of polygamists. We all know you couldn’t care less about them except where they serve as a red herring to be thrown into unrelated arguments.
All related my friend, all part of the same issue, How do we as a society define marriag?
If you TRULY wanted polygamists to "crash the wedding", then you'd put in SOME effort in re-writing those 1,138 marriage rights that they would want to use. You haven't lifted a FINGER in that department, so I know you don't care if marriage could function between 3 or more parties.
Irrelevant, as long as we are discussing the definition of marriage, polygamy is a valid topic.
Whether or not there’s a band, a gift registry, a photographer, a pastor or even a church present will not change the governmental recognition of our marriage.
That's your answer? Nothing witty? I'm disappointed.
I don’t know. Why do some judges believe in the devil? Why do some people gear their decisions around their fear of magical beings on the attack?
In other words, it every judge has bought into the concept that marriage is just a union of two people regardless of gender composition.
Because Leviticus. Because of a pervading and slanderous campaign against gay people that’s been ongoing for about 20 centuries.
Uhh...huh....."gay" people...even though the concept of "gay/homosexuality" didn't exist prior to the late 19th/early 20th, century. I think it's a matter of same sex sexual behavior, some human societies tolerated it, ores not.
Because most people are morons who would vote for slavery if it meant they got to have one. Popular doesn’t mean correct.
Nor does unpopular.
. When people are FINALLY made to THINK about the issue, and realize the impact it has on the loved ones in their lives, and the unfairness inherent in their previous position, then they change their minds.
Again, thinking that can be applied to plural marriage families. You're starting to sound like a spokesman.....uhhhh Spokesperson.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13065 Nov 11, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Alot Paco, its legal in 15 states. Now when you get off your back side and fight for polygamy like the LGBT have done for same sex marriage we will talk. See ya sport
Poofie
The Glibtees are already fighting for polygamy, even allowing poly amorous people to march in their pride parade in Atlanta.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13066 Nov 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Typically an intelligent person tailors their responses to questions in court to their cause. It's called making a relevant argument.
And avoids anything that might undermine their position.
Pietro, once again you fail to address the core issue, namely a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between opposite sex couples.
Lifdes, once again you fail to offer a compelling interest governmental interest served by designating non conjugal, non monogamous, consenting adult relationships, "marriage". There must be some compelling need to treat some men, and some women differently, other than they want to be treated differently.
Any rational person who can count can see that polygamy seeks extraordinary protection of the law for three or more people, while same sex marriage sex equal protection for two people.
Any rational person who can count, and understands the difference between men and women can see that same sex marriage seeks extraordinary gender protection for two men, or two women, whereas conjugal marriage provides protection for one of each.
It is hardly my fault that you cannot articulate any state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry.
Nor is it my fault you cannot articulate any state interest served by designating same sex relationships, "marriage" when individual men and women, involved in such relationships possess the same right to marry as any other man or woman.
The question is what limitations that specifically deny people the right to marry serve a legitimate state interest.
The same "limitations" apply to ALL men, and women. Equal treatment.
There is no state interest in denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, a fact that you have tacitly supported each and every time you fail to indicate any such interest, whereas polygamists seek inherently greater protection of the law for three or more people.
There is no state interest in designating a same sex relationship "marriage", in denying them, as individual men and women, the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife valid in all fifty states, as any other man or woman. Equal treatment.
Simply put, your continual return to arguments of polygamy does nothing to craft a valid argument against same sex marriage, and tends to indicate that you aren't bright enough to understand that the two issues are completely different, and that one has no bearing upon the other.
Your continued refusal to acknowledge that polygamy is part of the same discussion that involves designating same sex relationships, "marriage". It has as much bearing on how marriage is defined, as does same sex relationships.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#13067 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Same sex sexual behavior is not new, is that what you mean?
No, I stated attraction, not behavior as sexual orientation is about attraction.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So such labeling didn't take place until the late 19th, early 20th centuries, despite hundreds, thousands of years of human history. Odd. Perhaps the idea of a sexual identity wasn't a necessary, nor desired component of society, cross time, cross place.
Or simply wasn't allowed in societies dominated by religious dogma.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What "lie" are you referring to?
Your presumption that "male lesbian" has some relevance to human sexuality rather than just being a made up diagnostic label that a researcher studying male love shyness created.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or are you simply projecting your androgynous thoughts onto the English language?
I'm not projecting anything onto the English language; I'm simply correcting your continued stupidity about it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
We are so blessed to have you.
Unfortunately I'd be lying if I said the same of you. Bigots like you are generally a curse rather than a blessing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So why would you inject to a bisexual person wishing to marry more than one person at a time, in line with their orientation?
One's orientation determines which sex one is attracted to; it has nothing to do with how many people one wishes to be married to at the same time. So apparently we can add sexual orientation to the list of subjects you lack any knowledge of.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Simply because it was not automatically legalized does not mean it can't, or won't be legalized. Even your limited intellect is capable of grasping that.
Whether that happens is independent of whether same sex marriage is legally recognized. It will ultimately depend on whether the legal arguments asserted in court are accepted or legislators or the general public are convinced to change existing laws. And as such, advocating for same sex marriage isn't advocating for polygamy, which is what your assertion your original erroneous assertion was.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, bad strategy, because it would undermine their cause, give legitimacy to criticism that SSM could lead to polygamy. SSM advocates really don't care if polygamy is legalized, as long as SSM is.
Wow, stupid Peter, you just figured that out, huh? Same sex marriage supporters have never claimed otherwise. In fact, I've told you more than once that the term "marriage equality" is simply a marketing term. You're the jackass that's stupidly and erroneously expects people exercising their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances should have to address the grievances of other groups you designate. Which is all the more laughable since you no more want polygamy legalized than your want same sex marriage legally recognized.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13068 Nov 11, 2013
ohvraiment wrote:
Unless you can enumerate each and every one of these 1138 alleged "rights",....you're just babbling,
Can YOU list them? Who could? Would I need to be able to pass a citizenship test before I could discuss immigration? I'd like to see the average score of the citizenry of this country.

I'm certainly familiar with ENOUGH of them to know that there's no good reason that my partner and I should be without them.
ohvraiment wrote:
parroting libtard "talking points".
You way as well start spamming the words 'compelling state interest",
... like the OTHER retard does....
If you've got an argument to make, feel free. You don't need to pre-emptively assume that I'm going to make someone else's argument.

If you're interested in a conversation about the subject, I'm game. But I'll give you this speech just once: there are people in this world who are quite literally retarded, and they live daily in a constant hell that you and and I cannot possibly imagine. They do not exist just to give you a standard to insult others by, or to provide you with clever suffixes. If you've got intelligent points to make, I'm open to hearing them. And if you hear anyone from MY camp use this kind of talk, DEFINITELY call them out on it. But it won't fly with me.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13070 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Poofie
The Glibtees are already fighting for polygamy, even allowing poly amorous people to march in their pride parade in Atlanta.
The GiBLeTs. Soon to be GiBPLeTs (P for poly). I think of turkey giblets to remember GiBLeT.

New categories coming soon! TR for trisexual! Q for quadro. Woops already got a Q.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13071 Nov 11, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>
...Is this what you want??
No. Do it much better. Put some passion in it. Tickle my tackle too. Tissue?

YUK!YUK!YUK! Ah good times.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13072 Nov 11, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Paco, what does polygamy have to do with same sex marriage?
They are both marriage worthy of equal respect?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13073 Nov 11, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/warr...
Is this what you want??
No. Still a fail.

YUK!YUK!YUK! Whoop!~Whoop! Ah good times. Woot!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13074 Nov 11, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/warr...
Is this what you want??
Of course I could find a criminal who was monogamous. Then you'd say that's irrelevant.

It's only relevant if he's polygamous. See how you are? Yeah, I know. You don't get it.

Poly BAD!!! mono GOOD!!! Just like the old gay bad straight gay good but with a new hatee.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13075 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Society as a whole is stable when men and women. Their children benefit as well.
Even the children they adopt? As gay couples can?

The benefits are to children they RAISE. It is not limited to biological children only.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why do they require it? People can function without that requirement, yes?
Just as you can, yes.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So if that's what, that contract is, any two people can enter it, yes?
Any two who aren't already family.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Isn't that one of your arguments against it, too many laws to rewrite?
Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t listen to their merits.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ya might want to check the length of the relationships of the Sister Wives, to Kody. And the Darger family.
And when they get their NEXT sister wife, will they change their sign to “0 days since a new spouse”? Even 50 years on their relationship wouldn’t close the door on a NEW spouse coming in at any time.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All related my friend, all part of the same issue, How do we as a society define marriag?
I think first, some people need to learn how we define “we as a society”. It isn’t always “majority rules”.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Irrelevant, as long as we are discussing the definition of marriage, polygamy is a valid topic.
But YOU keep trying to make polygamy an argument, not me. If you TRULY value that argument, then you should demonstrate that you support it. If you’re trying to seek a solution to polygamy, then get to solving. If neither of us truly care about finding one, then we don’t ever need to discuss uncapping spouse limits.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's your answer? Nothing witty? I'm disappointed.
Sorry. 4000 characters. I have to be choosy with my wit.
Pietro Armando wrote:
In other words, it every judge has bought into the concept that marriage is just a union of two people regardless of gender composition.
“It every judge”? I don’t get what you’re saying here. There’s no reason for them NOT to “buy into” that concept. Gay people need legal families too.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhh...huh....."gay" people...even though the concept of "gay/homosexuality" didn't exist prior to the late 19th/early 20th, century. I think it's a matter of same sex sexual behavior, some human societies tolerated it, ores not.
And it’s better when people can integrate their natural orientation INTO their identity, rather than being made to feel shame and guilt over it, expected to hide and lie and fear because of it. The modern identity YOU are familiar with has come about because we are refusing to do all that anymore.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nor does unpopular.
Which doesn’t invalidate what I said.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Again, thinking that can be applied to plural marriage families.
You’re welcome to bring a court case if you think so.

But it doesn’t really apply. There isn’t really a demographic of “polygamists” the way there is “homosexuals”.“Plural families” are just people who want to marry without limits. Polygamists are just monogamists who got carried away.

Nothing inherent in who YOU are makes that a necessity, but YOU could become a “plural family” if you just decided that you didn’t have enough spouses. People who think of this issue FAIRLY realize that this isn’t true for gay couples. Fair-minded people aren’t fooled by stories of the ONE gay man who married a woman (before he even realized he was gay). They plainly see that gay people should be allowed at least ONE spouse who represents the love of their life. MORE than one is a different conversation, and doesn’t reflect an issue of fairness or discrimination.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13076 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sounds like there's no arguments against plural marriage either, or.......
Are you really presenting your BEST argument for denying same-sex couples the right to ANY legal benefits for their families? It's because heterosexuals won't be able to have 11 MORE spouses than they already get? Are you saying that every time a same-sex couple wants to go to court and challenge an existing law, they can't do so unless they first find a polygamous family to join them? Is there anyone else we must invite into such a class-action suit? I suppose you'd insist that the two families then search for a third set of incestuous plaintiffs before they could even hire a lawyer? As long as we're discussing it, is there anyone ELSE you want to suggest as a "rider" family, before justice can be pursued?

The very structure of your argument is ridiculous. You are not arguing honestly. There MAY BE terrific arguements for, or against, polygamy or incest. Someone out there MIGHT be able to present an unassailable case for either of them. But to say that we shouldn't even consider the merits of ONE, without ALL of them being discussed at once, is just bad thinking. Courts don't work that way, and if you insist that anyone must have their conversations that way, then you're going to watch your position become more and more hypothetical and moot.

You can't just throw the word "Proportion!" at 1,138 legal foundations and expect that to make marriage suitable to polygamous families. Many of these rights do not portion out the same. Custody and pension and a home cannot be portioned in the same way. Spouse A may disagree with what Spouse B is getting in proportion to Spouse C, while spouse B may have the same misgivings about Spouses A, C and D. The next family will want DIFFERENT proportions, about different rights. Any of the members may change their minds over the course of time.

NONE of this occurs when a marriage is limited to two people. That list of rights is not a MENU, to be selectively applied to different people in different amounts. It's all or nothing. It's reflexive, FROM one TO one. That's the only way it can work.

But the bottom line is, asking someone to defend a different, but similar argument, is only intended to distract from the fact that you can't defend against their original. Whether or not the questions of polygamy or incest can be answered does not invalidate whether same-sex marriage can be. You cannot win this with continued attempts to turn people toward a different conversation. It sure isn't working in the justice system. You're going to see same-sex marriage performed in all 50 states, and from Guam to Puerto Rico, before anyone tells you what you want to hear about polygamy.

And part of the problem is that you DON'T really want to hear these arguments about polygamy. You're not actually a proponent of polygamy, are you? You don't truly care about that. You're just hoping that those arguments will drag down ours. That's why I asked at the beginning: Is that really your BEST argument for not recognizing same-sex marriages? When another state legalizes it, are you HONESTLY telling me that your first feeling is anger that those heartless gays aren't thinking of the poor polygamists?

So what if we don't? The law doesn't say we do. What else ya got?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#13077 Nov 11, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Even the children they adopt? As gay couples can?
The benefits are to children they RAISE. It is not limited to biological children only.
<quoted text>
Just as you can, yes.
<quoted text>
Any two who aren't already family.
<quoted text>
Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t listen to their merits.
<quoted text>
And when they get their NEXT sister wife, will they change their sign to “0 days since a new spouse”? Even 50 years on their relationship wouldn’t close the door on a NEW spouse coming in at any time.
<quoted text>
I think first, some people need to learn how we define “we as a society”. It isn’t always “majority rules”.
<quoted text>
But YOU keep trying to make polygamy an argument, not me. If you TRULY value that argument, then you should demonstrate that you support it. If you’re trying to seek a solution to polygamy, then get to solving. If neither of us truly care about finding one, then we don’t ever need to discuss uncapping spouse limits.
<quoted text>
Sorry. 4000 characters. I have to be choosy with my wit.
<quoted text>
“It every judge”? I don’t get what you’re saying here. There’s no reason for them NOT to “buy into” that concept. Gay people need legal families too.
<quoted text>
And it’s better when people can integrate their natural orientation INTO their identity, rather than being made to feel shame and guilt over it, expected to hide and lie and fear because of it. The modern identity YOU are familiar with has come about because we are refusing to do all that anymore.
<quoted text>
Which doesn’t invalidate what I said.
<quoted text>
You’re welcome to bring a court case if you think so.
But it doesn’t really apply. There isn’t really a demographic of “polygamists” the way there is “homosexuals”.“Plural families” are just people who want to marry without limits. Polygamists are just monogamists who got carried away.
Nothing inherent in who YOU are makes that a necessity, but YOU could become a “plural family” if you just decided that you didn’t have enough spouses. People who think of this issue FAIRLY realize that this isn’t true for gay couples. Fair-minded people aren’t fooled by stories of the ONE gay man who married a woman (before he even realized he was gay). They plainly see that gay people should be allowed at least ONE spouse who represents the love of their life. MORE than one is a different conversation, and doesn’t reflect an issue of fairness or discrimination.
You do a great job explaining things, but unfortunately that particular poster will NEVER understand it........but please keep posting this stuff because some are just passive readers who will get it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13078 Nov 11, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really presenting your BEST argument for denying same-sex couples the right to ANY legal benefits for their families? It's because heterosexuals won't be able to have 11 MORE spouses than they already get? Are you saying that every time a same-sex couple wants to go to court and challenge an existing law, they can't do so unless they first find a polygamous family to join them? Is there anyone else we must invite into such a class-action suit? I suppose you'd insist that the two families then search for a third set of incestuous plaintiffs before they could even hire a lawyer? As long as we're discussing it, is there anyone ELSE you want to suggest as a "rider" family, before justice can be pursued?
The very structure of your argument is ridiculous. You are not arguing honestly. There MAY BE terrific arguements for, or against, polygamy or incest. Someone out there MIGHT be able to present an unassailable case for either of them. But to say that we shouldn't even consider the merits of ONE, without ALL of them being discussed at once, is just bad thinking. Courts don't work that way, and if you insist that anyone must have their conversations that way, then you're going to watch your position become more and more hypothetical and moot.
You can't just throw the word "Proportion!" at 1,138 legal foundations and expect that to make marriage suitable to polygamous families. Many of these rights do not portion out the same. Custody and pension and a home cannot be portioned in the same way. Spouse A may disagree with what Spouse B is getting in proportion to Spouse C, while spouse B may have the same misgivings about Spouses A, C and D. The next family will want DIFFERENT proportions, about different rights. Any of the members may change their minds over the course of time.
NONE of this occurs when a marriage is limited to two people. That list of rights is not a MENU, to be selectively applied to different people in different amounts. It's all or nothing. It's reflexive, FROM one TO one. That's the only way it can work.
But the bottom line is, asking someone to defend a different, but similar argument, is only intended to distract from the fact that you can't defend against their original. Whether or not the questions of polygamy or incest can be answered does not invalidate whether same-sex marriage can be. You cannot win this with continued attempts to turn people toward a different conversation. It sure isn't working in the justice system. You're going to see same-sex marriage performed in all 50 states, and from Guam to Puerto Rico, before anyone tells you what you want to hear about polygamy.
And part of the problem is that you DON'T really want to hear these arguments about polygamy. You're not actually a proponent of polygamy, are you? You don't truly care about that. You're just hoping that those arguments will drag down ours. That's why I asked at the beginning: Is that really your BEST argument for not recognizing same-sex marriages? When another state legalizes it, are you HONESTLY telling me that your first feeling is anger that those heartless gays aren't thinking of the poor polygamists?
So what if we don't? The law doesn't say we do. What else ya got?
Too wordy. What you mean is polygamy is different than monogamy. Well duh! We know that. So what? So is SSM different from OSM.

So OK. You established that it's different. How does that make it less valid and irrelevant? Do you want marriage equality or don't you? There is no half way.What will you say to three men wishing to marry? No? Why not?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13079 Nov 11, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You do a great job explaining things, but unfortunately that particular poster will NEVER understand it........but please keep posting this stuff because some are just passive readers who will get it.
Sure. Good people shouldn't be allowed to marry because that poster doesn't understand it. That makes sense. Polygamy bad, monogamy good!

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
Bill Cosby most prolific Rapist in US history 4 min 2 Dogs 10
Interracial dating is gross! (Nov '10) 12 min SadButTrue 104
Why Some Black Women Love White Men (May '07) 13 min 2 Dogs 11,227
White women are extremely jealous of bw! 16 min SadButTrue 50
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 23 min Grey Ghost 1,536,116
Is Feminism a Cancer? (Oct '16) 24 min SadButTrue 349
Why are black men so thirsty for white women? 34 min Miss Norris 86
HA HA HA! Trump cuts $1.7 TRILLION in welfare! 2 hr Dark Obsidian Mind 227
Black women want kids with that GOOD HAIR 12 hr SadButTrue 34
More from around the web