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.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#14261 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
And we all agree, no copy of same sex marriage law exists in writing before Y2K, right? Same sex relationships have always existed, their are historic examples in art and law. But same sex marriage law is a new thing, less than 14 years old.
Brian, slavery was legal until 1864. Does when it was outlawed have any bearing upon the validity of the law barring it? Of course not. Only an imbecile would imply that a relatively recent law is any less valid than a law that has been on the books for years.

Grow a big boy argument, Brian. Your current broken record chant is an irrelevant obfuscation.

How's that hunt for a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex individuals rom marrying another, which would render such a restriction constitutional and render your argument valid, going?

Once again, you make yourself look like an idiot.

“True Blue”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#14262 Dec 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The old "eye for an eye?"
I would just re-wire them. ;)
OK, that was my anger talking. I guess they will get theirs inside; plus the other children were taken away, let's hope they have a chance now.

“True Blue”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#14263 Dec 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
How's that same sex marriage ban working out for you Brian? Same sex marriage is now the law in Australia. Do you feel threatened?
Well, I'm keeping my fingers crossed on Canberra.

“True Blue”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#14264 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>And we all agree, no copy of same sex marriage law exists in writing before Y2K, right? Same sex relationships have always existed, their are historic examples in art and law. But same sex marriage law is a new thing, less than 14 years old.
If I'm wrong, just cite the law. The Theodosian Code refers to same sex marriage to make it illegal punishable with death by torture. That's no legal argument for same sex marriage and if you're gay or in a long term same sex relationship, a good reason to keep marriage one man and one woman.
Very good, Theodosius.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14265 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>And we all agree, no copy of same sex marriage law exists in writing before Y2K, right? Same sex relationships have always existed, their are historic examples in art and law. But same sex marriage law is a new thing, less than 14 years old.
If I'm wrong, just cite the law. The Theodosian Code refers to same sex marriage to make it illegal punishable with death by torture. That's no legal argument for same sex marriage and if you're gay or in a long term same sex relationship, a good reason to keep marriage one man and one woman.
You mean this state of the art in thinking from 392 CE?

Theodosian Code 9.8.3: "When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion (quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam), what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment."

It was actually the first law passed to prohibit same sex legally recognized marriages anywhere and in 1600+ years you haven't gotten all that much better at it. It was around the same time when same sex sex was declared a sin and prohibited under the same codes. The Church/State did however continued to benefit from the continued practice. Male prostitutes were taxed for another century.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#14266 Dec 6, 2013
If you believe "exquisite punishment" might be interesting, this same sex marriage was a capital offense, they were serious.

#3 Reason for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival

Don't let history repeat itself, think first.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#14267 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you believe "exquisite punishment" might be interesting, this same sex marriage was a capital offense, they were serious.
#3 Reason for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival
Don't let history repeat itself, think first.
Brian, just when I think you can't make yourself look any dumber, you come up with a post like this.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#14268 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you believe "exquisite punishment" might be interesting, this same sex marriage was a capital offense, they were serious.
#3 Reason for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival
Don't let history repeat itself, think first.
It seems that if we decide not to kill people for being gay, or for marrying someone of their same gender, then survival won't be an issue.

Don't let history repeat itself, think first. Don't make consensual acts between adults into capital offenses.

“True Blue”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#14269 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you believe "exquisite punishment" might be interesting, this same sex marriage was a capital offense, they were serious.
#3 Reason for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival
Don't let history repeat itself, think first.
You advocate burning people @ the stake, that was your "exquisite punishment". It's also the origin of the expression f****t, originally the wood used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burning_of_...

You should be proud.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#14270 Dec 6, 2013
I've never advocated capital punishment or criminalizing same sex marriage. Consensual acts between adults isn't the same as state sanctioned sex segregated marriage. Two men or two women were never legally recognized as married in written law, anywhere in the world, before Y2K.

All I'm saying, let's go slow because survival is at stake. See the Theodosian Code for proof.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#14271 Dec 6, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
You advocate burning people @ the stake, that was your "exquisite punishment". It's also the origin of the expression f****t, originally the wood used.[URL deleted] You should be proud.
^^^This is untrue, I've never advocated the use of violence except in self defense. R.W. misunderstands the argument, I argue for life, keeping marriage law as is, male/female.

I oppose acts of barbarism and I recognize life for what it is. Some places on Earth are barbaric. We should fight that battle first, for life not marriage; for our common survival.

Reason number three for keeping marriage one man and one woman, survival.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14272 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Don't let history repeat itself, think first.
You mean like when the Christian Church required sex before marriage and blessed the unions of same sex couples?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#14273 Dec 6, 2013
No, keeping marriage one man and one woman means a society considers sex and marriage a natural union. I bless the union of same sex couples too, I just don't want to rewrite marriage law, it has nothing to do with how I feel about the individuals, just best for the civilization.

One man and one woman marriage is perfect affirmative action, integration and diversity; considering two men or two women as if married licenses sex segregation in marriage. That's never been seen in written law before Y2K.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#14274 Dec 6, 2013
Same sex marriage licenses sterile marriages. I don't think that's a good thing for population growth.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#14275 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you believe "exquisite punishment" might be interesting, this same sex marriage was a capital offense, they were serious.
#3 Reason for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival
Don't let history repeat itself, think first.
So the world will come to an end soon huh?

Really? What nonsense.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#14276 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
No, keeping marriage one man and one woman means a society considers sex and marriage a natural union. I bless the union of same sex couples too, I just don't want to rewrite marriage law, it has nothing to do with how I feel about the individuals, just best for the civilization.
One man and one woman marriage is perfect affirmative action, integration and diversity; considering two men or two women as if married licenses sex segregation in marriage. That's never been seen in written law before Y2K.
How's this going for you Brian? Seems like more and more countries and states are accepting legal same sex marriage. Do feel threatened by this trend?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#14277 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
No, keeping marriage one man and one woman means a society considers sex and marriage a natural union. I bless the union of same sex couples too, I just don't want to rewrite marriage law, it has nothing to do with how I feel about the individuals, just best for the civilization.
One man and one woman marriage is perfect affirmative action, integration and diversity; considering two men or two women as if married licenses sex segregation in marriage. That's never been seen in written law before Y2K.
Sorry Brian, but my wife and I are married like any other opposite-sex couple......and moving forward, eventually all 50 states will be granting the right to marry to Same-Sex couples:-)

One man one woman marriage is NOT perfect Affirmative action, nor is integration solely about opposite genders......and no one cares if marriage has only recently been granted to Same-Sex Couples of they have existed over time.......the fact is that they are here now and they are here to stay!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#14278 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage licenses sterile marriages. I don't think that's a good thing for population growth.
But you do think it's okay for infertile/sterile and women past the childbearing years to marry as long as it is with the opposite-sex, right? This makes you a HYPOCRITE!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14279 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
No, keeping marriage one man and one woman means a society considers sex and marriage a natural union. I bless the union of same sex couples too, I just don't want to rewrite marriage law, it has nothing to do with how I feel about the individuals, just best for the civilization.
One man and one woman marriage is perfect affirmative action, integration and diversity; considering two men or two women as if married licenses sex segregation in marriage. That's never been seen in written law before Y2K.
Actually, one man/one woman marriage isn't a Christian tradition, but one brought to it by the Gentiles. Christianity was born of a polygamous culture that stayed with its Jewish converts until the Gentiles won out. Marriage laws have been written and rewritten countless times over the centuries. Remember, God not only used to bless sex before marriage(for procreative purposes only, so you'd better not enjoy it, God will be watching), His Church required it. Folk used to civilly marry first, because the Church wouldn't even consider blessing your marriage until you proved you and your intended and your recently arrived little b/*tard were in need of one.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14280 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage licenses sterile marriages. I don't think that's a good thing for population growth.
Fun Fact: Arizona's law on first cousin marriages requires the union to be sterile and if I remember right, a couple of states that allow it have age restrictions attached that make reproduction seriously less likely.
You were saying?

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
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 3 min JOHNS ON TOP OF IT 133,299
50% of Black men have STD's ,50% or more have H... (Jul '10) 3 min Obiwan674 177
Black women loyalty (Nov '13) 7 min DiamondSmile89 549
African-American for US Formula 4 9 min chevy1011 1
Why do Blacks call themselves Kings and Queens? (Mar '13) 11 min iamcuriousnow 69
Do white guys like big butts? 11 min PATRIOT DVC MOLON... 11
News Dueling groups to rally at Confederate landmark 13 min John Galt 478
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 2 hr TranshumanX 43,516
HANNIBAL BARCA - of Carthage (North Africa) ... (Oct '07) 3 hr TranshumanX 3,463
Italians are NOT White!!!! (Feb '12) 3 hr negash 6,229
The 1 drop rule means whites are not human 7 hr Ghetto tar baby 24
More from around the web