Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments
13,081 - 13,100 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14252
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
More like two thousand years. New in American history, English common law from which our concept of marriage is taken, and certainly new in Western Civilization.
If it's such a hot idea, crucial to societal stability and survival, why hasn't it sustained itself from ancient times, until now?
Because of bigots like you fighting to maintain discrimination against and infringement of others' fundamental rights.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14253
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Or bigots intervened and made it illegal and subjected gays to political, legal and social persecution, with Christians leading the way in western civilization with the Christian Roman emperor.
The problem with that is, "gays" didn't exist until the early 20th century.
Only stupid people like you seem to conflate longevity of a practice with legitimacy or think a minority group historically subjected to discrimination and persecution could somehow force a majority to recognize their fundamental rights in the past.
Only stupid people with a political agenda would interject into the past, contemporary concepts of sexuality and other behaviors, that would be alien to the time and place, into which their being interjected.

Or maybe the behavior was on the fringes of society, and said society never felt a need to mainstream it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14254
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Because of bigots like you fighting to maintain discrimination against and infringement of others' fundamental rights.
Of course, because it was deemed a "fundamental right" by all societies preceding ours......oh madone!

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14255
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
The problem with that is, "gays" didn't exist until the early 20th century.
Sure they did. They were just called other names. There have always been people attracted to others of the same sex, small Peter. Your conned linguistic gymnastics will never change that fact.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Only stupid people with a political agenda would interject into the past, contemporary concepts of sexuality and other behaviors, that would be alien to the time and place, into which their being interjected.
Whining about historical fact doesn't change it, small Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or maybe the behavior was on the fringes of society, and said society never felt a need to mainstream it.
No one has ever demanded that the majority practice the behavior, stupid Peter. They're just asking not to be punished and discriminated against based on what we now know is an innate and normal variant of human sexual orientation. Now that we know better, it's past time to stop the discrimination started by ignorant people in the past.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14256
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with that is, "gays" didn't exist until the early 20th century.
Not true......Gays and Lesbians have been around since the beginning of time!!!

The labels are what have ONLY existed since the 19th century!!!

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14257
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
More like two thousand years. New in American history, English common law from which our concept of marriage is taken, and certainly new in Western Civilization.
If it's such a hot idea, crucial to societal stability and survival, why hasn't it sustained itself from ancient times, until now?
Beating, threatening and shaming gay people into silence and marginalization has been the hot idea that has sustained itself since ancient times.

Are you arguing that this should continue, and be promoted as the correct way to do things?

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14258
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, because it was deemed a "fundamental right" by all societies preceding ours......oh madone!
It's not my problem you continue to mischaracterize the legal accomplishment of the fundamental right of marriage (establishing kinship between previously unrelated parties) and conflate restrictions on the right (number and gender make up of participants) with the definition of the right. Your "definition" of one man and one woman has NEVER encompassed all forms of marriage across cultures and times either so spare us your whining hypocrisy.

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14259
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with that is, "gays" didn't exist until the early 20th century.
<quoted text>
Only stupid people with a political agenda would interject into the past, contemporary concepts of sexuality and other behaviors, that would be alien to the time and place, into which their being interjected.
Or maybe the behavior was on the fringes of society, and said society never felt a need to mainstream it.
If that is true, that gays didn't exist until the early 20th century, how would you know. By your reasoning and use of semantics, YOU did not exist prior to 12 May 2012 when your avatar came into being.

Now go away and play with you dulpo blocks like a good 18 month old and leave the adult discussions to your elders.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14260
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NorCal Native wrote:
As was previous stated to you.....marriage for Same-Sex couples is NOT a new thing just in the last century or this one.....but Brian KNOWS this already and still wants to ignore it.....go for it Brian, you still are losing this battle!!!
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.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Let the games begin. . .”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Botany Bay

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Let the games begin. . .”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Botany Bay

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Let the games begin. . .”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Botany Bay

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14265
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14266
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14267
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Let the games begin. . .”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Botany Bay

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14270
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14271
Dec 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••