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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14960 Dec 26, 2013
barry wrote:
....straight or homosexual must be assumed to be.......
SPOTTING THE BIGOT 101

Bigots will be absolutely fine with using the non clinical term when referring to themselves (notice how "straight" as absolutely fine for Barry), but will ALWAYS use the clinical when referring to their opposition!!!

Fundy bigots LOVE to keep the word "sexual" present when discussing gay people!!!! The time and effort they put into doing this reveals MUCH about who they really are, and also negates any pretense that they aren't operating on an agenda!!!

Great work Barry. I'm sure you will win the Shill of the Month award. You deserve it!!!!

“no one told me”

Level 1

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#14961 Dec 26, 2013
JohnInToronto wrote:
Do they really think all the black folks in Illinois are going to start to vote Republican just because of SSM?
I DON'T THINK SO!
Anything is possible, all blacks did used to be republicans after all.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14962 Dec 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>and the court will decide that the ag acted beyond the scope of his authority.
Really? Didn't work that way in New Mexico for the bigot photographer, or in Colorado for the bigot baker. You see Barry, the courts can clearly see that no religious rights are infringed upon in these situations. These bigots are merely trying to use religion as an excuse to discriminate. These bigots aren't being infringed upon in any way.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
they might be a protected class but she obviously did not refuse to service them based on their class as they were well established customers.
Bullshyt. Every time you try and strut out this disingenuous piece of bullshyt, it just makes me laugh. I'm still trying to figure out if you actually believe what you are saying. Given the bigotry in your posts, I'm doubtful.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
she declined to be associated with the event, a ss wedding.
It was a wedding, the same event she'd serviced for decades. The participants were ss, not the wedding. And she wasn't ever associated with the event. Even if she had not broken the law and had provided the flower arrangements, she would STILL not be associated with the event. The FLOWERS were to be part of the event, not her.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so yes i am claiming that the event is not protected and that would mean that she does not have to serve it.
Of course that's what your claiming, because you're trying to defend a bigot. She didn't turn down the event, she turned down the participants. The event didn't try to patronize her business, the participants did. THAT'S who was refused.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14963 Dec 26, 2013
barry wrote:
"God not only blessed..."
now that is the most bizarre statement that i have ever heard. however i am genuinely interested in how you come to that conclusion.
History lesson, you may want to start taking notes. For its first 15 centuries, the Western Christian Church only blessed marriages of couples who needed one, because they had gone the fruitful and multiplied route. The Church would bless a couple's betrothal, which Gave God's approval to have sex for procreative purposes only. They would only bless a couple in marriage if they had been successful. Couples were married by civil authorities well before the Church would do it. The Council of Trent turned this notion on its head by insisting that couples get married BEFORE they actually needed to. You really should look up the views of the early Protestants on the subject, they were uniformly opposed to that change.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14964 Dec 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
as to "public accommodations" she does not fall under the category of "public accommodations" as defined by federal law.
Yes, she most certainly does, both according to the STATE (which is what the case is about right now, right Barry? Not federal)

According to Washington State (the capitalization emphasis is mine to help you out Barry, we all know how intentionally slow you like to appear):

Places of public accommodation include, but are not limited to:
• Public resorts;
• Places of accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;
• Public schools;
• Private institutions open to the public for an event or gathering;
• Places of patronage, including government offices, STORES, shopping malls, theaters, libraries, hospitals, and transit
facilities.

But just to be clear, according to federal US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private (thus treating private business enterprises as if they were part of the government), that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions are exempt.

Tell us Barry, if her business is not considered a Public Accomodation, what spin would you like to pretend her business is? Is her floral shop a private club? Is it a religious institution?

Spell it out for us Barry, what type of business was she running if not a retail service establishment?
barry

Henagar, AL

#14965 Dec 26, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the dictionary meanings of the word obey is "to submit or conform in action to".
Link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obey...
And a thesaurus lists "submit" as a synonym of "obey".
Link: http://thesaurus.com/browse/obey... (direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcm d=(none)&__utmv=-&__ut mk=177191205
So apparently you just use your ignorance of the English language as a means to avoid compliance with Christian scripture.
<quoted text>
Perhaps if so many Christians had not cited their religious beliefs to justify slavery and segregation, blacks wouldn't have been torn from their families and homelands and mistreated in the US for so long either.
Perhaps if so many Christians had not persecuted Jews for so many centures and branded them "Christ killers", German Christians would not have been so conditioned to turn a blind eye to more of the same.
And by the way, gays and gypsies were also targeted and sent to concentrations camps and killed in Nazi Germany. Apparently there are any number of minority groups through the years that Chtristians have actively mistreated or by their inaction allowed to be mistreated...
yes, my ignorance of the english language. how lame is that. my wife is an english teacher with advanced degrees who speaks at state, national and international conventions. her sister is a few hours short of her doctorate in english and will retire to teaching in a college/university setting. one of my sons has his degrees in two languages. the other has a minor and is also fluent in two languages. i said all of that to point out that since i also work in two languages i understand a few things about translating.
the NT was translated from the greek. the word in question that is translated "submit" in the one passage and "subject" in the other is never translated "obey" although obey certainly could be inferred. however since the word "obey" was available to them at the time of the translation, it was not used because it was not a proper translation. in fact the two words that are translated "obey are never translated "submit" or "subject". the meaning is distinctly different. therefore the choice of the word does not mean "obey"
the profit Daniel certainly did not obey the king when he chose to pray in spite of the law. however he did submit to the punishment that the law required. the three hebrew children told the king to go ahead and throw them in the fiery furnace because they were not going to bow the knee to his statue. they also submitted to the punishment of the law. peter certainly did not obey the law when it came to preaching and proselytizing but he did submit to the punishment/consequences. the apostle paul did the same. in fact you can see that all the apostles and the early church while peacefully subject to the government never completely obeyed the government when it came to matters of conscience and obedience to the word of God.
so the Bible itself gives us the interpretation of the passages.
and then you trot out the slavery thing because a few people called themselves "Christians" and tried to use the Bible as an excuse. well perhaps if the real Christians would have had some courage and stood together it would not have been an issue in this country. the slavery of the Bible was not the slavery that was practiced here in the south and many knew it.
the same could be said for the germany situation.
perhaps you are right it was the fault of the " Chtristians" but it was also the fault of real Christians who were afraid to stand up and lay down their possesions and their lives if necessary.
barry

Henagar, AL

#14966 Dec 26, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>History lesson, you may want to start taking notes. For its first 15 centuries, the Western Christian Church only blessed marriages of couples who needed one, because they had gone the fruitful and multiplied route. The Church would bless a couple's betrothal, which Gave God's approval to have sex for procreative purposes only. They would only bless a couple in marriage if they had been successful. Couples were married by civil authorities well before the Church would do it. The Council of Trent turned this notion on its head by insisting that couples get married BEFORE they actually needed to. You really should look up the views of the early Protestants on the subject, they were uniformly opposed to that change.
the bizarre gets more bizarre. how about a credible source for this?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14967 Dec 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the bizarre gets more bizarre. how about a credible source for this?
Oh look, the fundie that NEVER supports his own claims, even after being asked on numerous occasions, now wants other to cite. Typical hypocrisy.

We're all still anxiously awaiting the "research" you stated that was being conducted that concludes that gender identity and sexual orientation are related. Will you be citing the research any time soon Barry?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14968 Dec 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>. the slavery of the Bible was not the slavery that was practiced here in the south
Oh lookie! Not only do we have justifiable discrimination and bad discrimination according to Barry, but we have justifiable slavery and bad slavery.

What a POS you are.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14969 Dec 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text> but it was also the fault of real Christians .....
"real Christians". What a load of BS. Would the "real Christians" be the ones that lie about research? Or would they be like the ones that think some slavery is justifiable?

Here's Barry at Sunday School.....
http://www.eatliver.com/i.php...

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#14970 Dec 26, 2013
barry wrote:
i have never had a bank ask me what i was borrowing money for unless i thought that i could get a better rate for a mortgage or a car loan. btw never took out a car loan.
This is bizarrely self-contradictory. You’ve never had a bank ask you why you were borrowing money… unless they DID ask you? So did they or didn’t they?

And was it for a car loan? Something that you’ve never asked for? How can you say that they’ve only asked you what the money was for if it was for a car loan, and then admit that you’ve never asked for a car loan? If you’ve never asked for a car loan, then you have no experience on whether they ask the reason or not.

I have no way of knowing if you’ve truly ever asked for a bank loan. But I do know that some banks DO ask why money is being borrowed. It helps them assess whether the loan is a risk. I don’t know whether ALL banks do this, or YOUR bank, but there are banks that do. Suppose the loan is for a small business, and that business is a gay bar? Can the banker deny them NOW, based on his religious beliefs?
barry wrote:
a doctor/hospital should be able to decline selective abortions. that would be a better example.
And what if a doctor or hospital decided to decline service to a same-sex married couple? Or decline visitation rights? Or refuse to share diagnoses with the legal spouse? What if the management of a cemetery that manages a family plot refuses to allow a legal member of that family to be buried alongside their loved ones?

There are endless permutations for these questions. To leave the matter vague, or to allow everyone to set their own standards, is unworkable, and only duplicates the national climate of the Jim Crow era. A single standard, enforced equally for everyone, is the best and fairest way.
barry wrote:
and your snide comment about "all those same-sex marriages of OTHER purposes happening all over the place" shows your naivety with what has already happened or been tried when it comes to adoption and marriage relationships.
By all means, educate me. What has already happened or been tried?
barry wrote:
a gas station would have no association with the event. and besides why would they ask?
So where is the line drawn? Which types of businesses can discriminate, and which must serve? For legal purposes, there would have to be an established standard. Could a motel deny a room to a same-sex couple? Suppose the gas station attendant DOES ask, just out of conversational curiosity? Where you folks headed? To our wedding. Oh, I can’t help you get THERE… religion, you know.

There would need to be legal standards defining the “level of participation” of a business, to determine at what point a business may opt out. How would you suggest setting those standards?

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#14971 Dec 26, 2013
barry wrote:
and then you try to use amazon which apparently censures and bans books from its site.
Don’t you think they have the right to select what they sell on their own website? They just don’t have the right to limit whom they sell TO. There are no books which one group of people may purchase, that another group may not.

What about a smaller company online? Mary’s Home Décor of Localville, or some such. Is she “participating” in the establishment of someone’s standard of living, and may she decline to ship orders if she believes, or discovers as fact, that she is shipping to a gay couple?

You are not suggesting any places where a line can be drawn, where standards are set. Such unregulated business practices are ripe for abuse.

It’s all well and good for you to just say “lame” after my ever example, but that style of argument would not get you very far in a courtroom.
barry wrote:
if accommodations must be made for muslims and their religious freedom to avoid handling pork
Here’s how I would accommodate that: If we sell things that you can’t touch, then don’t ask for a job. Don’t apply for jobs that you cannot do.
barry wrote:
then you try to use a "green card" example like that would be obvious to everyone involved.
It can become obvious. Such a business could already know that this were the case, if they were serving family or friends that they knew were trying for a green card. The point illustrates that businesses who want to discriminate in this way are not being consistent. I’ve never in my life heard of a florist or baker refusing to serve a divorced person’s second wedding, which should be equally against their religion. Some of these news stories even describe reporters calling these businesses posing as customers who want cakes or flowers to celebrate divorce, abortion, cloning, and wedding ceremonies for two dogs. None were rejected. These people are hypocrites, who only want to discriminate against gay people, and no one else.
barry wrote:
then you trot out the tried and true inter racial marriage. i say let them try it if they want to.
No, you do not say that. You contradict this claim in your very next sentences:
barry wrote:
until they refuse a couple based on the assumption of their inter racial status and find out that they are wrong. then let the law suits roll.
You see? You completely agree with me that a law should be established in advance, so that the lawsuits CAN roll in. You just seem to want this law selectively applied.

And you agree with me AGAIN, on another point:
barry wrote:
its sort of like trying to determine if someone is legal or illegal. have fun until you make a mistake
You obviously see the confusion that would arise if businesses had to GUESS if they could discriminate or not. Business owners should not be forced to “have fun” and risk making this mistake. They should know in advance what the established standard is, to keep them out of trouble.
barry wrote:
however this couple was never shunned or villainized they were well established customers
Yet such shunning occurs every day, all over the world. The people who do it claim it is because of their “morals”. This merchant’s denial is an outgrowth of that attitude.
barry wrote:
you proceed to lay out your moral code that we all must abide by.
You don’t have to abide by anything I say. But I know that my morals are BETTER, at least in this case. Morals should guide people to welcome everyone into the fold of humanity, not label innocent people as an outsider caste.
barry wrote:
morals were designed to build divisions or we wouldn't be locking up our criminals
If you can’t tell the difference between criminals and innocent citizens, your morals need severe re-examining.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#14972 Dec 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is like locking out a worker because he believes marriage should be one man and one woman.
If you believe in civil discourse and not harming the livelihood of your political opposition then keep marriage one man and one woman.
Nice rant. It simply isn't like that Brian.

How's that clueless propaganda working out for you Brian?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14973 Dec 26, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what I said? I simply stated that a Bisexual person can change and does choose who they want to be with.........they are still in a protected class simply because they are BISEXUAL and are part of the GLBTQI Community!!!
So then they should be able to marry according to their orientation, one of each gender, if they so choose.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14974 Dec 26, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>History lesson, you may want to start taking notes.
Here's another history lesson, YOU may want to take notes.

The Invention of Homosexuality ... and Heterosexuality
Christians often ask, "Is homosexuality a sin?" The better questions are, "What is homosexuality?" and "Where did this label come from?"

By Jenell Paris and Veritas Riff, October 03, 2011

But what if this very thing that is the source of so much contention, this thing called "sexual identity," doesn't really exist? Or what if it doesn't exist, at least,...... How would that change how we wrestle with these conflicts? Jenell Paris, a cultural anthropologist teaching at Messiah College, has posed these questions and provided her own answer in her recent book, The End of Sexual Identity. Her book makes the historical argument that the very concept of a homosexual versus heterosexual identity is a relatively modern invention.

Can you say more about that historical invention process?

Let's start by looking at a particular historical moment. In Colonial America, people who engaged in same-sex sex were labeled "sodomites." So the label for a certain sexual practice was thoroughly religious and it wasn't a whole identity category. You could move in and out of the category "sodomite" depending on your behavior. Probably the more important identity category is gender: being a man or woman. In the 19th century, medical sex researchers created the categories "heterosexual" and "homosexual" in an attempt to make sense of proper or deviant sexuality. Those categories have shifted over time. They have meant different things. We now have different words like lesbian, gay, and bisexual added to the repertoire. But the concept that sexual feelings are linked to identity is a 19th-century medical concept.

Was it also the 19th century when these labels gained currency in the broader culture?

Those didn't really influence the general public until the 1930s, when those words became a more common part of American discourse. So in thinking about even my own family, just to take an example, we could say that my grandfather who came of age in the 1910s probably didn't have a sexual identity. He was a fundamentalist minister, but he was a man, he was a Christian, and his sexuality got wrapped around those concepts, not his identity understood in terms of his sexuality.

My parents remember getting a sexual identity in the 1960s. So these ideas came a little late for them but they both can talk about realizing, "Oh, I am heterosexual; there is such a thing and I am going to claim one of those labels for myself." I, growing up in the ‘80s, always had a sexual identity. So we can see across the 20th century there has been a deeper and deeper entrenchment of that concept in American self-understandings.

And these changes correspond to how different generations have understood the role and meaning of sex in human life?

Right. If anything, sex was considered a more communal element of life. It had to do with reproduction, with family, with extended family, and with church and community. Sexual identity categories radically individualized the meaning of sex in the human experience. So the meaning of sex is now located primarily within the individual and her private, innermost feelings.

As an anthropologist, why do you think these changes occurred?

I think there are many different social factors around increasing individualism, even urbanization and other factors that don't seem directly related to sex. Urbanization made it possible for people to move far away from their families and have relationships or sexual experiences that their kin would never even know about. So people were gaining more freedom to cultivate sexual experiences that were more individualized, and I think this influenced the scientific community to categorize sexuality in ways that were more individual and less religious and less communal.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14975 Dec 26, 2013
barry wrote:
the bizarre gets more bizarre. how about a credible source for this?
The truth is usually a lot stranger than fiction. Do your own homework, I did. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14976 Dec 26, 2013
[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"
Here's another history lesson, YOU may want to take notes.
The Invention of Homosexuality ... and Heterosexuality
[/QUOTE]While the concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality are modern one, the concept of folk having a sexual identity has always been with us. We all know who we are in that regard, even if there isn't all that good of a name to slap on it. Homosexuals have been with the human species since its inceptions, whether you like it or not. The love that dare not speak its name has always been very much a part of the human experience, even when there wasn't a name for it. With all due respect to Ms Paris, sodomite was a legal concept which applied across gender boundaries, not a label one used for self-identity. She conveniently forgets that sodomy was legally and morally prohibited for heterosexuals too.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#14977 Dec 26, 2013
barry wrote:
I hope you DON'T believe that you're the ONLY person in these threads with higher educational degrees, are ya? Because I'm glad you and your family have all of these great degrees, but many of us here have major degrees as well........so, no need to brag about your family's accomplishments!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14978 Dec 26, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>While the concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality are modern one, the concept of folk having a sexual identity has always been with us. We all know who we are in that regard, even if there isn't all that good of a name to slap on it.
Same sex sexual behavior is not new, the idea of a sexual identity is virtually a modern western invention. Odd that despite thousands of years of human history, including the practice of same sex sexual behavior, it didn't get a name until relatively recently. The term ‘homosexuality’ was coined in the late 19th century by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert.
Homosexuals have been with the human species since its inceptions, whether you like it or not. The love that dare not speak its name has always been very much a part of the human experience, even when there wasn't a name for it.
People who have engaged in same sex sexual behavior have been around as long as there has been SSSB to engage in. "Homosexuals" are a recent invention.
With all due respect to Ms Paris, sodomite was a legal concept which applied across gender boundaries, not a label one used for self-identity. She conveniently forgets that sodomy was legally and morally prohibited for heterosexuals too.
No, not "heterosexuals", but simply men and women. "Heterosexuals" we're invented after "homosexuals".

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#14979 Dec 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Odd that despite thousands of years of human history, including the practice of same sex sexual behavior, it didn't get a name until relatively recently.
It's not so odd, when you consider that instead of striving to identify this behavior and the psychological underpinnings, and learn about it and actually give it a proper name, people simply gave us a rock to the head, or electroshock treatment, or chemical castration.

There isn't going to be much learning or naming happening, when people think they have a God-ordained duty to just condemn something, without so much as examination, research or discovery.

Was it "odd" that Galileo or Copernicus had to fear reprisal for sharing their knowledge of heliocentrism, even though the facts of celestial motion were fully available to the Church at the time? No, that's just how churches do things. Label "abomination" first, ask questions 500 years later.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,418,990
Trump will carry atleast 25% of the BLACK VOTE 5 min bluestreak returns 239
49er QB Colin Kaepernick is WAKING UP 7 min MICHA 3
MeSo Apologizes !! 7 min KIP 7
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 8 min Sheriff Joe 529 345
Why do good looking black women like white men ... (Sep '12) 8 min Death 7,589
My THESIS on whites and Albinism. (Nov '12) 9 min Owner 99
Black Failure 16 min KIP 64
News What does 'diversity' mean to you? The answer m... (Aug '14) 1 hr Mite Be 58
Why aren't there any Negroes in the Bible? 2 hr thetruth 514
More from around the web