Black Churches Key to Illinois Gay Ma...

Black Churches Key to Illinois Gay Marriage Debate

There are 18 comments on the EDGE story from May 15, 2013, titled Black Churches Key to Illinois Gay Marriage Debate. In it, EDGE reports that:

When a proposal to legalize gay marriage started gaining momentum in the home state of President Barack Obama, it seemed a quick and easy deal: The pastor of his former megachurch endorsed it with powerful testimony at the Capitol and Democrats control Illinois' government.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#1 May 15, 2013
What a dilemma for the christians! "I got in through the Civil Rights door but, gee, should I let you in as well?! I've suffered so much more than you seem to be suffering, so I'd rather just leave you out in the cold."

How typically christian of them.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#2 May 15, 2013
Blacks are the most homophobic, prejudiced, and hypocritical segment of our society.

Since: Oct 10

San Francisco

#3 May 15, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Blacks are the most homophobic, prejudiced, and hypocritical segment of our society.
And you are the most racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, xenophobic, pedophilic, right-wing, and hypocritical gay troll on Topix.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4 May 15, 2013
Gee, I thought that was Republicans.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#5 May 15, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Blacks are the most homophobic, prejudiced, and hypocritical segment of our society.
Blacks?-- We were talking about christians. Don't be stereotyping the Blacks, now! Our president is Black, and he's certainly neither homophobic nor prejudiced. Many Blacks are atheists, and they are also not homophobic. The one factor that seems to turn a Black person into a prejudiced, hypocritical homophobe is the christian religion. Do you need proof?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6 May 15, 2013
They said the black churches in Maryland would stop the referendum there. Baltimore voted overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality.

Black politicians are unlikely to be persuaded to vote en masse based on hide-bound orthodoxy.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#7 May 15, 2013
Umninimuzi wrote:
<quoted text>
Blacks?-- We were talking about christians. Don't be stereotyping the Blacks, now! Our president is Black, and he's certainly neither homophobic nor prejudiced. Many Blacks are atheists, and they are also not homophobic. The one factor that seems to turn a Black person into a prejudiced, hypocritical homophobe is the christian religion. Do you need proof?
I've known, and been friends with, many black people in my life. Not ALL black people are homophobic, and I didn't say that. But from my experience, a FAR GREATER percentage of black people ARE homophobic than are white people. And of the homophobic black people I have known, 99% of those people were NOT church-goers.
Sheldon

Alexandria, VA

#8 May 15, 2013
Blacks have among the lowest marriage rates of any ethnic groups in the U.S., even among regular church-goers less than 1/3 of black children are born within marriage, so I find it hard to imagine they care all that much one way or the other.

Maybe Illinois is different.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#9 May 15, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Blacks are the most homophobic, prejudiced, and hypocritical segment of our society.
You forget that an article with nearly the same title appeared just before Maryland and the black population in Maryland voted overwhelmingly to support marriage equality.

And that you made the same opening statement on that thread as well.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#10 May 15, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
They said the black churches in Maryland would stop the referendum there. Baltimore voted overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality.
Black politicians are unlikely to be persuaded to vote en masse based on hide-bound orthodoxy.
Thank you for reminding everyone about Maryland. I lived in Delaware before MD and I'm blown away that I can "marry" in those two states now.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11 May 15, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You forget that an article with nearly the same title appeared just before Maryland and the black population in Maryland voted overwhelmingly to support marriage equality.
And that you made the same opening statement on that thread as well.
So what you're saying is: "You bring GOOD LUCK !:)"

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#12 May 15, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I've known, and been friends with, many black people in my life. Not ALL black people are homophobic, and I didn't say that. But from my experience, a FAR GREATER percentage of black people ARE homophobic than are white people. And of the homophobic black people I have known, 99% of those people were NOT church-goers.
This is what you said: "Blacks are the most homophobic, prejudiced, and hypocritical segment of our society." Not "some," not even "a significant percentage" but: "Blacks" -- generalizing. That was a racist remark and you should admit it and apologize.

I won't hold my breath, though, for I have never seen you apologize for any of the vile remarks you are wont to make on this forum. For all your protestations, just another christian hypocrite, pronouncing others evil and consigning them to hellfire while considering yourself righteous as snow.
What the FFFF

Aptos, CA

#13 May 16, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for reminding everyone about Maryland. I lived in Delaware before MD and I'm blown away that I can "marry" in those two states now.
I know you. You put something in the water when you were there, didn't you! It's all your fault. C'mon! Fess up!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#14 May 16, 2013
Umninimuzi wrote:
What a dilemma for the christians! "I got in through the Civil Rights door but, gee, should I let you in as well?! I've suffered so much more than you seem to be suffering, so I'd rather just leave you out in the cold."
How typically christian of them.
Yes, our pew warmers homophobia can be relied upon to raise its ugly head. So where is their outrage against other equally forbidden things in the Bible:

What about the O.T. laws that are conveniently ignored, but of equal weight? Biblicists act as if many did not exist. The following examples are typical:

(a) Money cannot be lent at interest to your brother, only to foreigners (Deut. 23:19-20);
(b) Eating pork is forbidden (Deut. 14:8);
(c) A man must marry and have relations with his dead brother's wife (Deut. 25:5-6);
(d) A seducer must marry an unengaged virgin whom he seduces (Ex. 22:16-17);
(e) A raped, unengaged virgin must marry her rapist and they can never divorce (Deut. 22:28-29);
(f) Trials for adultery are to be by ordeal (Num. 5:28-29);
(g) Eating rare meat with blood is forbidden (Lev. 19:26);
(h) Beards can't be rounded (Lev. 19:27);
(i) A newly married man can't go to war or be charged with business for one year (Deut. 24:5);
(j) A guilty man can be beaten with as many as forty blows (Deut. 25:1-3);
(k) A garment composed of wool and linen can't be worn (Deut. 22:11);
(l) Punishment shall be administered on the basis of an eye for an eye (Deut. 19:21, Ex. 21:24);
(m) One's nation can lend to other nations but not borrow from them (Deut. 15:6);
(n) Bastards can't enter the Lord's congregation (Deut. 23:2);
(o) First-born children should sometimes be sacrificed to the Lord (Ex. 22:29); and
(p) Debtor brothers shall be released from their obligation every seven years (Deut. 15:1-3).

All of these rules are part of the Old Covenant and of equal import.

Where is the outrage against local BBQ restaurants who specialize in pork?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#15 May 16, 2013
Umninimuzi wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what you said: "Blacks are the most homophobic, prejudiced, and hypocritical segment of our society." Not "some," not even "a significant percentage" but: "Blacks" -- generalizing. That was a racist remark and you should admit it and apologize.
I won't hold my breath, though, for I have never seen you apologize for any of the vile remarks you are wont to make on this forum. For all your protestations, just another christian hypocrite, pronouncing others evil and consigning them to hellfire while considering yourself righteous as snow.
It was a pretty nasty comment to post wasn't it. Yes there are blacks who are homophobic but when you are a racists you see the faults in other races while not seeing them in your own.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#16 May 16, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text> from my experience, a FAR GREATER percentage of black people ARE homophobic than are white people... 99% of those people were NOT church-goers.
Everyone suffers from the influence of Christianity. Just because one does not go to church does not mean that they have not been subjected to certain Christian teachings. Even Atheists and Anti-theists carry a lot of Christian baggage around, many don't even see the extend that many of their beliefs are from growing up in a society where people claim to be Christians and spout off about it all day long trying to cram it down our thoats.

Instead of trying to compare gays with blacks why not with the struggle women went through to vote?

Here is why women were not allowed to vote:

In both the Old and New Testaments women are assigned a position not appreciably different from that of domestic servants. Their status is demeaning, debilitating, and wholly incompatible with self-respect and confidence. Except for Mary, Eve, Ruth, Sarah, Rachel, and a few lesser figures, few biblical women have roles of significance, and even fewer are worthy of emulation. Eve, for example, is blamed for the creation of Original Sin. The Bible says as much: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (1 Tim. 2:12-14, NIV)." Is it any wonder that women's groups oppose this narrative? With his usual wit, Ingersoll once observed: "...nearly every religion has accounted for all the devilment in this world by the crime of woman. What a gallant thing that is! And if it is true, I had rather live with the woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to live in heaven with nothing but men (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. I, p.358)." One of the saddest and most perplexing dilemmas one can experience in modern society is confronting women who strongly believe and defend a book that so clearly assigns them a degrading and subservient status. How do you reach those who are defending a philosophy that is so totally opposed to their interests? To use the vernacular, the Bible is sexist and permeated with male supremacy, as the following verses show only to well: "...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Genesis 3:16)." "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;....(1 Cor. 11:3)." "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man (1 Cor. 11:9)." "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husband, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife.... Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husband in every thing (Eph. 5:22-24)."

If these are not sufficient, there are more. The evidence is overwhelming. Apologists try to soft-pedal the entire matter, but facts are stubborn things. It isn't just Paul, but the entire Bible that's guilty. Is it any wonder that feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, once said: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of woman's emancipation (Free Thought Magazine, Vol. 14, 1896)." "I know of no other book that so fully teaches the subjection and degradation of women (Eight Years and More, Elizabeth C. Stanton, p. 395)." Not to be outdone, Ingersoll again displayed his wisdom by saying: "...it (the bible) is not the friend of woman. They will find that the writers of that book, for the most part, speak of woman as a poor beast of burden, a serf, a drudge, a kind of necessary evil--as mere property (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 12, p.43)." "As long as woman regards the Bible as the charter of her rights, she will be the slave of man. The Bible was not written by a woman. Within its lids there is nothing but humiliation and shame for her. She is regarded as the property of man.... She is as much below her husband, as her husband is below Christ (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. I, p. 396)."

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#17 May 16, 2013
Umninimuzi wrote:
<quoted text>
Blacks?-- We were talking about christians. Don't be stereotyping the Blacks, now! Our president is Black, and he's certainly neither homophobic nor prejudiced. Many Blacks are atheists, and they are also not homophobic. The one factor that seems to turn a Black person into a prejudiced, hypocritical homophobe is the christian religion. Do you need proof?
Nicely said. And exactly right!

So why don't we compare the gay rights movement with women's rights as well as what blacks had to go through? Let us take a look at why women were not allowed to vote:

In both the Old and New Testaments women are assigned a position not appreciably different from that of domestic servants. Their status is demeaning, debilitating, and wholly incompatible with self-respect and confidence. Except for Mary, Eve, Ruth, Sarah, Rachel, and a few lesser figures, few biblical women have roles of significance, and even fewer are worthy of emulation. Eve, for example, is blamed for the creation of Original Sin. The Bible says as much: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (1 Tim. 2:12-14, NIV)." Is it any wonder that women's groups oppose this narrative? With his usual wit, Ingersoll once observed: "...nearly every religion has accounted for all the devilment in this world by the crime of woman. What a gallant thing that is! And if it is true, I had rather live with the woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to live in heaven with nothing but men (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. I, p.358)." One of the saddest and most perplexing dilemmas one can experience in modern society is confronting women who strongly believe and defend a book that so clearly assigns them a degrading and subservient status. How do you reach those who are defending a philosophy that is so totally opposed to their interests? To use the vernacular, the Bible is sexist and permeated with male supremacy, as the following verses show only to well: "...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Genesis 3:16)." "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;....(1 Cor. 11:3)." "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man (1 Cor. 11:9)." "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husband, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife.... Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husband in every thing (Eph. 5:22-24)." Anyone desiring more proof should read: Deut. 21:10-14, 24:1-4, Judges 5:30, Esther 1:20-22, Rom. 7:2, 1 Col. 3:18, Titus 2:4-5, 1 Peter 3:1, Lev. 12:2, 5, Gen. 3:20.

If these are not sufficient, there are more. The evidence is overwhelming. Apologists try to soft-pedal the entire matter, but facts are stubborn things. It isn't just Paul, but the entire Bible that's guilty. Is it any wonder that feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, once said: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of woman's emancipation (Free Thought Magazine, Vol. 14, 1896)." "I know of no other book that so fully teaches the subjection and degradation of women (Eight Years and More, Elizabeth C. Stanton, p. 395)." Not to be outdone, Ingersoll again displayed his wisdom by saying: "...it (the bible) is not the friend of woman. They will find that the writers of that book, for the most part, speak of woman as a poor beast of burden, a serf, a drudge, a kind of necessary evil--as mere property (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 12, p.43)." "As long as woman regards the Bible as the charter of her rights, she will be the slave of man. The Bible was not written by a woman. Within its lids there is nothing but humiliation and shame for her. She is regarded as the property of man.... She is as much below her husband, as her husband is below Christ (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. I, p. 396)."

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#18 May 16, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Nicely said. And exactly right!
So why don't we compare the gay rights movement with women's rights as well as what blacks had to go through? Let us take a look at why women were not allowed to vote:
You hit the nail squarely on the head with this post, Alan. Thank you!

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Husband of Luxembourg's gay Prime Minister join... 5 min Oscar 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 10 min Rose_NoHo 6,188
News 1 step forward, 2 steps back for LBGT rights in... 54 min Dr Know 11
News New Art Therapy Studio Draws on Power of Expres... 21 hr Dive4lifeblue 2
News Daycare worker, 23, is charged with the murder Sun Fit2Serve 2
News Church of Scotland moves closer to letting mini... Fri Pope Closet Emeritus 2
News From the Mouth of Muhammad: 'Allah Will Wed Me ... May 26 Muslims lie all t... 2
More from around the web