Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,562

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.

Full Story

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2333 Feb 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So what's your point? Racial segregation in marrisge is bad, but gender segregation in marriage is good?
Is stupidity on your level physically painful? If so, you're going to need morphine!

"Gender segregation". LOL, you got that from Brian_G who is dumber than dirt.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2334 Feb 11, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is stupidity on your level physically painful? If so, you're going to need morphine!
"Gender segregation". LOL, you got that from Brian_G who is dumber than dirt.
Actually Rose I had used it on another thread. I was surprised to someone else had used it. Brian sounds like a smart fella....the problem is, for some, same sex marriage is such a secular sacred cow, that to speak against it is heresy. I sometimes wonder if the ultimate goal of the SSM movement is the devaluation of marriage as a distinct relationship. At what point does it become pointless?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2335 Feb 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Rose I had used it on another thread. I was surprised to someone else had used it. Brian sounds like a smart fella....
Figures you'd think someone who believe the legalization of gay marriage will make it so members of pro sports teams are going to be forced to marry each other against their wills is smart.
Pietro Armando wrote:
the problem is, for some, same sex marriage is such a secular sacred cow, that to speak against it is heresy. I sometimes wonder if the ultimate goal of the SSM movement is the devaluation of marriage as a distinct relationship. At what point does it become pointless?
What causes your homophobia? Sexual insecurity? Tell us, now does gay marriage devalue marriage?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2336 Feb 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Rose I had used it on another thread. I was surprised to someone else had used it. Brian sounds like a smart fella....the problem is, for some, same sex marriage is such a secular sacred cow, that to speak against it is heresy. I sometimes wonder if the ultimate goal of the SSM movement is the devaluation of marriage as a distinct relationship. At what point does it become pointless?
Devaluation of marriage as a distinct relationship has been occurring in the hetero population for the last 50 years
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/bar...
.
In the 8 years that U.S. gay people have been legally marrying; we have experienced no devaluation whatsoever. We enjoy explosive growth in marriage statistics
http://makeitequal.org/
.
Marriage = saved by the gays!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2337 Feb 11, 2013
More people participating under the same laws currently in effect does not devalue the institution, unless you are emotionally disturbed by knowing others have the same fundamental rights you enjoy. The laws that determine "what" marriage is do not change. Only the "who" is expanded to include same gender couples.

Segregation is an imposed restriction. Removing the gender requirements cannot be considered an imposed restriction. It allows grea it provides more of the same.ter freedom of individual access to a fundamental right. It expands freedom rather than imposing restrictions.

"If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principal of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded."
Iowa Supreme Court

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2338 Feb 11, 2013
correction to paragraph 2:

Segregation is an imposed restriction. Removing the gender requirements cannot be considered an imposed restriction. It allows greater freedom of individual access to a fundamental right. It expands freedom rather than imposing restrictions.

Additionally, this attempt at using pejorative terminology is an appeal to emotion, rather than a rational argument. It fails the test of reason, because the terms are improperly applied.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2339 Feb 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So what's your point? Racial segregation in marrisge is bad, but gender segregation in marriage is good?
Oh I see. You're trying to compete with Brian for stupidity. Interracial marriage didn't stamp out same-race marriages any more than same-sex marriages will stamp out opposite-sex marriages. It simply gives more loving couples the chance to marry and fulfill their dreams together.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2340 Feb 11, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Figures you'd think someone who believe the legalization of gay marriage will make it so members of pro sports teams are going to be forced to marry each other against their wills is smart.
You seem to be fixated on this. Maybe you could start another thread on forced marriages among pro sports teams.
What causes your homophobia? Sexual insecurity? Tell us, now does gay marriage devalue marriage?
"Homophobia"? If I've told ya once, I've told ya a thousand times, I have no fear of homogenized milk.

How does "gay marriage" devalue marriage? Hmmmmm....oh I don't know...what the point of it then? If marriage is no longer a union of husband and wife orientated around their sexual union, and what that union produces, children, then why bother privleging it as a distinct relationship? If its nothing more than a means by which two, or more adults seek happiness, complete with a government beneifts package, then why not grant all sorts of consenting adult relationships as "marriage"?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2341 Feb 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Rose I had used it on another thread. I was surprised to someone else had used it.
Well, there's a reason it's so rare. Not many people are so dumb.
Brian sounds like a smart fella....
What that says about you is scary!
the problem is, for some, same sex marriage is such a secular sacred cow, that to speak against it is heresy. I sometimes wonder if the ultimate goal of the SSM movement is the devaluation of marriage as a distinct relationship. At what point does it become pointless?
Living lives together and fulfilling each others' needs is pointless to you? It's really only your speech that is pointless.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2342 Feb 11, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Devaluation of marriage as a distinct relationship has been occurring in the hetero population for the last 50 years
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/bar...
Cisco Kid....uh I mean Rainbow Kid

Absolutely...no disagreement there. I'm with ya brother. If "heteros", to use your term, had treated marriage with more respect, there'd be no need for this debate. "Gay marriage" would not even be a consideration. Sadly, this is the point to which we've arrived. Remember, throughout human history, except for a few scattered historical examples of recognized same sex relationships, marriage has been an opposite sex union of either one man one woman, or one man many women. "Heteros" have screwed up what was, and still is, overwhelmingly, theirs to begin with. If there had been a deep seated same sex marriage culture, either male or female, would there be a need for a debate? No, because it'd be a done deal.
.
In the 8 years that U.S. gay people have been legally marrying; we have experienced no devaluation whatsoever. We enjoy explosive growth in marriage statistics
http://makeitequal.org/
Or is maybe society just doesn't care anymore. Marriage has been on such a downward slide, that legal SSM, really doesn't matter, that perhaps in another 20-40 years marriage might just be a quaint little practice that for the most part no one bothers with anymore.

"Explosive growth"? Really? Out of those SSCs who can marry, what percentage actually do? Why do female couples out number their male brothers, at the altar?

Technically speaking, "gay people" have married since the advent of marriage, they've simple married someone of the opposite sex. Use of the word "gay" to denote homosexuality is relatively new. Didn't it, at one time, refer to hedonistic, heterosexual behavior? A gay man was a womanizer. We've come a long way baby.:)
.
Marriage = saved by the gays!
Or......Marriage ignored by men and women, now played with, like a new toy, by gay people. But, I'm sure they'll get bored with it too. Next up on the "marriage equality" show, Kody Brown and his four wives discuss gay marriage and their quest for legality, or at least decriminalization. Hmmmmmm....maybe the polygamists with save marraige.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2343 Feb 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be fixated on this. Maybe you could start another thread on forced marriages among pro sports teams.
<quoted text>
I just think it is the dumbest "argument" anybody has made against gay marriage. Can you come up with a dumber one?
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Homophobia"? If I've told ya once, I've told ya a thousand times, I have no fear of homogenized milk.
How does "gay marriage" devalue marriage? Hmmmmm....oh I don't know...
Then why do you claim it does?
Pietro Armando wrote:
what the point of it then? If marriage is no longer a union of husband and wife orientated around their sexual union, and what that union produces, children, then why bother privleging it as a distinct relationship? If its nothing more than a means by which two, or more adults seek happiness, complete with a government beneifts package, then why not grant all sorts of consenting adult relationships as "marriage"?
LOL. Many straight couples who can't or don't want to have children marry. Do their marriages devalue marriage?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2344 Feb 11, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I see. You're trying to compete with Brian for stupidity. Interracial marriage didn't stamp out same-race marriages any more than same-sex marriages will stamp out opposite-sex marriages. It simply gives more loving couples the chance to marry and fulfill their dreams together.
The debate about the legality if interracial marriages did not question the fact that the relationship constituted a marriage, just whether or not legally they should be allowed to marry. Not so with SSM, not everyone agrees that same sex intimate emotional sexualrelationships should be called marriage.

If the whole point is to give more "loving couples the chance to marry and fulfill they're dreams", then by all means, plural marriages, ala the Brown family, should be legalized.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2345 Feb 11, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, there's a reason it's so rare. Not many people are so dumb.
No, just pointing out the irony of using the prohibition of racial segreagation within marriage to argue for gender segregation within marriage.
Living lives together and fulfilling each others' needs is pointless to you? It's really only your speech that is pointless.
Lots of folks do that everyday, some married, some not, but not every situation is deemed "marriage" by the state. Therein lies the difference.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2346 Feb 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to Irma Bombeck....motherhood is.:)
If done in exchange for anything at all, is there a difference?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2347 Feb 11, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
If done in exchange for anything at all, is there a difference?
just ask a Mom if "motherhood" is the world's oldest profession.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2348 Feb 11, 2013
Oh Rosie...this one is for you;

http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/2012/02/01...
It’s hard to imagine the gay community and the fundamentalist Mormon community agreeing on anything, but the Sister Wives are smart to look to gay rights achievements for their inspiration. I can’t imagine how any judge would rule against them—a group of consenting adults who have lived responsibly with each other for years—but it’s possible that they will have a long fight ahead of them. It’s possible that it will be a still longer fight until they receive the right to legally marry. And then who knows what battle will come next—which other groups will follow, rising up to claim the same rights as their neighbors. All I know is that more are coming. And I wish all the best to them.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2349 Feb 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The debate about the legality if interracial marriages did not question the fact that the relationship constituted a marriage,
Yes it did, that was the whole issue.
Pietro Armando wrote:
just whether or not legally they should be allowed to marry. Not so with SSM, not everyone agrees that same sex intimate emotional sexualrelationships should be called marriage.
And not everybody agreed that inter-racial sexual relationships should be called marriage. Why do you think there was a trial?
Pietro Armando wrote:
If the whole point is to give more "loving couples the chance to marry and fulfill they're dreams", then by all means, plural marriages, ala the Brown family, should be legalized.
Start a forum about it!
barry

Rainsville, AL

#2350 Feb 11, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians were the driving force behind racism before evangelical fundamentalists started horning in on the action in the mid 1950s
.
Their argument is centered around the 'God separated the races' fable
.
Christians wore special clothes and carried blow torches (some still do)
http://m0.i.pbase.com/o6/04/318004/1/73285000...
weren't very Christ like were they?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#2351 Feb 11, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, other Christians led the abolitionist movement. See Harriet Beecher Stowe.
not "other" just "real"

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2352 Feb 11, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
More people participating under the same laws currently in effect does not devalue the institution, unless you are emotionally disturbed by knowing others have the same fundamental rights you enjoy. The laws that determine "what" marriage is do not change. Only the "who" is expanded to include same gender couples.
The institution you speak of, and the laws themselves, are based on the relationship of husband and wife. By removing one, the husband or wife, from the institution, it then is no longer the same institution, but something else. There is no marriage institution based on the relationship of two men, or two women.
Segregation is an imposed restriction. Removing the gender requirements cannot be considered an imposed restriction. It allows grea it provides more of the same.ter freedom of individual access to a fundamental right. It expands freedom rather than imposing restrictions.
Noooooo...water down the membership eligibility.
"If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principal of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded."
Iowa Supreme Court
Uhhhhh...hellloooooo...gay and lesbian people are seeking different treatment...if they weren't they would marry like everybody else.

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
Elvis Presley's sex secrets exposed 48 min Memory Girl 12
Sarah Palin and her onetime fans on the right: ... 1 hr Barack the Yellow 149
NRI doctor beaten up for demanding dowry (Oct '07) 5 hr Aryan41 35
Top Catholics and evangelicals: Gay marriage wo... 5 hr Belle Sexton 53
Patricia Larsen: Stop the meanness 7 hr Interesting 6
Man takes legal action after Denver baker refus... 10 hr Hazel 665
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 10 hr NoahLovesU 29,174
More from around the web