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.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2645 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>.....Seriously....why does plural marriage, send some SSMers into Hissy fits? If, so I'm told, SSM won't effect my marriage, why will plural marriage effect SSCs and their marriages?.....
The only hissy fit being thrown about polygamy here is being thrown by you, dear.

The rest of us are just wondering how many different ways you can try to spin the same irrelevant, inapplicable arguments before you'll finally admit that you have no argument against marriage equality.

And neither do we.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2646 Feb 19, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if you think so, then maybe you're right. I don't know any "Brown family", so I couldn't say.
I do know that I don't have an automatic, knee-jerk negative reaction to polyamory or polygamy. If that's what makes all the people in a family happy, then maybe it IS worth considering. Why not?
Though I think it would be important to be sure that ALL of them were happy, and that it wasn't simply a case of one power-hungry male trying to build his own personal harem of meek and servile women. Funny how we never seem to see a singular woman with a stableful of husbands, or 4 women with 4 men in a fully equitable poly-relationship. ALWAYS it's one man and his many wives, dressed up in the American version of burqas. Most of them are too afraid to even talk to the camera. Families like THAT might jsut have something to hide, wouldn't you think?
And, before polygamy could be legalized, we'd have to comb through things like tax laws, inheritance laws, pensions, social security, etc, to be sure that these things were being handled equitably and fairly. I see the potential for people to "game" the system, increasing their benefits over the rest of, by simply increasing their spouses. These laws don't translate well for poly-families of 10, the way they do for couples. These are considerations that require no change for gender, the way they do for quantity. Have you considered all this?
It's nice that this Brown family is fighting for something unique, but at least each of them currently has the right to have at least ONE spouse to share their lives with. Gay people can't even get the ONE, which is pretty shoddy.
Edmond

This one is for you.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2647 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>Oh so you like the fact that Kody and the girls are supporting gay marriage.....
Where did you get that idea? I've taken no position on them and their pursuits. I simply noted that you seem to have a desperate fascination with them. Weird, huh?

Here's a clue, hon. When you have to pretend people have said things they haven't said just so you can argue against it, you've long since run out of arguments, haven't you?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2648 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>eJohn

Sounds like an electronic portable bathroom ...but anyway...really? Usually its the SSMers who cringe at the mention of plural marriage and same sex marriage in the same sentence, let alone the same discussion. Think about it, and I use America's favorite polygamists, the Brown family, as an example, why is it acceptable for a man to father several children out of wedlock with several different women, and almost no one takes notice anymore...but if a different man, like Kody does the same thing AND lives with said women and call them his wives, and they in turn call him their husband...then it becomes, "oh noooooo...he can't do that...that's not right...that's 'unequal' "?
Um. Yeah.

We're not cringing, dear. We're staring is disbelief that you're STILL trying to convince us that polygamy is the same as a couple being married.

You might as well be comparing married couples to blueberry pies for all the two institutions have in common.

And despite you continuing to insist we are, I don't see anyone arguing that polygamists should not be pursuing their own civil equality. We're just pointing out that they're welcome to their pursuit, it's just not ours.

Is that clear enough for you? Or are you going to continue to argue with yourself while we all watch the show?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2649 Feb 19, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get that idea? I've taken no position on them and their pursuits. I simply noted that you seem to have a desperate fascination with them. Weird, huh?
Not at all, its part of the same discussion of not only "marriage equality", but how marriage is, legally defined.
Here's a clue, hon. When you have to pretend people have said things they haven't said just so you can argue against it, you've long since run out of arguments, haven't you?
Where did I pretend? I might have asked if...but not state you did.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2650 Feb 19, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Um. Yeah.
We're not cringing, dear. We're staring is disbelief that you're STILL trying to convince us that polygamy is the same as a couple being married.
We're discussing marriage, are we not? The folks in plural marriage relationships consider themselves married, as do SSCs do in non ssm states, and before ssm was legal. Both SSM, and plural are alternative forms of marriage practiced in this country, at least they are considered to be by the people involved.
You might as well be comparing married couples to blueberry pies for all the two institutions have in common.
I'm not saying there aren't differences. SSM is virtually a modern western invention, whereas polygamy dates back to biblical times and before, and is practiced across time and place. Additionally polygamy is still a male female institution,ssm is not. SSM does maintain the binary structure of legal marriage.
And despite you continuing to insist we are, I don't see anyone arguing that polygamists should not be pursuing their own civil equality. We're just pointing out that they're welcome to their pursuit, it's just not ours.
Thanks for the honesty. Not all ssm advocates feel that way.
Is that clear enough for you? Or are you going to continue to argue with yourself while we all watch the show?
>Chuckle< fair enough...now pass the popcorn. please.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2651 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all, its part of the same discussion of not only "marriage equality", but how marriage is, legally defined.

[QUOTE]
Here's a clue, hon. When you have to pretend people have said things they haven't said just so you can argue against it, you've long since run out of arguments, haven't you?"

Where did I pretend? I might have asked if...but not state you did.
Yeah. You "asked if" and then continued to argue as if I had answered the way you wished I had. I didn't take any position. But that didn't stop you from arguing against the position I never took, did it?

Arguing with yourself only makes you look stupid.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2652 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>....I'm not saying there aren't differences. SSM is virtually a modern western invention, whereas polygamy dates back to biblical times and before....
There are same-sex couples in the Bible, dear. And marriage as we know it today did not exist until a few hundred years ago.

Oops. You'd better bone up on your history before hoping we'll buy your lines.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2653 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>We're discussing marriage, are we not? The folks in plural marriage relationships consider themselves married, as do SSCs do in non ssm states, and before ssm was legal. Both SSM, and plural are alternative forms of marriage practiced in this country, at least they are considered to be by the people involved.....
Again, from a legal and a civil rights point of view, you might as well be comparing married couples to blueberry pies.

Polygamy is a different issue, whether or not that fact is convenient for your desperate argument. If they want to pursue it, let 'em. But don't waste your time trying to pretend that recognition of one is somehow related to the other because it's not.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2654 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/ 2012/06/inconsistent-same-sex- marriage-advocates.html
Inconsistent Same-Sex Marriage Advocates
In Australia, same-sex marriage activists are upset that polyamorists are trying to jump on their equality bandwagon. From The Australian:
THE main lobby group promoting gay marriage yesterday distanced itself from polyamorists demanding to be included in the proposed reforms, saying marriage involving more than two people would undermine a traditional institution.
As reported yesterday by The Australian, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has come under attack from polyamorists, including some who are members of her party, for insisting that marriage should be between two people of any sex, but no more than two.
Greens volunteer and polyamorist Naomi Bicheno wrote on Senator Hanson-Young's Facebook page: "I am disappointed that it has come across as an official party policy position of against polyamory instead of simply pro marriage equality."
Another person posting on Senator Hanson-Young's page, Chris Atlee, wrote: "If you support marriage equality shouldn't that include supporting polyamorous marriage as well? After all, it doesn't affect any of us does it?"
Here’s the problem: There’s no principled way to exclude polyamory from marriage, if one adopts the principles being argued by same-sex marriage advocates.
They argue: Marriage is about making a contract with the person you love.
They argue: Marriage equality (the right to marry whom you want) is a civil rights issue.
They argue: Other marriage constructions will not affect your marriage.
All of these arguments support polyamory equally as well as same-sex marriage. So now, when it suits them, they’re calling on the authority of “tradition,” without any means of justifying their preference for two people only.
There is, in fact, no principle behind their preferred boundaries at all. All they can do is declare their definition to be the correct one:
Alex Greenwich, the national convener of Australian Marriage Equality, told The Australian that his lobby group's concept of marriage was "what it's always been" of "two people who rely on each other in a relationship to the exclusion of all others".
That actually is not the concept of marriage that “has always been.” The concept of marriage that “has always been” is one where the boundaries are principled because they’re conformed to the nature of reality—the complementary differences between men and women.
The reproductive system is the only bodily system that requires another person to complete it. The bringing together of two physically complementary persons completes this system, and that is the type of union that society has an interest in protecting because that act is the act that produces children (whether or not it does so in any particular case*). If the union of a man and a woman didn't have the social consequences of creating a family by nature, marriage (the stabilization of that union by society) would never have existed.
Why define marriage as two people? Because two people complete the union that society has an interest in protecting.
Why define marriage as a man and a woman? Because those are the complementary persons whose union creates new life.
The traditional marriage advocate is arguing not from bigotry or even from tradition, but from principles of reality that remain unchanged despite anyone’s personal preferences.
By contrast, these same-sex marriage advocates are refusing to apply their principles equally to everybody. This is inconsistency at best and bigotry at worst.
You have no good argument against gay marriage, so you try to cloud the issue with the polygamy red herring.
Polygamy just isn't an equal rights issue. You even pointed out polygamists have the same rights everybody else does. Should polygamy be legal? Well, that's an interesting topic, it's just not the topic here. Why not start a forum about it?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2655 Feb 19, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, from a legal and a civil rights point of view, you might as well be comparing married couples to blueberry pies.
Polygamy is a different issue, whether or not that fact is convenient for your desperate argument. If they want to pursue it, let 'em. But don't waste your time trying to pretend that recognition of one is somehow related to the other because it's not.
If I'm supposed to defend polygamy in order to advocate for civil marriage for same-sex couples, why doesn't Pietro have to defend bans on interracial marriage in order to defend the ban on same-sex couples in civil marriage?

I mean, in defense of equating differences on marriage limitations, he even stated "We're discussing marriage, are we not?" So all limitations on civil marriage are all the same then? Why shouldn't he called upon to defend interracial marriage bans?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2656 Feb 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender segregation to perfectly diverse, integrated male/female marriage. If you love diversity and hate prejudice; keep marriage one man and one woman.
So, when are members of pro sports teams going to be forced to marry each other?

LOL!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2657 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
But a man can't get pregnant. Not equal
<quoted text>
But a woman can't produce sperm. Not equal
<quoted text>
Which is why you should say polygamy is a an equal rights issue.
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhh...so that explains it....your mother and father are brother and sister.
You can't come up with an intelligent though. Not equal.
But, I'm talking about equal protection under the law.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2658 Feb 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Good points, there is no gender equality right on our Constitution.
Yes there is, 14th Amendment. All citizens (that includes men and woman) get equal protection under the law.

So, when will prison rape become legal in MD? You said it would.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2660 Feb 19, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>If I'm supposed to defend polygamy in order to advocate for civil marriage for same-sex couples, why doesn't Pietro have to defend bans on interracial marriage in order to defend the ban on same-sex couples in civil marriage?

I mean, in defense of equating differences on marriage limitations, he even stated "We're discussing marriage, are we not?" So all limitations on civil marriage are all the same then? Why shouldn't he called upon to defend interracial marriage bans?
Sounds fair enough to me!! Pietro? Go for it! Defend all bans or go away.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2661 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you honestly think such a fundamental change in marriage law won't have long term consequences?
Brian_G is the only person I remember coming up with actual specific consequences he says will happen:

1. Forced marriages of members of pro sports teams to each other.

2. Prison rape will become legal.

3. Forced prison marriages.

What do you think?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2662 Feb 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It was definitely moved. "Ah what the heck, we don't need no stinking conjugality....it's only been the foundation of marriage for oh I don't know since the dawn of time maybe".(snip)
Appealing to tradition. Logical fallacy.

Next.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2664 Feb 20, 2013
eJohn wrote:
There's no right to type of a computer and communicate over the Internet, either. Doesn't that mean you should stop as you're clearly violating the Constitution by continuing to post here?
Using a Sony Vaio won't change a fundamental social institution, there's no comparison.

Same sex marriage is bad because it introduces a novel standard of gender based discrimination in marriage, to create gender segregation marriage. If you love diversity and integration, keep marriage male/female.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2665 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>.....
Same sex marriage is bad because it introduces a novel standard of gender based discrimination in marriage, to create gender segregation marriage. If you love diversity and integration, keep marriage male/female.
No, same sex marriage is good because it strengthens families, recognizes and supports the couples involved, provides security for their children, and protections for the elderly.

Trying to twist the argument to where one person's marriage creates discrimination against others is illogical.

If you love diversity, and wish to support good, tax-paying gay Americans and their families, you would support allowing them to legally marry.

Brian, why do you keep posting this stuff and ignoring the real issues? You know it's just another way of saying that I think same sex couples are "icky" and don't want them to legally marry.

We know you FEEL that way, but if you want to create or support laws that harm their families, you need rational and logical STATE interest in doing so.

You aren't doing that here.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2666 Feb 20, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
There are same-sex couples in the Bible, dear. And marriage as we know it today did not exist until a few hundred years ago.
Oops. You'd better bone up on your history before hoping we'll buy your lines.
I've stated in numerous posts in the past that there are some scattered historical examples of recognized ss unions in various societies, however there has not been a parallel , along side both monogamous and polygamous opposite sex marriage, same sex marriage sustained structure. If there were, there'd be no need for this debate, it'd already be part of our culture. So, yes same sex marriage is virtually a modern western invention.

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 Almost one year since gay marriage ruling, LGBT... 20 min Rose_NoHo 40
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 56 min Tre H 4,336
News The Latest: Trump says canceling Chicago rally ... 16 hr OfficialTrumpCard 1,729
News Nicole Kidman's priest says actress hopes one d... Tue Anne Russell 1
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Tue Levy Hater 31,925
News Bollywood in Taipei Tue TW_sugar_daddio 6
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) Tue jorvajor 128
More from around the web