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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2667 Feb 20, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Appealing to tradition. Logical fallacy.
Next.
No, Rosie Leg Lamp, Bi-Ol-LO-GY. That's why, except for a few scattered examples of recognized same sex union, and/or acceptance or toleration of same sex sexual behavior, SSM never took root, and developed along side both monogamous and polygamous opposite sex marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2668 Feb 20, 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.
What the heck are you talking about? What is a plural marriage, but multiple marriages of two people. For example, Kody Brown and his wife are one couple, Kody Brown and his second wife are also a couple, Kody and his third wife are also a couple....do you see a pattern here?
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.
First, there are similarities in the arguments presented whether you wish to acknowledge them or not. Retread that piece I posted listing the similar arguments. Second, you have the Brown family giving television interviews supporting gay marriage, and their attorney cited legal SSM in their law suit against the state of Utah. Lastly, if SSM marriage advocates are going to argue for their cause under the concept of "marriage equality", they have to realize others, plural marriage practioners will use that concept as well.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2669 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Rosie Leg Lamp, Bi-Ol-LO-GY. That's why, except for a few scattered examples of recognized same sex union, and/or acceptance or toleration of same sex sexual behavior, SSM never took root, and developed along side both monogamous and polygamous opposite sex marriage.
Well, acceptance of gay folks has taken root, and there is certainly enough history to show that allowing the small percentage of the population who are gay to legally marry has no detrimental effect on people who are not gay, and on society in general.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2670 Feb 20, 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?
Jerald

No you would defend polygamy under the concept of marriage equality. As to bans on interracial marriage, you fail to note why they went to effect, the existence of interracial marriage in various parts of the county at various times including NYC in the mid 19th century, and the fact they didn't change the conjugal, husband and wife, concept of 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?
No, not at all. Both plural marriage, and interracial marriage preserve the conjugality of the marital relationship. Each have the potential to beget children, and each have always been considered marriage. The ban on blood relatives marrying is based on the potential of sexual intercourse and the possibility of genetic defects of the offspring, applies to any opposite sex marriage. The same foundation for the ban would not exist with same sex blood relatives marrying.

One last comment. SSMers wish to remove the one requirement that bans or prevents the recognition of their relationships as marriage, opposite sex, whereas polygamists wish to remove the one requirement that bans or prevents the recognition of their marriages, the number two.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2671 Feb 20, 2013
Quest wrote:
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.
The children of same sex marriage? Are you kidding? Talk about a minority of a minority, same sex marriage isn't the answer.

There is no gender equality right.

.
Quest wrote:
Trying to twist the argument to where one person's marriage creates discrimination against others is illogical.
Standards create discrimination, that's inevitable. We disagree on marriage standards, there's no need to twist the argument. I like marriage as is, one man and one woman.

.
Quest wrote:
If you love diversity, and wish to support good, tax-paying gay Americans and their families, you would support allowing them to legally marry.
That can be said of polygamists or adult brother/sister couples. Then, why discriminate against singles?

Questions, what do singles and same sex couples have in common?
Answer, they both can't have kids unless they change their mating.

.
Quest wrote:
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.
.
Quest wrote:
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.
.
Quest wrote:
You aren't doing that here.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2672 Feb 20, 2013
Quest wrote:
Brian, why do you keep posting this stuff and ignoring the real issues?
The real issue is harm to homosexuals and everyone else; I like marriage as is. Don't rewrite law because you have power, you'll regret it later.

.
Quest wrote:
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.
Homosexual couples aren't icky, but even if you feel that way, that feeling is real. Personally, I don't feel that way at all, but I do sympathize with you; only if you advocate respect and dignity to all, including homosexuals.

Criminalizing private sexual behavior isn't wise, nor is licensing same sex marriage. Get state out of marriage.

.
Quest wrote:
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.
No, you need to stop state from harming families; that's why we keep marriage male/female.

.
Quest wrote:
You aren't doing that here.
Yes, I am promoting husband/wife marriage. Marriage is not for everyone.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2673 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
No you would defend polygamy under the concept of marriage equality.
By this "logic," I could not support my local food bank until hunger in all of Africa and Asia is also solved.

See how stupid the argument is?
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#2674 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you honestly think such a fundamental change in marriage law won't have long term consequences?
Like I said, contact NOM. I'm sure they will pay you for your proof.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2675 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No you would defend polygamy under the concept of marriage equality.


More fallacies. This is a strawman argument. Don't attribute to me claims I never made.

Feel free to show where I stated in any post that the basis of my claim for same-sex couples in civil marriage is based on "equality" or "marriage equality."

I never claimed that. I never claimed that all limitations on civil marriage are the same or that all limitations violate some vague notion of "equality".

YOU said that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
As to bans on interracial marriage, you fail to note why they went to effect, the existence of interracial marriage in various parts of the county at various times including NYC in the mid 19th century, and the fact they didn't change the conjugal, husband and wife, concept of marriage.
Still, according to your logic, they constitute a limitation on marriage. As you said, "We're talking about marriage, aren't we?"
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, not at all. Both plural marriage, and interracial marriage preserve the conjugality of the marital relationship. Each have the potential to beget children, and each have always been considered marriage. The ban on blood relatives marrying is based on the potential of sexual intercourse and the possibility of genetic defects of the offspring, applies to any opposite sex marriage. The same foundation for the ban would not exist with same sex blood relatives marrying.
Who cares what the basis is? You've conflated polygamy and marriage for same-sex couples as if they are one and the same. And you've defined marriage by an attribute that is neither necessary nor sufficient for its legal establishment, which is convenient to your argument but not supportable by the law in ANY state.

Your justifications are simply rationalizations for a lazy and fallacious arrgument.
Pietro Armando wrote:
One last comment. SSMers wish to remove the one requirement that bans or prevents the recognition of their relationships as marriage, opposite sex,...


Because there is no rational basis for limiting marriage solely on the basis of sex...
Pietro Armando wrote:
whereas polygamists wish to remove the one requirement that bans or prevents the recognition of their marriages, the number two.
Wrong. The operative number is ONE. An individual in only entitled to enter into ONE marriage at a time.

Multiple partners should be free to live together in the same house in whatever form they choose, so long as only one civil marriage per person is followed. That's all the government should be obligated to grant.

Incidentally, that's all your celebrated Brown family is claiming, despite your implication that they are demanding multiple civil marriages. Their other "marriages" aren't civil marriages, they aren't claiming they are, and the state is under no obligation to recognize them. It shouldn't prosecute them. They only have ONE civil marriage.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2676 Feb 20, 2013
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-...

Removing the restriction on inter-racial marriage will lead to polygamy!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2677 Feb 20, 2013
2=2
3 or more does not equal 2

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2678 Feb 20, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
2=2
3 or more does not equal 2
Ahhhh but one plus one equals three or four or even five. As my father used to say, "two go to bed, but three get up".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2679 Feb 20, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
By this "logic," I could not support my local food bank until hunger in all of Africa and Asia is also solved.
See how stupid the argument is?
What....that's not logic. Either it's "marriage equality" for all, or for none. In extending marriage equality to plural marriage, we,guarantee marriage equality for ourselves", or something like that.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2680 Feb 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
More fallacies. This is a strawman argument. Don't attribute to me claims I never made.
I never said you did.
Feel free to show where I stated in any post that the basis of my claim for same-sex couples in civil marriage is based on "equality" or "marriage equality."
We both know, "marriage equality" is the catch phrase used by SSM advocates, just look at the tag line underneath some of the posters on this thread.
I never claimed that. I never claimed that all limitations on civil marriage are the same or that all limitations violate some vague notion of "equality".
YOU said that.
Did I claim you said ALL limitations are the same?
Still, according to your logic, they constitute a limitation on marriage. As you said, "We're talking about marriage, aren't we?"
Exactly, plural marriage is marriage, practiced in far more places than SSM, and with a far greater and deeper historical base.
Who cares what the basis is? You've conflated polygamy and marriage for same-sex couples as if they are one and the same. And you've defined marriage by an attribute that is neither necessary nor sufficient for its legal establishment, which is convenient to your argument but not supportable by the law in ANY state.
Your justifications are simply rationalizations for a lazy and fallacious arrgument.
Obviously you don't because it undermines your argument. Are you actually stating marriage is, not, and was not based on the union of husband and wife in general, and their sexual union in particular? Be real. SSM is a recent American creation based on the conjugal marriage model, minus the conjugality. Why ban same sex blood relatives from marrying? Even if they are sexual with each other, no risk of pregnancy there. Because they're already "close kin"? Really? So we ban opposite sex blood relatives from marrying because they it have sex and produce defective children, but ban same sex blood relatives from marrying because they are already kin? Another difference between SSM, and OSM.
Because there is no rational basis for limiting marriage solely on the basis of sex...
That's just it. Marriage is about the sexes, what they do, have sex,and what results because of it, children. Take that away, and what the point of recognizing it at all? That's why there's no compelling interest in SSM. So two men or two women wish to enter into a partnership with government bennies, and recognition, why does it matter if they're not related?
Wrong. The operative number is ONE. An individual in only entitled to enter into ONE marriage at a time.
Multiple partners should be free to live together in the same house in whatever form they choose, so long as only one civil marriage per person is followed. That's all the government should be obligated to grant.
Why do you get to choose that limitation? So you expect society to remove the conjugal, husband AND wife, aspect/requirement for your concept of marriage, but not remove the number of,participants for plural marriage practitioners concept of marriage. Oh....I get it...it's not okay to discriminate against "same sex families", but okay to do so against plural marriage families.....nice...real nice.
Incidentally, that's all your celebrated Brown family is claiming, despite your implication that they are demanding multiple civil marriages. Their other "marriages" aren't civil marriages, they aren't claiming they are, and the state is under no obligation to recognize them. It shouldn't prosecute them. They only have ONE civil marriage.
That is correct, however it does not mean that other plural marriage families shouldn't have the right for legal recognition of their marriages. The Brown family is seeking to have criminality removed from plural marriage. The next step could very easily be a petition for marital recognition.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2681 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What....that's not logic...
We agree. You should have quit while you were ahead.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2682 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhh but one plus one equals three or four or even five. As my father used to say, "two go to bed, but three get up".
Logic fail.

Children are not married to their parents.

When one or both are sterile due to age, operation, accident, etc. no amount of sex will result in children. People who have no ability to have children get married every day. People who have no ability to even have sex are also allowed to marry. Procreation has never been a requirement for marriage in the US.

In marriage, 2=2

3 or more does not equal two. It is something very different.

Most understand this by the time they reach first grade.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2683 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What....that's not logic. Either it's "marriage equality" for all, or for none. In extending marriage equality to plural marriage, we,guarantee marriage equality for ourselves", or something like that.
Again, allowing gay couples to participate under the same rules currently in effect does not change the present or future marriages of straight couples. All of the laws that determine what marriage is for them, remain the same.

Changing the laws to allow multiple partners changes the laws that determine what marriage is for straight couples, in a wide variety of ways. It is not the same thing, but something very different, as you must surely know by now.

Your argument is one of the same ones used to oppose inter-racial marriage. It fails the test of reason.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2684 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Same sex marriage has been around a long time:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026739...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2685 Feb 20, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage has been around a long time:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026739...
Denial is strong in this one. I believe he has already seen a couple other links that show same sex marriage is nothing new.

Did you see the Westboro Baptist Church brief to the Supreme Court? Even the rabidly anti-gay WBC admits same sex marriage was legally recognized before Noah. Of course they misuse the term "sodomize", but here is a quote from their legal brief: "Another Midrash says that males just didn’t sodomize other males, but that they signed ketobot (marriage contracts) legalizing these re-lationships."

And while there are many more resources, here are just a couple more:

"At times throughout history, same-sex relationships have enjoyed relative freedom within their respective places.

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites' departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated. "
http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-m...

A book by the Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes same sex ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books,“Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae”(Paris, 1667).

Another book by Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th centuries.

"Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

Gay Marriage Is As Old As History www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2686 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Rosie Leg Lamp, Bi-Ol-LO-GY. That's why, except for a few scattered examples of recognized same sex union, and/or acceptance or toleration of same sex sexual behavior, SSM never took root, and developed along side both monogamous and polygamous opposite sex marriage.
How ridiculous. That's like claiming that since black people were held as slaves during the first nearly 300 years of European occupation of North America, that clearly black people were not meant to be free. If they had simply NOT been held as slaves, it would have been proof positive that they weren't supposed to be held as slaves. You're using circular reasoning, which is illogical and WRONG.

Gay people and gay couples have been around since the dawn of time. The only reason we haven't been more visible is the result of the tyranny and fear of the majority forcing gay folks to remain hidden. For you to claim that the fact that they weren't more visible throughout history means anything other than that they were forced to remain hidden is foolish.

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... 14 hr Pietro Armando 46
News Kerryann Taylor Weds Matthew French (Mar '13) Wed Honest truth 4
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) Wed Tre H 4,336
News The Latest: Trump says canceling Chicago rally ... Tue Anonymous 1,729
News Nicole Kidman's priest says actress hopes one d... Jun 28 Anne Russell 1
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Jun 28 Levy Hater 31,925
News Bollywood in Taipei Jun 28 TW_sugar_daddio 6
More from around the web