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.

Read more

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#2830 Feb 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Mi dispiace....got caught up in responding to other posters.
Perfectly understandable. Could you clear up my number one confusion, though? Do you SUPPORT legalized polygamy, or are you AGAINST it? You seem to frequently use the argument that, if we are going to consider legalizing marriage between same-sex couples, that we must ALSO simultaneously consider legalizing marriage between multiple partners.

Does this mean that you are HOPING to get polygamy legalized one day? Or are you trying to forestall the same-sex marriage equality argument, by attempting to connect it to other causes, thereby insisting that gay-rights advocates must be advocates for causes that they may not support?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2831 Feb 22, 2013
Here's where the anti-gay reveals the fatuous and deceitful nature of the "procreation" argument. Note the shift in language from one part of their argument to the next. I placed his words in CAPS for emphasis.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution PRIMARILY because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.


"PRIMARILY" because. Not SOLELY because. In other words, when faced with the fact that civil marriage doesn't ALWAYS result in procreation, he has to acknowledge the fact that procreation is not necessary nor sufficient for the establishment of a legal civil marriage.(Not to mention the fact that the "procreation" claim remains just that -- a claim. It has not been proven.)

There's just no other way around it. Procreation CANNOT be the sole purpose of civil marriage. Infertile and elderly opposite-sex couples, as well as those prohibited from conjugal visits due to incarceration, are all allowed to marry. Many people marry without ever having children by choice or because of circumstance.

But watch how he switches the language when the specific status of same-sex couples is brought under consideration:
Pietro Armando wrote:
Further, it is apparent that no same-sex couple offers the POSSIBILITY of the birth of children by their union
Now he's switched from a flexible standard with opposite-sex couples to an inflexible one when same-sex couples are considered.

Opposite-sex couples exist that DO NOT offer the POSSIBILITY of the birth of children by their union, yet they are allowed to marry.

Same-sex couples RAISE hundreds of thousand of children, the vast majority of whom are the BIOLOGICAL offspring of one of the partners, and they are denied civil marriage.

What other explanation can there be for this disparity in treatment, in this denial of the equal protection of the law, than the desire to maintain an unsupportable legal privilege at the expense of or simply because of animus against gay and lesbian people?
Pietro Armando wrote:
A plural marriage...
A red herring.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#2832 Feb 22, 2013
Jerald wrote:
Here's where the anti-gay reveals the fatuous and deceitful nature of the "procreation" argument. Note the shift in language from one part of their argument to the next. I placed his words in CAPS for emphasis.
Oh Madone! Seriously...."the anti gay"? What is that? Something out of the rainbow clubhouse handbook?
"PRIMARILY" because. Not SOLELY because. In other words, when faced with the fact that civil marriage doesn't ALWAYS result in procreation, he has to acknowledge the fact that procreation is not necessary nor sufficient for the establishment of a legal civil marriage.(Not to mention the fact that the "procreation" claim remains just that -- a claim. It has not been proven.)
You're a trip! Tell ya what, let's try an experiment. Let's take 300 couples, 100 OS, 100 FSS, and 100 MSS. All between the ages of 20-40. All healthy and virile. Give em each a hotel room and tell em to have sex. How many children, do you think, will be conceived in each group?
There's just no other way around it. Procreation CANNOT be the sole purpose of civil marriage. Infertile and elderly opposite-sex couples, as well as those prohibited from conjugal visits due to incarceration, are all allowed to marry. Many people marry without ever having children by choice or because of circumstance.
But watch how he switches the language when the specific status of same-sex couples is brought under consideration:
Now he's switched from a flexible standard with opposite-sex couples to an inflexible one when same-sex couples are considered.
Did I miss something in biology class or social studies?
Opposite-sex couples exist that DO NOT offer the POSSIBILITY of the birth of children by their union, yet they are allowed to marry.
Beeeeeeeeecuz....marriage is about "husband AND wife".
Same-sex couples RAISE hundreds of thousand of children, the vast majority of whom are the BIOLOGICAL offspring of one of the partners, and they are denied civil marriage.
]/QUOTE]

The bio offspring of them, and their respective ex wife or ex husband. The person to whom they were MARRIED to when they had the kid.

[QUOTE]
What other explanation can there be for this disparity in treatment, in this denial of the equal protection of the law, than the desire to maintain an unsupportable legal privilege at the expense of or simply because of animus against gay and lesbian people?
And gay people who feel this way are anti gay too...according to u.
A red herring.
Delicious over pasta.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2833 Feb 22, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Um, no it wouldn't.
As soon as it were challenged as being discriminatory it would most certainly end there. Since tossing DOMA would set the precedent it would die. OTOH nobody is even going to get such a dodo to fly so this whole discussion is moot.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2834 Feb 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
You're a trip! Tell ya what, let's try an experiment. Let's take 300 couples, 100 OS, 100 FSS, and 100 MSS. All between the ages of 20-40. All healthy and virile. Give em each a hotel room and tell em to have sex. How many children, do you think, will be conceived in each group?
I guess if you get your jollies imagining the experiment, good for you. But since procreation isn't the sole purpose of civil marriage, how exactly is that even relevant?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Did I miss something in biology class or social studies?
Clearly. And you never studied logic or critical thinking.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Beeeeeeeeecuz....marriage is about "husband AND wife".
See? Logical fallacies abound. Circular argument that begs the question: why does it have to be that way? Answer: it doesn't.
Pietro Armando wrote:
And gay people who feel this way are anti gay too...according to u.
Gay people who are against the equal protection of the law when applied to gay people are supporting an anti-gay position.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2835 Feb 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The bio offspring of them, and their respective ex wife or ex husband. The person to whom they were MARRIED to when they had the kid.
This is classic ignorance.

How do you know they were married?

You assume that the biological parents of a given child has to be married for the child to be conceived. You made this laughable assumption earlier where you claimed that "babies come from" marriage.

Babies come from men and women having sex. They don't need to be married to do that.

And not all marriages result in the conception of children. You don't need male and female to make a marriage.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2836 Feb 23, 2013
Same sex marriage brings a new standards of gender segregation to perfectly integrated and diverse male/female marriage. If you love unity and hate segregation, keep marriage one man and one woman.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2837 Feb 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage brings a new standards of gender segregation to perfectly integrated and diverse male/female marriage. If you love unity and hate segregation, keep marriage one man and one woman.
Whatever works for you; go for it
AzAdam

United States

#2838 Feb 23, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
If you believe that, then you clearly don't understand the law or how it works with regards to marriage.
Gender is completely irrelevant with it comes to civil marriage law. There is not requirement involved in civil marriage contracts that would in any way require gender specificity.
Numbers a HUGE when it comes to civil marriage because the law is charged with treating people equally. Our current system of family law only accommodates one spouse at a time. Adding additional, concurrent spouses exponentially complicates the legal equity issues involved in recognizing and regulating the marriage.
You CAN talk about the two in the same discussion, but it's pointless and confusing if you do. They're very much not the same issues at all.
Ok, without disagreeing with any of that, I can also see that if we're talking about treating people fairly, and providing the best support for families, then if 3 consenting adults want to make such a throuple, why would it not be legal for them to do so? Wouldn't it be better if their children were fully protected? You can say they're free to marry one person, like everyone else, but that's the same as saying gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite gender like everyone else.

Like gay families, poly families already exist and raise children and are being discriminated against. Why?

I will also agree with you that changing gender requirements is relatively simple compared to changing number requirements, but so what? Do you propose that changing number requirements is so difficult as to be impossible? Obviously it's not.

I'm gay, I have kids and a husband and I want my family protected by the law. I'm not saying we should wait for gay marriage until poly marriage is legal but I think it's a fair point that many of the same legal principals and moral principals that make gay marriage the right thing to do also apply to poly relationships.

I'm in the medical field, not the legal field. We are allowed to express opinions without a Juris Doctorate here right?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2839 Feb 23, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, without disagreeing with any of that, I can also see that if we're talking about treating people fairly, and providing the best support for families, then if 3 consenting adults want to make such a throuple, why would it not be legal for them to do so? Wouldn't it be better if their children were fully protected? You can say they're free to marry one person, like everyone else, but that's the same as saying gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite gender like everyone else.
Like gay families, poly families already exist and raise children and are being discriminated against. Why?
I will also agree with you that changing gender requirements is relatively simple compared to changing number requirements, but so what? Do you propose that changing number requirements is so difficult as to be impossible? Obviously it's not.
I'm gay, I have kids and a husband and I want my family protected by the law. I'm not saying we should wait for gay marriage until poly marriage is legal but I think it's a fair point that many of the same legal principals and moral principals that make gay marriage the right thing to do also apply to poly relationships.
I'm in the medical field, not the legal field. We are allowed to express opinions without a Juris Doctorate here right?
The sooner you start organizing poly parades; the sooner you will get your rights

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2840 Feb 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage brings a new standards of gender segregation to perfectly integrated and diverse male/female marriage. If you love unity and hate segregation, keep marriage one man and one woman.
Still silly, since the government does not interfere in this way with marriages. There is no "diversity" requirement in the marriage bed. People may choose someone of the same race, or the same religion, and the government does not interfere.

Yet you demand government interference due to gender only?

Try again.

Prove WHY such governmental interference in marriage choice is good for couples, kids, and society.

Cut and pasting the same meaningless and illogical phrase isn't proof. It's just a wordy version of "gay people are icky and I don't want them marrying".

And that won't stand in a court of law.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2841 Feb 23, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, without disagreeing with any of that, I can also see that if we're talking about treating people fairly, and providing the best support for families, then if 3 consenting adults want to make such a throuple, why would it not be legal for them to do so?...
Do you personally support and fight for polygamy?

Do you believe that every married couple in the country MUST support polygamy, since THEY are allowed to marry one person at a time?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2842 Feb 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
......
Beeeeeeeeecuz....marriage is about "husband AND wife".
........
Not in many states in the US and a multitude of other countries.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2843 Feb 23, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, without disagreeing with any of that, I can also see that if we're talking about treating people fairly, and providing the best support for families, then if 3 consenting adults want to make such a throuple, why would it not be legal for them to do so? Wouldn't it be better if their children were fully protected? You can say they're free to marry one person, like everyone else, but that's the same as saying gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite gender like everyone else.
Like gay families, poly families already exist and raise children and are being discriminated against. Why?
I will also agree with you that changing gender requirements is relatively simple compared to changing number requirements, but so what? Do you propose that changing number requirements is so difficult as to be impossible? Obviously it's not.
I'm gay, I have kids and a husband and I want my family protected by the law. I'm not saying we should wait for gay marriage until poly marriage is legal but I think it's a fair point that many of the same legal principals and moral principals that make gay marriage the right thing to do also apply to poly relationships.
I'm in the medical field, not the legal field. We are allowed to express opinions without a Juris Doctorate here right?
Wha...what....a voice of reason from the gay same sex advocacy side!? In the words of Fred G. Sanford as he place his hand over his heart feigning a heart attack, "I'm coming Elizibeth!".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2844 Feb 23, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And still, no one has offered a rational, legitimate governmental interest for even trying to use the constitution to restrict freedom
Asking for governmental regulation of one's personal intimate relationship is an effort to use the constitution to restrict freedom?
and deny equal treatment under the law.
Equal treatment exists on same basis as any other man, or woman.
But, again, I can't blame them, as no one has been able to do so. It seems the best argument in the briefs against equality rely on the fact some opposite sex couples are irresponsible and have unwanted, unplanned babies,
Nooooo.....not quite.
while same sex couples plan their children and therefore don't have unwanted children.
True, they just don't want, in some cases, "their" children's opposite sex biological mother or father, to be involved and/or know "their" children
Yet this fails to show how harming same sex couple families will provide any benefit to opposite sex couples. It won't make them any more responsible or any less fertile.
[QUOTE]

There are other ways to benefit SSC families w/o redefining marriage.

[QUOTE]
That leaves tradition as a popular excuse, but we know tradition has been used to continue atrocities like slavery, segregation, and mistreatment of women.
No the popular reason is that promoting and protecting conjugal marriage is in the best interest of society as a whole.
And that leaves us with nothing beyond prejudice. Unfortunately, Scalia has said he believes a tradition of prejudice is a valid reason for continuing that prejudice. It will be painfully interesting to see how he justifies his decision.
I also find it amazing so many want to use the document held up to the world as the symbol of freedom and justice for all, and change it to one that denies freedom and equality. We did it once before with prohibiton, and that didn't work out very well, and had to be undone.
Plural marriage families also are "harmed" by lack of marital recognition and prejudice, including by the very same body, USSC, that legally prohibited their marriages over a century ago.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#2845 Feb 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wha...what....a voice of reason from the gay same sex advocacy side!? In the words of Fred G. Sanford as he place his hand over his heart feigning a heart attack, "I'm coming Elizibeth!".
Darling I've made this same point to you over and over and over: it's a little thing called DIVISION OF LABOR. None of us can take on the whole world and apply the energies to get anything done with one's energies so dispersed; at some point you have to narrow your focus in order to be effective. I'm not interested in poly marriage, not against it, but don't have a personal stake in it either. If you are truly that committed to it, why are you wasting your time here? Why aren't you actually doing the footwork, convincing the public at large the relevance of your case? Or are you simply trying to bolster a "slippery slope" scenario in order to play on peoples' fears of a radical transformation of our intimate social structure that they've always been indoctrinated into believing represents a social convention that's contrary to their values and their way of life, as ironic as the idea is that one would feel that way in a country founded on the idea of sovereign citizenry, the idea of a government is not an authority but an administrator, that the purpose of the government and its institutions are to benefit its citizenry, nor to coerce them? Or is this just a little bullshit with your morning coffe?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2846 Feb 23, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
As soon as it were challenged as being discriminatory it would most certainly end there. Since tossing DOMA would set the precedent it would die. OTOH nobody is even going to get such a dodo to fly so this whole discussion is moot.
No, it wouldn't. SCOTUS has no power to review Amendments.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2847 Feb 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would there need to be a requirement that couples be of mixed race? How would that even work anyway. So if a person is half Asian and half African marries a person who is half Northern European and half Medditeranean, what racial categories would be used?
<quoted text>
Same race, same ethnicity, same religion, same economic class, geographic location.....human nature.
<quoted text>
Actually the overwhelming majority will be of the opposite sex. Among same sex couples that marry, the girls outnumber the boys. Apparently gay men, like their straight brothers are just as shy about heading to the altar.
<quoted text>
Its only stupid because SSM is such a secular sacred cow, that no argument against it will suffice, and is blasphemy.
Congratulations on missing every point. The Great Wizard will now bestow a certificate of imbecility.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2848 Feb 23, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, without disagreeing with any of that, I can also see that if we're talking about treating people fairly, and providing the best support for families, then if 3 consenting adults want to make such a throuple, why would it not be legal for them to do so? Wouldn't it be better if their children were fully protected? You can say they're free to marry one person, like everyone else, but that's the same as saying gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite gender like everyone else.
Like gay families, poly families already exist and raise children and are being discriminated against. Why?
I will also agree with you that changing gender requirements is relatively simple compared to changing number requirements, but so what? Do you propose that changing number requirements is so difficult as to be impossible? Obviously it's not.
I'm gay, I have kids and a husband and I want my family protected by the law. I'm not saying we should wait for gay marriage until poly marriage is legal but I think it's a fair point that many of the same legal principals and moral principals that make gay marriage the right thing to do also apply to poly relationships.
I'm in the medical field, not the legal field. We are allowed to express opinions without a Juris Doctorate here right?
Not a single poster has disagreed with your sentiments. Yet nobody has provided even a broad outline of the changes they would like to support polygamous families. This suggests that those changes are more difficult than you imagine. As soon as someone does present a plan, listen for the screams from other polygamous families who don't want to be bound by those rules.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2849 Feb 23, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, without disagreeing with any of that, I can also see that if we're talking about treating people fairly, and providing the best support for families, then if 3 consenting adults want to make such a throuple, why would it not be legal for them to do so? Wouldn't it be better if their children were fully protected? You can say they're free to marry one person, like everyone else, but that's the same as saying gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite gender like everyone else.
Like gay families, poly families already exist and raise children and are being discriminated against. Why?
I will also agree with you that changing gender requirements is relatively simple compared to changing number requirements, but so what? Do you propose that changing number requirements is so difficult as to be impossible? Obviously it's not.
I'm gay, I have kids and a husband and I want my family protected by the law. I'm not saying we should wait for gay marriage until poly marriage is legal but I think it's a fair point that many of the same legal principals and moral principals that make gay marriage the right thing to do also apply to poly relationships.
I'm in the medical field, not the legal field. We are allowed to express opinions without a Juris Doctorate here right?
No matter how you feel about poly arrangements, it is a very different social and legal structure for straight couples as well as for gay couples.

Treating gay couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not change the social structure nor the legal structure for society.

These are very different arguments.

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 Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 12 min Rock Star Chihuahua 30,830
News Indiana Gov. Pence set to sign religious object... 14 min Your Ex 39
News Indiana House OKs religious objection bill by w... 55 min serfs up 70
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 1 hr NorCal Native 1,572
News LTE: In Open Letter to Clearfield Community, Lo... 1 hr no sense 4
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 3 hr raider4life 1,607
News Indiana's religious freedom law: What you need ... 4 hr NorCal Native 5
More from around the web