Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,567

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
AzAdam

Scottsdale, AZ

#2870 Feb 23, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
The sooner you start organizing poly parades; the sooner you will get your rights
You obviously didn't read my whole post. Lame.
AzAdam

Scottsdale, AZ

#2871 Feb 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
I'm support it. I don't fight for it. I don't even believe people must support gay marriage. I think the government should recognize it. There's a difference.
AzAdam

Scottsdale, AZ

#2872 Feb 23, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I agree. But I do think that it's coming.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2873 Feb 23, 2013
RubyTheDyke wrote:
<quoted text>
Husband on life support but the prognosis is coma, limited brain function and no chance of recovery. One wife wants to remove him from life support, the other wife does not. Who should have the right of determination, given that each partner in legal standing are equal?
Valid question. Possible solution. Medical power of attorney. Can a spouse, now, designate someone other than spouse to medical decisions?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#2874 Feb 23, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are receiving "the truth" by faith (that is, without any empirical evidence), then how do you know it's true?
If a competing and contradictory faith claim is made that also cannot be proven through evidence, on what basis do you reject it?
faith is the evidence of things not seen. there is evidence of things not seen. i,ve never seen electricity but i've felt what others have told me is electricity. i've never seen a soul or a spirit but i know that while a dead body is still essentially the same as mine that there obviously is something different.
Christ and his salvation is evidenced in changed lives, decisions of faith that produce unexpected and perhaps unbelievable results, and a personal peace that passes all understanding.
if a competing and contradictory faith claim is made then one must decide which is real. for me it comes down to whether or not the belief system is enslaving you and society or is setting you free. free today and free for eternity.
until someone has a reason to live they have no reason to die. and the reverse is also true. until you have a reason to die you have no reason to live.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#2875 Feb 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Valid question. Possible solution. Medical power of attorney. Can a spouse, now, designate someone other than spouse to medical decisions?
It very possible, but that's not the point; the point is the automatic confering of a spouse's right to make these decisions. If they want to make other arrangements it's up to them. That's what I'm saying: with marriage as it stands right now it accomodates the conferring of those rights in an uncontested way-to the sole contractee. In other words, to accomodate polygamy the ONLY defintion that is in common with all marriages- young, old, children, childless, religious, secular love or hate-, is the legal function of a marriage, and that has to has to to be fundamentally CHANGED to accomodate polygamy.Gay marriage only requires the simple recognition. Remember, even with all this talk about marriage between one man and one womyn, it was only ASSUMED, not legally delineated as such until the Jesus freaks went "Holy Crap!"and used their majority power to plug that little legal hole. The issue is whether it was constitutional for them to do so. Secondly then, the way marriage legally stands right now, offers NOTHING of inherent worth to polygamous couples, as to define who does and gets what requires them to independently draw up agreements separate from their marriage conferments.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2876 Feb 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>faith is the evidence of things not seen.


Such a strange and contradictory statement. Faith isn't "the evidence" of anything other than a belief.

Faith is the BELIEF in things unseen, for which there is no empirical evidence.

If there was evidence for a claim, accepting that claim wouldn't require faith.
barry wrote:
there is evidence of things not seen. i,ve never seen electricity but i've felt what others have told me is electricity.


There is empirical evidence for electricity. There is ample evidence for the existence of electricity beyond accepting the claim of what other have told you. We don't believe in electricity just because some tells us it exists. Stick a wet finger in a powered light socket with the switch on; "belief" or "faith" won't make any difference in the outcome.
barry wrote:
i've never seen a soul or a spirit but i know that while a dead body is still essentially the same as mine that there obviously is something different.
Clearly. You are alive and the body is dead. That is not evidence of a "soul" or "spirit". That's evidence of life.
barry wrote:
Christ and his salvation is evidenced in changed lives, decisions of faith that produce unexpected and perhaps unbelievable results, and a personal peace that passes all understanding.
"All understanding"? There is no other rational explanation for changes in lives, human decision making, the unexpected or apparently "unbelievable" happenings other than "a god did it"? There are plenty of explanations for all these things that don't rely on a belief in some unsupported and conveniently unsupportable faith claim.
barry wrote:
if a competing and contradictory faith claim is made then one must decide which is real. for me it comes down to whether or not the belief system is enslaving you and society or is setting you free. free today and free for eternity.
Well, if reality is what you're basing your beliefs on, then you'd have to demonstrate how one comes to accept what is real. Believing in something for which there is no empirical evidence is hardly a basis for determining "which is real."

If it's a matter of "enslavement", I can argue just as easily that one who is tied to a faith belief for which there is no empirical evidence is much more "enslaved" that one who chooses to accept empirical reality.
barry wrote:
until someone has a reason to live they have no reason to die. and the reverse is also true. until you have a reason to die you have no reason to live.
One can choose to have a reason to live or die, to have a meaning for his or her life (or not), to attribute meaning to life, without believing in supernatural beings or mythology.

The title of this thread is "Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes". It's just this kind of lazy and unsupportable thinking that gives us leaders of churches telling the rest of society that they have to fashion the law that governs everyone else around their ridiculous claims. The vast majority of the anti-gay are people who base their claims on faith beliefs that cannot be supported with evidence.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2877 Feb 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh....but of course that makes sense. What a maroon.
Yes you are. Do you think SSM is just going to fade away? It's here, now, today. Get used to it.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2878 Feb 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Valid question. Possible solution. Medical power of attorney. Can a spouse, now, designate someone other than spouse to medical decisions?
aha..... are the wheels truning in your head about the legal complexities of it all??? What if the wife without medical power of attorney sues to stop it? What law says medical power of attorney trumps legal next-of-kin?

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#2879 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.
wtf over?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2880 Feb 23, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Yes you are. Do you think SSM is just going to fade away? It's here, now, today. Get used to it.
Uhhhhhh......helloooooo....you were comparing desserts. Is blueberry pie here to stay?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2881 Feb 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Part 2
<quoted text>
Oh gee I don't know...because it is.
<quoted text>
So history has no use at all then? Or is it only in this case? I see... so I guess those countries/states that have civil unions for same sex couples shouldn't do so because it wasn't done in the past. History can be, and is a guide for the present. Besides its more of an appeal to biology,rather than history, or perhaps both.
<quoted text>
Well, I wouldn't expect you to use logic. Instead you appeal to tradition.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The logic is very simple, marriage, union of husband and wife, ORIENTATED around their physical sexual union, and what that union produces, children. No strawman...well maybe a straw man, and a straw woman, and their little straw children.
<quoted text>
You don't have to be able to produce children in order to marry.

Next.

Pietro Armando wrote:
We all start out from that point. It all begins with a man and woman having sex, if it wasn't for that, neither you or I would be here. Marriage is societies means of connecting men, women, and the children they produce. That's it. That ain't no circular reasoning, thems the facts of life.
<quoted text>
Obtain one now? A license for what exactly? To become "husband and wife"? Physical impossiblity. You're not seeking to marry, but rather have the state declare your intimate personal relationship with another man, marriage. You want a license to become "husband and husband". That's what your seeking.
Why does it matter if two men/women marry or not? What will happen if they don't? is there a moral stigma attatched to same sex intimacy occuring outside of wedlock? Of "living in sin"?
You are a joke. Not one rational argument against gay marriage.

And only one is needed for it.

Equal rights.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2882 Feb 23, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
wtf over?
You're talking to Brian_G. Someone who believes gay marriage will lead to forced marriages between members of pro-sports teams.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2883 Feb 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
We can preempt the Supreme Court with a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as one man and one woman, like DOMA.
You said the legalization of gay marriage will lead to the legalization of prison rape.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2884 Feb 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhh......helloooooo....you were comparing desserts. Is blueberry pie here to stay?
Having a tough time following the conversation, eh?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2885 Feb 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Asking for governmental regulation of one's personal intimate relationship is an effort to use the constitution to restrict freedom?
<quoted text>
Equal treatment exists on same basis as any other man, or woman.
<quoted text>
Nooooo.....not quite.
<quoted text>
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
<quoted text>
No the popular reason is that promoting and protecting conjugal marriage is in the best interest of society as a whole.
<quoted text>
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.
Amending the constitution to prevent equal recognition of marriage for same sex couples is a restriction of freedom and equality. Semantics won't change that fact.

Equal treatment does not exist in all states and is denied by the Feds. The legal marriages of same sex couples are not treated equally to the same marriages of opposite sex couples from the same jurisdiction, by all other states and the Feds. All courts recognize this is discrimination under the law. The remaining question is; is such discrimination justifiable? You provide no legitimate governmental interest...

Opposite sex and same sex couples use the same variety of assisted reproduction methods, as well as adoption. How a child is brought into a family is legally irrelevant to marriage. This fails as an excuse for denial of equal treatment under the law.

Despite the repeated claim, you fail to show how "promoting and protecting conjugal marriage" is affected by equal treatment for same sex couples. All of the same legal incentives remain the same. Opposite sex couples will not be any less conjugal than they are today, nor will they be any less inclined. You provide nothing to demonstrate this is anything more than unsupportable fear mongering.

Yet legally, this has never been a requirement. Your desire to make it one now, ignores the reality and living conditions of many opposite sex couples married today. Imposing further restrictions is changing the institution, while allowing same sex couples to participate under the current laws does not alter opposite sex marriages.

Again, plural marriage requires numerous and fundamental changes in the current laws that determine "what" marriage is for both opposite sex and same sex couples. Equal treatment for same sex couples make no changes to the "what".

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2886 Feb 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I personally believe that marriage should remain, legally, a conjugal union of husband and wife. I also believe that there should be an alternative legal structure for SSCs, and other relationships. The plural marriage/polygamy issue raises, I think, challenges for SSM and their advocates. many of the same arguments used to advocate for legal SSM can also be used for consensual plural marriage. SSM advocates are inadvertently advocating for polygamy.
<quoted text>
Gay rights advocates ARE advocating for polygamy whether they wish to admit it or not. What's good for the gay goose is good for the poly gander.
Thanks for the confirmation of your position.

While you continue to insist treating gay people equally under the laws currently in effect will lead to changing those laws and structure of society, you avoid adressing the many differences and fail to show why more of the same will require changing to something very different for everyone.

Polygamy is a separate argument because it changes the rules, laws, and relationship dynamics of the entire society for straight and gay people on a fundamental level, while allowing gay people the same rights straight people currently enjoy does not change the rules, laws, or relationship dynamics for straight people. Polygamy is neither an equal legal nor social structure. It is a change of social order to something very different.

As practiced, polygamy restricts the availability of women, denying some men the opportunity for marriage, which would have a destabilizing effect on society. Allowing gay people to marry under the rules currently in place, has a stabilizing effect on those relationships and society in general.

As it is usually one man and as many women as he can afford, it would result in rich men having many wives with poorer men having none. That also results in older men having more wives while putting pressure on women to marry younger, as is currently the practice. This dynamic limits the possibilities for women to have equal opportunities in education, employment, and status, in and outside of the relationship.

It also changes the genetic balance by limiting the gene pool, which history has shown is not in the interest of survivability of the species.

Allowing gay people to marry does not limit the gene pool, but possibly expands it. Additionally, gay couples often adopt, and often take in the hard to place children that have been abused and discarded by their straight parents, which provides another stabilizing influence on society, and does not alter the current structure.

There are other frequently observed problems with polygamy including child abuse, spousal abuse, child custody, property divisions, and inequality of relationships. These examples should help to point out why polygamy is a separate argument. It is a different social and legal structure. Therefore, it cannot be considered equal treatment under the laws currently in effect.

Because it is a different argument, it is far from an inevitable consequence of marriage equality for same sex couples. Allowing gay people the same opportunities and dignity straight people have however, is a matter of fairness and equality.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2887 Feb 23, 2013
Additionally,(again,) it was argued allowing inter-racial marriage would lead to polygamy. Your use of this argument makes as much sense now as it did then.
2=2
3 or more does not equal 2

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#2888 Feb 23, 2013
RubyTheDyke wrote:
Husband on life support but the prognosis is coma, limited brain function and no chance of recovery. One wife wants to remove him from life support, the other wife does not. Who should have the right of determination, given that each partner in legal standing are equal?
A VERY valid question, a good illustration of just ONE of the complications introduced in multiple-party marriages, which is not present in two-party marriages, regardless of gender.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Valid question. Possible solution. Medical power of attorney. Can a spouse, now, designate someone other than spouse to medical decisions?
A very invalid answer. Of course a spouse can do that now. But such a step is only necessary when someone does not WANT their spouse to be their MPOA, for whatever reason. Marriage circumvents this step for the vast majority who would choose their spouse. Yours is a better argument for abandoning the legal ramifications of marriage altogether. Since such legal contracts exist for MPOA's (and a thousand other legal rights and protections), then why not simply require EVERYONE to take EVERY legal step separately, addressing every possible contract and legal question, since they may choose someone OTHER than their spouse?

The answer, of course, is that marriage fills in ALL those blanks simultaneously, with "My spouse". This is why marriage addresses over 1000 rights, benefits and responsibilities. By getting married, it is assumed that in each and every case, a married person will simply choose their spouse. Multi-party marriages complicate and confuse this, by forcing the choice to be made at every step, since the choice may not (and probably WOULD not) be the same person each time. Two-person marriages NEVER have this complication, regardless of gender.

Pietro, could you PLEASE "come out of the closet" on this issue? Are you arguing FOR polygamy, or do you intend it as an albatross around same-sex marriage's neck? Either position can be addressed, but you should publicly PICK ONE, so that everyone knows WHICH to address when speaking with you.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#2889 Feb 23, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Amending the constitution to prevent equal recognition of marriage for same sex couples is a restriction of freedom and equality. Semantics won't change that fact.
Wouldn't absence of government regulation remove restrictions on freedom?
Equal treatment does not exist in all states and is denied by the Feds. The legal marriages of same sex couples are not treated equally to the same marriages of opposite sex couples from the same jurisdiction, by all other states and the Feds.
Each state is free to define marriage as it wishes. One state cannot force a state to do otherwise.
All courts recognize this is discrimination under the law. The remaining question is; is such discrimination justifiable? You provide no legitimate governmental interest...
Different courts have ruled differently in regards to marriage and SSCs.
Opposite sex and same sex couples use the same variety of assisted reproduction methods, as well as adoption.
Human reproduction is sexual. A SSC cannot reproduce in this manner, nor can they provide both mother and father in one union.
How a child is brought into a family is legally irrelevant to marriage. This fails as an excuse for denial of equal treatment under the law.
That argument fails to acknowledge the link between procreation and marriage.
Despite the repeated claim, you fail to show how "promoting and protecting conjugal marriage" is affected by equal treatment for same sex couples. All of the same legal incentives remain the same. Opposite sex couples will not be any less conjugal than they are today, nor will they be any less inclined. You provide nothing to demonstrate this is anything more than unsupportable fear mongering.
It is not fear mongering nor can equal treatment be applied to an unequal situation. An OSC is just that. A SSC is either male or female, it does not contain both sexes. Thus the rules are different.
Yet legally, this has never been a requirement.
Why would something that occurs naturally need to be required?
Your desire to make it one now, ignores the reality and living conditions of many opposite sex couples married today. Imposing further restrictions is changing the institution, while allowing same sex couples to participate under the current laws does not alter opposite sex marriages.
SSCs cannot participate under the same rules as OSCs, for the simple fact they are of the same sex. The basis of marriage, and its nature is conjugality, the union of husband and wife.
Again, plural marriage requires numerous and fundamental changes in the current laws that determine "what" marriage is for both opposite sex and same sex couples. Equal treatment for same sex couples make no changes to the "what".
Plural marriage is marriage, historically, culturally, religiously, and/or legally in many parts of the world, including the U.S. It still maintains the opposite sex nature of the marital relationship. SSM does not. SSM preserves the number, but not the nature.

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
Gay couples exchange vows in Montana after ruling 1 hr jinxysscrew 124
Alaska's 1st known gay marriage in Arctic town 1 hr Pope Bennie s Closet 49
The sexuality pay gap: Lesbians earn 8% more th... 3 hr Wimyum 4
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 3 hr Static Charge 26,690
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 3 hr dee lightful 170
Longtime couple push gay marriage case in France (Jan '11) 3 hr Rick in Kansas 32
Elton John, David Furnish to tie knot in privat... 4 hr Troll Stopper 15
More from around the web