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

United States

#3175 Feb 27, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as you understand it is a very different argument, requiring fundamental changes to the legal structure and social structure as well.
While I don't support criminalization of the private behavior, I don't support legalization either. I didn't really care till I started looking into it, and as usually practiced, it violates our ideas about equal treatment for all persons, concentrating power and resources in the hands of a few, depriving others of equal opportunities. Women currently have equal legal rights, but that doesn't mean they are always realized. These issues present a real and substantial hurdle for those in support, to overcome. And while free to try, again, it is a very different argument from treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect.
I do understand it's not the same. I don't plan to have any women in mine.
Mark

Pekin, IL

#3176 Feb 27, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as you understand it is a very different argument, requiring fundamental changes to the legal structure and social structure as well.
While I don't support criminalization of the private behavior, I don't support legalization either. I didn't really care till I started looking into it, and as usually practiced, it violates our ideas about equal treatment for all persons, concentrating power and resources in the hands of a few, depriving others of equal opportunities. Women currently have equal legal rights, but that doesn't mean they are always realized. These issues present a real and substantial hurdle for those in support, to overcome. And while free to try, again, it is a very different argument from treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect.
You endlessly Spam us with nonsense you can't logically defend. Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.

It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.

Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#3177 Feb 27, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>You endlessly Spam us with nonsense you can't logically defend. Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
You're trying harder to convince yourself than to convince us

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3178 Feb 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I doubt it, since backlash is a proven historical force.
Doubt it all you want. I'd be surprised if you didn't considering you refuse to deal with realities. The reality is that your type of people have caused a great deal of harm, which is why more and more people are starting to see the justice marriage equality will bring.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I never claim to speak for God, I seldom quote scripture. I'm against scaring people with lies or charming them with dreams. Mother and fathers have children, marriage is for them more than for same sex couples, singles or polygamists.
Marriage isn't for single people? LMAO! Oh and My Mom left me her wedding ring for when I marry my husband. So once again your claims about what parents want is way off base.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Right on, and I'm not the one advocating segregating a fundamental cultural institution, you want to change more than law. I don't. You shall reap what you sow, not don't.
I've read this part 7 times. It's still batshitcrazy.
I'm not changing an institution anymore than the institution was changed when Henry the VII left the Catholic Church or when the LAW was applied to all races equally.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Many people come back to the church when they marry, have kids and grandchildren.
True. Even ones who are gay or lesbian, so again what's your point?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Or when they need to hold a funeral.
Thought you just said you don't argue religion and church stuff. OOOPS caught ya again kiddo. But I agree many but not most return to church. Check the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and find out how many 'Americans' have left the church they were raised in and joined a more liberal one.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Or a baby makes you young or a fetus unborn. It takes all kinds.
Wow, you're getting even loonier. I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean or what bearing it has in this discussion. You probably can't remember either! LMAO!
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I respect your religion. I support your rejection of same sex marriage.
I never rejected Same Sex marriage. BTW what is that religion of mine you respect so much?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Before religion, same sex marriage was taboo; religion was created to protect gender integrated marriage.
Do these words ring a bell sunshine? "I'm against scaring people with lies or charming them with dreams." You've tried this whacked out history of the World according to Garp before. Odd that you say you don't argue religion when you just did. You say BEFORE religion SSM was taboo? Care to list some sources for that whopper? SSM has been embraced by many religions and cultures over the course of mankind.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3179 Feb 27, 2013
(Had to break up my response because of space constraints)
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> There's something oh so special about mom and dad.
Who says there isn't?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That special bond of family that nature creates and law codifies.
Another good point in FAVOR of marriage equality. Thanks.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> We protect marriage because of day and night
Hunh?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>or survival and children.
Like the laws that were created to deny a child his father and mother because they weren't married? The laws to protect the parental estate from bastard children?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Call me selfish;
Ok Thanks. But we knew that. What you are really going on about is protecting the 'special rights' you currently enjoy. Thing is you still get those rights when Same Sex Marriage is legal so what are you upset about?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>there's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality and that's no reason to redefine marriage.
NO one is re-defining marriage. Two single adults want to marry. Where's the "re-definition" in that? We are simply making sure the law is applied equally.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3180 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Therein lies the lie of the "marriage equality" movement.
Marriage equality is about one thing and one thing only. Applying the law equally to two adult U.S. Citizens who wish to marry regardless of the sex of the two people involved.
It has nothing to do with making sure you get taken care of. That's what NJeff meant by carry your own water.
Traditional Family values folks like me also refer to it as "personal responsibility".

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3181 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do YOU have an actual point? Do you have an argument for gay marriage? Seems you don't, otherwise you'd make it instead of constantly calling polygamy a red herring.
It's a red herring because it is more than two adults. The Federal Government and every State bans it.

The same isn't true for Same Sex marriage. Even the law you geniuses dreamed up DOMA grants Federal Permission for Same Sex Marriage.

The Marriage Equality Movement is about 3 parts of the Constitution. The 9th Amendment, the religious freedom guarantee found in the First Amendment and the equal protection clause found in the 14th. Since all marriage laws apply to only two non sibling people, polygamy is a red herring.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3182 Feb 27, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
While calling all bigots Nazis is not realistic, anyone who allows their irrational fear and hatred of an entire group of people to cause them to work to strip away that group's basic civil and human rights share some of the characteristics of Hitler's Own.
And there are people who post on these threads who propose incarcerating, criminalizing, raping and exterminating gay Americans.
They are indeed just like Nazis. The only thing missing is the power to make their sick visions come to life.
Big Red Heart.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3183 Feb 27, 2013
Mrs-Sichuvit wrote:
<quoted text>
The Nazis also did not allow dissent...people did not have freedom of speech. There are people on this thread wish to shut down discussion by calling people who disagree. "NAZIS".
Just like you are doing when you want to stop him from using the term "Nazi".

But you are right there are many on these threads who want to supress speech.

I'm not one of them. I'm gay and have even spoken against firing someone for their anti-gay rhetoric if it wasn't on the job.

I hope you will calm down, get back on topic and enjoy your blessings.

On a side note I hope you will read this article (I mention it a lot). It speaks of the issues you are debating with sickuvit.

The Fundamentalist Agenda
http://www.uuworld.org/2004/01/feature2.html

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3184 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
But not in mid 19th century NYC when interracial marriages occurred. Imagine that! Interracial marriage legal in New York City around the time of the Civil War. Gee.....who would've thunk it. So the Virginia ban was enacted how many years after that?
The Puritans banned Christmas in Boston too. What's your point? The fact is bans against inter -racial marriage were as common then as bans on SSM now.

You just helped show how the two are related and how both run contrary to the U.S. Constitution. Thanks for playing.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3185 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Should all left leaning bigots be called communists? The Communist philosophy is equal, no distinctions should be made regarding class, ethnicity, and we can now add, thanks to some Amerikan communists, gender as well. No distinctions at all. No sense keeping Mother's Day, and Fathers Day, Get rid of those, no more women's locker rooms, and men's locker rooms, etc. Let's not forget about religion, no self respecting leftist has need for that, after all there is no God.
Suppose the state chose not to recognize any marriage, or any other interpersonal human relationship, other than perhaps blood relatives. Would marriage then, no longer be a right?
<quoted text>
As there are who propose harming religious people, particularly Christians, in some of the same manner. Interesting, Islam, seems to get a pass.
<quoted text>
They are indeed just like Communists. Stalin's regime was far more brutal, and lasted longer, than Hitler's. Yet there are Americans of the left leaning persuasion, who think he was just a swell guy, and communism wasn't that bad.
You're a bit off on what the Communist Philosophy is.
Your definition is better suited to the word EGALITARIANISM

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3186 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Porky Pig just showed up. He wants to know when the rest of the left wing looney tunes are going to show up?
:)
Well at least we know they meet at your place. Porky usually doesn't get addresses confused.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3187 Feb 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, wasn't illegal for a black to marry a white fifty years ago. There were ancient arguments for interracial marriage, the book of Exodus with Moses' interracial marriage for example. Why are there no pre20th century arguments for same sex marriage?
Because gender segregation marriage would harm everybody, gays most of all.
History of the World according to Garp.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3188 Feb 27, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
This is absolutely correct, if it were being proposed that everyone have to be in a ssm or none at all. Then we'd be imposing our beliefs on everyone. But wait, that's what YOU are doing.
BAZINGA!

Sometimes I wish He'd love CO2 more.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3189 Feb 27, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not conjugal unless penis goes in vagina, so gays can't conjugate, therefore can't marry. That's your argument?
Do you expect to be taken seriously?
If its physically IMPOSSIBLE for gays to have sex, why don't you stop worrying about it?
The guy can't tell the difference between socialism, fascism, communism and egalitarianism. You really think he understands the term "conjugate?

LMAO!

Definition of CONJUGATE
1
a : joined together especially in pairs : coupled
b : acting or operating as if joined
2
a : having features in common but opposite or inverse in some particular
b : relating to or being conjugate complex numbers <complex roots occurring in conjugate pairs>
3
of an acid or base : related by the difference of a proton <the acid NH4+ and the base NH3 are conjugate to each other>
4
: having the same derivation and therefore usually some likeness in meaning <conjugate words>
5
of two leaves of a book : forming a single piece

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/con...

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3190 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Despite its legality, the percentages of SSCs who actually marry are know, and the females out number the makes. Nevertheless shouldn't plural marriage be treated as a civil right as SSM is?
<quoted text>
Yet polygamists, including the Brown family, gave expressed support for SSM, and have cited it as a means to bolster their argument for decriminalization and/or legalization.
<quoted text>
People such as yourself as well. Time will tell.
What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?- John Corvino


Feel free to make the religious freedom argument to SCOTUS. But you are using fuzzy math.

1+1=2 that's equality

2+2 does not equal 1+1

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3191 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Well...if nothing else, women will never have to worry about the toilet seat being up, and men will never be asked, "does this make me look fat".
You DO understand that when two people marry they don't become hermits, right? Trust me, men, gay and straight DO worry if something makes them look fat. And a married lesbian couples DOES have to worry about the seat being left up just like every wife in the world does.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3192 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually X Box that's not it. Conjugal as in pertaining to "husband and wife". That's it....very simple.
OOPs he did it again:

Definition of CONJUGAL
: of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/con...

con·ju·gal
[kon-juh-guhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of marriage: conjugal vows.
2.
pertaining to the relation between marriage partners.
Origin:
1535–45; < Latin conjug&#257;lis, equivalent to con- con-+ jug ( um ) yoke +-&#257;lis -al1

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjug...

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#3193 Feb 27, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>You endlessly Spam us with nonsense you can't logically defend. Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
Who is being disenfranchised David? You are lying again. From what I can see the people who can legally marry right now will continue to be able to do so.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#3194 Feb 27, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Monogamy and sexual orientation are two different things. Removing the restriction on gender does not require removing the restriction on the numbers. Removing the gender restriction doesn't change the "what" of marriage. Removal of the number restriction changes marriage and the structure of society for everyone.
You still refuse to address the fact poly requires changing the social structure of society as well as the laws that currently determine what marriage is for both straight and gay couples.
Most still understand 2=2, while 3 or more does not. Equal means the same. Poly is not equal to the current set of laws and social structure. It is not the same argument, as it appears the Judge recognized.
As practiced, polygamy restricts the availability of women, denying some men the opportunity for marriage, which would have a destabilizing effect on society, whereas 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 is another stabilizing influence on society, and under 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.
You have yet to address these concerns. Since there are several of you promoting polygamy in hopes it will prevent equal treatment for same sex couples, you may want to consider what you are promoting.
WOW This should be re-posted often.

You hit the nails on the head right into his coffin.

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
Washington County in Florida the Only Focus of ... 11 min DaveinMass 8
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 14 min Another View 31,514
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 49 min RevKen 26,712
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 1 hr dee lightful 174
Parties, performance to mark gay marriage ruling 2 hr Bryan Fischer s H... 1
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 3 hr KiMare 46
Will the Supreme Court End Gay Marriage as an E... 3 hr WasteWater 438
More from around the web