Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments
3,161 - 3,180 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3320 Mar 4, 2013
Edmond VA wrote:
If you truly wanted to debate polygamy, you'd answer my questions and we'd have a debate. But by ignoring my attempts at discussion, I think it's fair for me to assume that you're waiving that discussion. The debate happened, you had your chance and you abstained. The conclusion was, this is a separate issue, better debated separately. And you shouldn't castigate people for not wanting a discussion with you about a subject that you don't want to discuss.
No abstaining, I disagree it is a, and I'll clarify, totally separate issue.
Yes, polygamists DO have rights, but they can at least marry SOMEONE. Someone that they can feel love and attraction toward, and seek to build a future with (unlike telling gays that we DO have marriage rights, as long as we marry someone of the opposite sex). This discussion is about letting people marry ONE other, rather than unfairly being restricted to ZERO. We should address those who get no serving at all, before we tackle those who stack their plates.
The discussion still boils down to how, we as a society, define marriage. You view it as a union of two people regardless of gender composition, whereas polygamists view it as a union of persons of the opposite sex. Both polygamists and gay people can marry ONE person of the opposite sex. However, obviously, gay people want to marry someone of the same sex, whereas polygamists want to marry more than one person of the opposite sex. Number vs nature.
Then let's HAVE that discussion, if that's what you truly want. But recognize that there's a HUGE extension to those arguments that must ALSO be used to advocate for plural marriage, while the argument against same-sex marriage usually boils down to "gays are icky".
Okay, I agree in the "gays are icky" part, although it seems that gay men are viewed as "ickier" than lesbians. Polygamists are also viewed as "icky", and their relationships, taboo, similar to the view some have on same sex relationships.
The messenger is being attacked because he does not truly WANT to discuss the message, he is only using it to forestall debate of the topic on the table, which is what everyone PREFERS to discuss.
If you want to discuss it, then LET'S DISCUSS IT. I have many points I'm ready to make. I'd be eager to hear your replies to each of them.
I am discussing it.
But consider yourself lucky to get a discussion from even this ONE person. The other posters are right to reject discussion on the subject, as it is entirely unrelated. It's unlikely that any of them ARE polygamists, and they probably have few words of experience to say on the subject. It's MORE likely that they are not allowed even ONE spouse, and cannot securely provide for the ONLY person they love.
Thank you for your graciousness.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3321 Mar 4, 2013
One wonders how we managed to overturn miscegenation laws without also dealing with same-sex marriage, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and incest. They're all related, aren't they? Don't they all have to be dealt with at once, since they're all related?

Oh, wait: The racists tried the same old tactic way back then. Some things never change, and bigots are the top-of-the-list.

Time to get a new shtick, Pietro.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#3322 Mar 4, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
One wonders how we managed to overturn miscegenation laws without also dealing with same-sex marriage, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and incest. They're all related, aren't they? Don't they all have to be dealt with at once, since they're all related?
Oh, wait: The racists tried the same old tactic way back then. Some things never change, and bigots are the top-of-the-list.
Time to get a new shtick, Pietro.
and this is better anyway:

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3323 Mar 4, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
One wonders how we managed to overturn miscegenation laws without also dealing with same-sex marriage, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and incest. They're all related, aren't they? Don't they all have to be dealt with at once, since they're all related?
Oh, wait: The racists tried the same old tactic way back then. Some things never change, and bigots are the top-of-the-list.
Time to get a new shtick, Pietro.
The problem with using miscegenation laws it that it was already happening. Lots of mixed race babies were born despite such laws, and before such laws were put into place in various parts of the country,

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3324 Mar 4, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>and this is better anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =zBb9hTyLjfMXX
Right back atcha DFN with Dino n' Frank, the original DNF, and Sammie & Johnny too

http://m.youtube.com/watch...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3325 Mar 4, 2013
Oops...meant to type "DNF"

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3326 Mar 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do all persons have the fundamental right to marry any other person or persons?
<quoted text>]
Who determines what constitutes a fundamental right?
<quoted text>
What happens when judicial scrutiny reach opposite and conflicting descions as what constitutes a compelling and legitimate governmental interest?
<quoted text>
Are men, and women, whose sexual union is the primary means by which procreation occurs, given equal treatment under the law that recognizes their different procreational roles?
<quoted text>
No matter how you pontificate about nonsense, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
Next.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is it rational for children to be created and raised by their own biological mother and father if at all possible?

Is it rational to discriminate against other non nuclear biological family structures besides ssc headed families, such as step families, adult sibling headed families, and plural marriage families, that have also produced, and/or adopted children, and are raising them?
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3327 Mar 4, 2013
Tebia wrote:
<quoted text>Homomarriage is a totally different issue from real marriage you idiot, and you can make no logical case for it.
David, the logical argument is simple:
Equal rights.
Tebia wrote:
<
Your whole hate based movement is based on repeating the same illogical lies, over and over again. 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.
David, you don't have to be able to have children in order to marry, stupid.
David M wrote:
<

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
LOL. You are the ones who should live and let live. Nobody is trying to force you to marry a man.
David M wrote:
<
You can make no logical case for homosexual 'marriage.'
Equal rights, David.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3328 Mar 4, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
One wonders how we managed to overturn miscegenation laws without also dealing with same-sex marriage, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and incest. They're all related, aren't they? Don't they all have to be dealt with at once, since they're all related?
Oh, wait: The racists tried the same old tactic way back then. Some things never change, and bigots are the top-of-the-list.
Time to get a new shtick, Pietro.
Yep, they even said god was against inter-racial marriage. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3330 Mar 4, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, they even said god was against inter-racial marriage. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
They also claimed mixed race couples weren't "really" married.

Since: Aug 10

Buffalo, NY

#3331 Mar 4, 2013
This Thread is one of the most idiotic arguments in history!

You freaks are bitching about who the real Christians are?

Don't you think maybe god would,want you to simply respect each other and promote the strong values you faiths are SUPPOSED to represent?

idiots

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3332 Mar 4, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>They also claimed mixed race couples weren't "really" married.


Did they?
http://international.vlex.com/vid/colored-sco...

'A superior colored man ... and a Scotch woman': interracial marriages in New York City, 1850-1870.
When interviewed by a pension official in 1893, Ellen Davis stated that she was fifty-nine years old, employed as a washerwoman, and that she was born in Scotland. The widow spoke affectionately of her husband John Davis, a veteran of Company G of the 26th United States Colored Infantry who had passed away in 1887 at the age of seventy. The two had married at their home in Brooklyn in 1879 and settled down to raise Ellen's three children from her previous marriage. She recalled, "I had three children by my first husband [.H]is name was James Ronald [and] he was a Scotsman. I married him in Chanden, Scotland in 1859. We went to Australia within two weeks after we were married.... and lived on a sheep farm.... I lived there two years when his health began to fail and we moved back to Scotland." Her husband died soon thereafter and Ellen Davis moved to New York City in 1874 to stay with her cousin. Three years later, she met John Davis who worked as a sawyer in a mill. The Davis couple was well-liked in their neighborhood. According to a local official, "He was a superior colored man, a sawyer by trade, and was considered an honest and truthful man....[she] is a Scotch woman [who] speaks with a strong Scotch accent [and] appears to [be] honest and truthful." (1)
The marriage of John and Ellen Davis was one between a white woman and an African-American man, a Scottish immigrant and a native New Yorker, and two working class laborers. While one might assume that such relationships were rare in the nineteenth century, a close examination of United States Manuscript Census Records in New York City for 1850, 1860, and 1870 indicates that such interracial, cross-cultural marriages constituted five to seven percent of married couples living in predominantly black neighborhoods. The number of interracial marriages varied over the twenty year period under investigation but skyrocketed following the Civil War. Census records indicate that there were 29 interracial marriages in 1850, 19 in 1860, and 116 in 1870. The vast majority of such relationships occurred between black men and white women often between an African-American male born in the United States and a woman who had immigrated from Europe, most of whom were Irish, Scottish, or English.(2) While mixed-race couples in different regions and in different eras faced tremendous resistance, such couples were not uncommon in mid-nineteenth-century New York City. Interracial couples often married in black churches in New York, worked in the city, sent their children to local African schools, and successfully interacted with government institutions, including pension officials, local court representatives, and census takers.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3333 Mar 4, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter how you pontificate about nonsense, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
Next.
Nor do you have to marry to procreate.
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
]

Rosie's Law:
Morons with no real augment use the line "morons with no real argument" to refer to themselves.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3334 Mar 4, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, they even said god was against inter-racial marriage. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Yep, they even said men can't get pregnant.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3335 Mar 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, they even said men can't get pregnant.
Are you trying to make some kind of point?
If you are, you are failing!
(Unless the point is that you are stupid.)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3336 Mar 4, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you trying to make some kind of point?
If you are, you are failing!
(Unless the point is that you are stupid.)
No your analogy is stupid and weak.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3337 Mar 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No your analogy is stupid and weak.

I was just pointing out that fundies used the SAME argument against inter-racial marriage they are now using against gay marriage. "God's against it".
Are you denying that fact?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3338 Mar 4, 2013
"Fundies" argued the races shouldn't mix in marriage. Glibtees argue the sexes shouldn't mix in marriage. Interesting......perhaps you're right....the arguments do seem the same.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3339 Mar 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Fundies" argued the races shouldn't mix in marriage. Glibtees argue the sexes shouldn't mix in marriage. Interesting......perhaps you're right....the arguments do seem the same.
Try again, this time deal with the issue.
Fundies used the SAME argument against inter-racial marriage they are now using against gay marriage. "God's against it".
Are you denying that fact? Simple "Yes" or "No".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3340 Mar 4, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Try again, this time deal with the issue.
Fundies used the SAME argument against inter-racial marriage they are now using against gay marriage. "God's against it".
Are you denying that fact? Simple "Yes" or "No".
Okay so the religious was used against interracial marriage, and gay marriage..... but ya left one out.......that's right Rosie...polygamy too. I guess that makes the Supreme Court of 1879 were Fundies too.....that's rich. Well done Rosie! Bravo.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 hr D-U-H 49,462
Women dish on their most embarrassing wardrobe ... (Sep '13) 2 hr Kelly DJ 281
Testimony wraps up in former Va. governor trial 8 hr Natural Disasters 1
At the McDonnell trial, sidewalk visuals drive ... 9 hr Gary 1
Church firing stirs up controversy over same-se... 9 hr Jerald 51
Confronting homophobes 101: Class act lesbian m... (Dec '11) 17 hr Tam Phat 12
Refusal to sell wedding gowns to lesbian couple... 20 hr TomInElPaso 149
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••