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.

Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3401 Mar 6, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I do, too. He's still just churning out the same "Unless you support polygamy, you can't support same-sex marriage" bull that's been debunked over and over.
He clearly as nothing else, but he can't stand to be out of the discussion. Sucks to be him, I guess.
oh boys.
you say that about all the posters!

in other words...
pot meet kettle.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3402 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor can you use the scientific method to disprove his existence. NEXT. BTW you may wanna change your profile pic. It's misleading.
If God exists and creates everything, then science is a much better way to observe how God actually works than the Bible.
Mama Celeste

Schenectady, NY

#3403 Mar 6, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
So tired of this Pietro guy. He's had nothing new to say in over 100 pages, yet he keeps posting the same debunked nonsense. I wish there were an 'ignore' button for individual posters.
He's a good Italian boy who understands marriage is about Mama and Papa and their bambini. That's a nice.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#3404 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
Why claim that there is no God when you can't use the scientific method to disprove his existence? I get questioning the world around you. I even get embracing rationalism and logic. What I don't get is claiming something doesn't exist without having any definitive proof to support your claim? Why not just say "I don't know"?
In my experience, that IS what most atheists say. Calling oneself an "atheist" does NOT mean that a person claims to know that there is no god. It just means that they don't hold an active, standing belief in any gods. It means that, with the right evidence, they could be persuaded to believe in a god, but they currently have seen nothing to convince them so far. They are just "without" a belief in a god. That's not the same thing as being "with" a belief that there are no gods.

Many people who are not familiar with atheists make this mistake, and I can see why it would be an easy one to make. It's a subtle, but important, distinction between just not holding the belief that a given idea is true, and holding the belief that the idea is false.

For example, if I claimed that I had a quarter in my pocket, what would your belief be about that statement? You could believe me, you could say "I don't know", or you could say that you believe I DON'T have a quarter in my pocket. But even just saying "I don't konw" means that you do NOT have the standing, active belief that I DO have a quarter in my pocket. Atheists are like this. We have not formed an active, standing belief in any gods, but this doesn't mean that we HAVE formed the belief that there AREN'T any gods.

Although, there are some atheists who DO say that. I'm with you on that aspect. Without firm evidence, there's no way to form an opinion either way. However, Christians (and in fact all theists) are guilty of doing just that, insisting that they KNOW that there IS a god, when of course the correct answer should be "I don't know".

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3405 Mar 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>If God exists and creates everything, then science is a much better way to observe how God actually works than the Bible.
That's a questionable statement.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3406 Mar 6, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>In my experience, that IS what most atheists say. Calling oneself an "atheist" does NOT mean that a person claims to know that there is no god. It just means that they don't hold an active, standing belief in any gods. It means that, with the right evidence, they could be persuaded to believe in a god, but they currently have seen nothing to convince them so far. They are just "without" a belief in a god. That's not the same thing as being "with" a belief that there are no gods.

Many people who are not familiar with atheists make this mistake, and I can see why it would be an easy one to make. It's a subtle, but important, distinction between just not holding the belief that a given idea is true, and holding the belief that the idea is false.

For example, if I claimed that I had a quarter in my pocket, what would your belief be about that statement? You could believe me, you could say "I don't know", or you could say that you believe I DON'T have a quarter in my pocket. But even just saying "I don't konw" means that you do NOT have the standing, active belief that I DO have a quarter in my pocket. Atheists are like this. We have not formed an active, standing belief in any gods, but this doesn't mean that we HAVE formed the belief that there AREN'T any gods.

Although, there are some atheists who DO say that. I'm with you on that aspect. Without firm evidence, there's no way to form an opinion either way. However, Christians (and in fact all theists) are guilty of doing just that, insisting that they KNOW that there IS a god, when of course the correct answer should be "I don't know".
It stands to reason that "I don't know" should be the general consensus all around. "I don't know, but my personal beliefs are thus. It is not for me to force said personal beliefs upon my fellow man. Or judge them based upon my own personal convictions."

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3407 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can use the scientific method to disprove the existence of God? Show me.
You've never taken a class in either science or logic, have you?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3408 Mar 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Gender is the very reason for the fundamental right to begin with, <quoted text>
The constituion does not require equal treatment for all persons, for every situation, as indicated by the qualifications for president. Only natural born citizens are qualitfied to become president. Naturalized citizens cannot.
<quoted text>

<quoted text>
A requirement absent in American marital jurisprudence. It also implies the that non humans may marry.
<quoted text>
Judicial scrutiny is subject to the opinions of various courts in the judicial system. Different courts have reached different conclusions after "judicial scrutiny".
<quoted text>
Reasonable restrictions is dependent on one's personal concept of marriage. One who views marriage as a connjugal mongamous arrangement will believe the restrictions on number of participants, and the restriction of the union to one man and one woman will find those reasonable.
<quoted text>
There is no legitimate reason to reject the requirement of one of each.
<quoted text>
Procreation ability need not be a requirement, considering it is a natural consequence of the the male female sexual union. Requiring procreation would be unreasonable, for it is understood that not every opposite sex couple can procreate, nor desire to procreate. Never the less this does not negate the orientation of the marital relationship around the procreative aspect of the male female sexual relationship, and the state's interest in it, and society as well.
<quoted text>
It is not "irrational", but completely rational. It has been understood by virtually all human societies throughout history, that marriage is, a union of a man and a woman, or man and women, is the building blocks of the society and thus the need for special recognition, and privelege.
<quoted text>
Such reasoning fails in that it is not limited to "same sex couple families". If lack of marital recognition harms SSC families, does it stand to reason it also harms plural families needlessly for they lack marital recognition as well?
<quoted text>
SSCs sought and have been granted a legal redefintion of marriage so they could marry. The Fed govt, & most states disagree with such a redefinition and thus, do not wish to change thier laws.
Again, reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights may be made, but only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated and withstand judicial scrutiny.

An age restriction and being a natural born citizen, are both restrictions for becoming president that most can agree are reasonable. Not sure if they have even ever been challenged in court.

The constitution does in fact require equal treatment for "all persons" in article 4 as well as both the 5th and 14th amendments. It is also promised in the founding documents. Animals are not considered "persons" under the law.

Your belief procreation rather than transfer of property was the original purpose of marriage is irrelevant, since procreation has never been a requirement in US law, and couples who can't possibly procreate or can't possibly even have sex are still afforded the fundamental right of marriage.

Again treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not alter the marriages of straight couples, nor does it change the structure of society. Plural marriage requires a drastic change in both the laws that determine what marriage is, as well as a total restructuring of society in a way that advantages the rich, at the disadvantage of everyone else. It is an entirely different argument.

You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for refusing to treat same sex married couples equally under the laws currently in effect.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3409 Mar 6, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>You've never taken a class in either science or logic, have you?
Avoidance

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3410 Mar 6, 2013
The law is required to treat all persons equally.

The fact we often fail to live up to that requirement only shows why it is important to require it under the law. The founders were well aware the majority would deny equal treatment to the minority if given the chance. That is why they promised equal treatment for all in the founding documents and required it in the constitution.

5th: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

14th: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice the use of the terms "all persons" and "citizens". Animals are neither persons nor citizens.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3411 Mar 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

Your belief procreation rather than transfer of property was the original purpose of marriage is irrelevant, since procreation has never been a requirement in US law, and couples who can't possibly procreate or can't possibly even have sex are still afforded the fundamental right of marriage.
Again treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not alter the marriages of straight couples, nor does it change the structure of society. Plural marriage requires a drastic change in both the laws that determine what marriage is, as well as a total restructuring of society in a way that advantages the rich, at the disadvantage of everyone else. It is an entirely different argument.
You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for refusing to treat same sex married couples equally under the laws currently in effect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9908...

"Dr Patricia Morgan told the House of Commons that same-sex marriage reinforced the idea that marriage is irrelevant to parenthood.
This was the principle factor, she said, that has caused the collapse in marriage rates between heterosexuals in countries where gay marriage had been introduced - as well as a sharp rise in cohabitation and the numbers of children born out of wedlock."

"“As marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, this reinforces the irrelevance of marriage to parenthood,” she said.
“Elsewhere, same sex marriage is an instigator for the casualisation of heterosexual unions and separation of marriage and parenthood.”
She added:“Same sex marriage is more a terminus for marriage or ultimate act of dissolution, rather than a force for revival.”"

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3412 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Avoidance
Not at all. It's an obvious follow-up to your questions.

Science and logic don't generally DISprove anything. Only by proving something, can come limited related things be disproved:

Group A is only women
Group B is only men
John is a man
John is in Group B
John is NOT in Group A

We can only prove which group John ISN'T in my proving which one he IS in.

If science were able to disprove the existence of a particular God, it still could not disprove the existence of any and/or all OTHER Gods that may or may not be in existence.

Therefore, many people believe that the fact that one cannot prove the existence of God, there must not be one. That's logically inaccurate, but it's a fairly reasonable conclusion that a lot of people accept.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3413 Mar 6, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
In my experience, that IS what most atheists say. Calling oneself an "atheist" does NOT mean that a person claims to know that there is no god. It just means that they don't hold an active, standing belief in any gods. It means that, with the right evidence, they could be persuaded to believe in a god, but they currently have seen nothing to convince them so far. They are just "without" a belief in a god. That's not the same thing as being "with" a belief that there are no gods.
Many people who are not familiar with atheists make this mistake, and I can see why it would be an easy one to make. It's a subtle, but important, distinction between just not holding the belief that a given idea is true, and holding the belief that the idea is false.
For example, if I claimed that I had a quarter in my pocket, what would your belief be about that statement? You could believe me, you could say "I don't know", or you could say that you believe I DON'T have a quarter in my pocket. But even just saying "I don't konw" means that you do NOT have the standing, active belief that I DO have a quarter in my pocket. Atheists are like this. We have not formed an active, standing belief in any gods, but this doesn't mean that we HAVE formed the belief that there AREN'T any gods.
Although, there are some atheists who DO say that. I'm with you on that aspect. Without firm evidence, there's no way to form an opinion either way. However, Christians (and in fact all theists) are guilty of doing just that, insisting that they KNOW that there IS a god, when of course the correct answer should be "I don't know".
On the other hand, I'm quite certain many atheists are like me: I do believe in the spiritual connectedness of the universe. So it's not quite true to say that I believe in no creative force. Indeed, I do.[In fact, the conclusion is inescapable, although we can disagree on the significance.]

But I describe myself as "atheist" because there is sufficient evidence to debunk each major religion. I simply will not get caught into the trap of defending or contradicting individual beliefs of different religions.

I do not think religions are wrong, per se. I simply think they are extremely self-limiting. The creative force is much too complex to be described in a book, any set of books, or in the collective minds of any group. Each religion gives us a glimpse of God.

Because humans are limited, there is nothing wrong with choosing and using one religion to help us understand. But we must also realize that the other religions are just as valid paths to understanding.

Since most people who describe themselves as religious will not admit that, I do not admit to being religious.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3414 Mar 6, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
and like polygamy is now...
gays are somewhere in the middle, I'd say more towards polygamy than interracial marriage given the unique family structure of ssm...
BTW, how's Mona?
Have you had any glimpses of reality lately?
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3415 Mar 6, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you had any glimpses of reality lately?
yup. And in reality, SSM is a novel family structure which makes it more like polygamy than say interracial marriage...
which shares the mother father model.

how's your grasp of reality?
or do you think the races are so different that a black dad is more dissimilar to a white dad than a second mom is....
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#3416 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can use the scientific method to disprove the existence of God? Show me.
Provide the evidence for god. Oh, there isn't any. Hard to test something that doesn't exist.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3417 Mar 6, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all. It's an obvious follow-up to your questions.

Science and logic don't generally DISprove anything. Only by proving something, can come limited related things be disproved:

Group A is only women
Group B is only men
John is a man
John is in Group B
John is NOT in Group A

We can only prove which group John ISN'T in my proving which one he IS in.

If science were able to disprove the existence of a particular God, it still could not disprove the existence of any and/or all OTHER Gods that may or may not be in existence.

Therefore, many people believe that the fact that one cannot prove the existence of God, there must not be one. That's logically inaccurate, but it's a fairly reasonable conclusion that a lot of people accept.
I can dig that. Reasonable conclusion or not, it is still (as you said) logically inaccurate. This leaving the possibility for his actual existence. But never his outright denial seeing as how the scientific method cannot actually disprove his existence. So your conclusion, while being reasonable, is just that. Your own. It doesn't afford you the luxury of calling mine wrong. Simply different. Different is okay.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3418 Mar 6, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Provide the evidence for god. Oh, there isn't any. Hard to test something that doesn't exist.
Use the scientific method to disprove his existence. Oh, there isn't any. See how well that works?
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#3419 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Use the scientific method to disprove his existence. Oh, there isn't any. See how well that works?
There isn't any scientific method?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#3420 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
It stands to reason that "I don't know" should be the general consensus all around. "I don't know, but my personal beliefs are thus. It is not for me to force said personal beliefs upon my fellow man. Or judge them based upon my own personal convictions."
And yet we have articles like this one, with church leaders vowing political backlash if their personal beliefs and convictions are not forced on everyone in the nation, Christian and non-Christian alike.

It's all well and good for people to say "live and let live", that's a very admirable sentiment, but some people can't do that. They force the hands of the rest of us to oppose their domineering religious tactics.

I don't know if there's a god or not. But I DO know that the Christian concept of "God" is completely irrational and immoral, making it inconsistent with their own description of it. This is a god that cannot exist (unless it is actually evil, and is behaving out of spite and malice, unbeknownst to its followers). I can't logically defer to the followers of this god as the "keepers" of some sort of "absolute, perfect morality". They don't demonstrate it. A god who creates gay people, and then forbids them from human intimacy doesn't demonstrate it. A god who creates thinking, feeling beings, hides itself from them, and then pitches them into eternal fire for choosing the wrong belief system, is absolutely NOT moral (especially not while he had foreknowledge of what beliefs they would pick before he even created them).

I have no interest in forcing my personal beliefs onto my fellow humans, but I won't sit still while THEY are trying to codify their religious tenets into civil law.

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 Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 4 min barefoot2626 880
News Pope Francis eases way for divorced Catholics w... 4 hr Demon Finder 56
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 7 hr RevKen 35,939
News Husband Decides to Divorce New Wife on Wedding ... 13 hr andet1987 11
News A Pentecost on Crete? 15 hr Julie Chance 1
News Diversity, love, strength and unity celebrated ... 18 hr Ronald 9
News Upset at D.C., GOP takes away gay rights at sta... 18 hr cpcp25 153
More from around the web