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 (Page 165)

Showing posts 3,281 - 3,300 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3441
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I agree with you completely that some people misuse their thoughts/opinions/beliefs to hurt others. That is NEVER right. No matter who does it. I even completely understand your desire to defend yourself. That is completely natural. However, blaming EVERY theist for the actions of certain individuals is illogical and straight up wrong. Blame should be placed on the individuals inflicting the harm (and only the individuals) instead of the groups to which they belong or the belief system as a whole. It is only just. In regards to civil rights (as well as the u.s. constitution, etc), these laws were set up to protect the freedom of each and every individual American. To promote equality. Not to rip said freedom or equality away. Taking away those rights will only lead to chaos. It will not lead to liberation as you think. People, as a whole, have the potential to be very selfish and narrow minded. Each one believing that their way is the right way. Which is why these laws were set up in the first place. To promote order and insure the equality and freedom of each and every individual living in the u.s. Is it a perfect system? No. But a system is better than no system at all.
In regards to the freedom of religion specifically, I don't think the solution is to remove it. I think we each must change the way we approach it. The freedom to believe (or not believe) in a manner of our choosing is a personal choice and an intimate reflection of our freedom. Never should it be used as a weapon to ridicule, demean, hurt, or condemn those around us.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3442
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
no, you are interjecting commitment, but pressummably, the level of commitment would be the same or greater considering an outside attraction could be brought into a polygamists marriage where it is adultery for life...
I do love discussing polygamy and seeing you guys use cartoonesque stereotypes...
but as to the point I was making, in the sense that interracial marriages provided one mom and one dad that makes them more like traditional marriage whereas the common thread between polygamy and SSM is an alternative family structure...
and I note polygamy is banned as such.
We don't claim that same-sex marriages have anything in common with interracial marriages that they don't have in common with any other marriage. We claim that the arguments are the same. In many cases, the arguments are based on similar bigotry and ignorance.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3443
Mar 6, 2013
 
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
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."
Not in my case. I KNOW god does not exist, just like I KNOW there is no 6 foot frog tap dancing in my living room.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3444
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Use the scientific method to disprove his existence. Oh, there isn't any. See how well that works?
Well, since you keep insisting...
Does god exist?
(I'm talking about the god described in the Buy-bull, if "god" can mean anything, the question is meaningless.)
Well, let me do some research...
It says that if I ask anything in Jesus' name, I'll get it.
Cool.
So, my hypothesis is that if god exists, he will give me anything I ask in Jesus' name.
Now, my experiment will be to ask god to have Tom Cruise appear in front of me within 10 seconds. Naked and wanting me.
Dear Lord in Jesus name I ask...
10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0...
Well, no Cruise...
So, I've proven god does not exist using the scientific method.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3445
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a questionable statement.
What's questionable about it? Assuming God to be the ultimate creator, is God responsible for scientific law or not?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3446
Mar 6, 2013
 
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
just as it should be clear that a man AND a woman is not the same as two men..
I love how you guys use stereotypes about polygamy to invent legal burdens and then deny that there are any as to gays or that such burdens are a reason to deny rights...
And yet you offer no legitimate governmental interests sufficient for denial of equal treatment to same sex couples under the laws currently in effect.

Two of the same gender is not the same as two of opposite gender, but since procreation isn't a legal consideration, restricting the gender to one of each provides no interest. Keeping the number the same does.

Remember it is your side that keeps bringing up polygamy as an excuse. We just deomonstrate the many reasons why is it a different argument, and a different restriction. Gender and number are two very different things.

2=2
3 or more does not.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3447
Mar 6, 2013
 
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I cant believe I cut this out of your quote...
hypocrisy at its best!
"changes the interpersonal dynamics of the relationship, as well as the structure of society."
Hoo ha.
that was the hoot I needed for today as I assume its your position gay marriage does not..
whew....great stuff...
Derision fails as a rational response, and fails to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the laws currently in effect.

It appears you believe removing the gender requirement will result in heterosexual people choosing to marry a person to whom they have no romantic interest. Is this your assertion? Is that why you are laughing? You think we will believe straight couples will stop getting married to each other?

Gay couples are already forming relationships. Recognizing marriage equality may result in more of them getting married, but it won't stop them from forming relationships, nor will it stop straight couples from doing as they have done in the past.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3448
Mar 6, 2013
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>You don't know that the scientific method is. If you did, you'd know it's not needed to prove there is no god. Just like I don't need the scientific method to prove there isn't a giraffe in my fridge.

Feel free to provide any evidence of god's existence.
:::crickets chirping:::
You clearly don't understand the human experience.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3449
Mar 6, 2013
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>Not in my case. I KNOW god does not exist, just like I KNOW there is no 6 foot frog tap dancing in my living room.
How do you know exactly?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3450
Mar 6, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>What's questionable about it? Assuming God to be the ultimate creator, is God responsible for scientific law or not?
You're so funny with your over baking of every last detail. Lol I do believe that God put said laws in motion. Yes.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3451
Mar 6, 2013
 
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
You're so funny with your over baking of every last detail. Lol I do believe that God put said laws in motion. Yes.
Thank you.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3452
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
You're so funny with your over baking of every last detail. Lol I do believe that God put said laws in motion. Yes.
If this is true, then science is evidence that God exists.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3453
Mar 6, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>If this is true, then science is evidence that God exists.
Okay

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3454
Mar 6, 2013
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic is not your strong point, is it? Let's see: A "marriage" involving three or more people will always have two same-sex members.[I acknowledge but don't care to get bogged down in intersex situations.] Therefore, polygamous groups have the same difference between opposite-sex couplings that same-sex couplings have: At least two members of the same sex.
Uhhhhhhhh....Jeff that is correct. It's a "D'uh". Yes a plural marriage will have a least two members of the same sex, as it has had throughout human history. But it also contains at least one of the opposite sex, something that a SSR doesn't. There's that logic for ya Jeffy.

[QUOTE}
You're really stuck on this notion that the differences between men and women are more important than the differences between individuals. It is a non-sequitur that you hold onto like a dog to a bone.
[/QUOTE]

Its a simple matter of biology. There are two sexes, not one, but two, put 'em together, and lo and behold, another human is created, just like I was, and you were. There are gender based differences beyond our plumbing.
But why don't you come back after you have analyzed the marriage laws and determined what needs to change in order to accommodate multiple partners. Include your solutions to all the problems presented, and demonstrate that a significant group of polygamous groups would like to have your solutions enforced by law.
Is that really necessary in the name of "marriage equality"? Its not up to the participants to rewrite the laws, but the legislatures, judges, and attorneys. That what they get paid to do. No different in that regard with SSM. Were SSCs required to rewrite any laws, or did that fall on to the various state legislatures?
Until you do this, you are just whistling in the wind. Adopting the marriage laws for same-sex couples has been shown multiple times to require only the smallest tweaks to law. Adopting marriage law to larger groupings is a task that, as far as I know, no one has even attempted. Here's your opportunity to be a first. Good luck. See you in a few years.
Its irrelevant. SSCs were not required to rewrite the laws before SSM was legalized. Why should polygamists have to?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3455
Mar 6, 2013
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in my case. I KNOW god does not exist, just like I KNOW there is no 6 foot frog tap dancing in my living room.
Didn't you hire me for the kid's birthday party?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3456
Mar 6, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
If this is true, then science is evidence that God exists.
And if it isn't true?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3457
Mar 7, 2013
 
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Like most reasonable atheists (and agnostics), I would never bother to argue with someone over the existence or not of their chosen God(s). Why bother? I won't listen to them try to convince me that because a crocus opens in the morning that somehow some old white-haired guy that lives in the clouds is responsible for it. Or that he's going to be really, really, REALLY angry with me if I don't believe he did it. Why would HE care what I believe??

The ONLY problem I have with *anyone's* personally chosen religious beliefs is when they decide that their beliefs are SO awesome that the must be forced onto everyone else, regardless of what those other people might feel about it. And all too many religious zealots do exactly that, all the while proclaiming their right to do it and soundly rejecting anyone that disagrees with them. That's a problem.

So if someone wishes to believe that their God demands that they go outside and eat a cup of dirt every day, I say, "Go for it! Enjoy! Be careful of the rocks and don't eat too many worms, okay?" But do NOT go thinking that *I* should also do that.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3458
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you completely that some people misuse their thoughts/opinions/beliefs to hurt others. That is NEVER right. No matter who does it. I even completely understand your desire to defend yourself. That is completely natural. However, blaming EVERY theist for the actions of certain individuals is illogical and straight up wrong. Blame should be placed on the individuals inflicting the harm (and only the individuals) instead of the groups to which they belong or the belief system as a whole. It is only just. In regards to civil rights (as well as the u.s. constitution, etc), these laws were set up to protect the freedom of each and every individual American. To promote equality. Not to rip said freedom or equality away. Taking away those rights will only lead to chaos. It will not lead to liberation as you think. People, as a whole, have the potential to be very selfish and narrow minded. Each one believing that their way is the right way. Which is why these laws were set up in the first place. To promote order and insure the equality and freedom of each and every individual living in the u.s. Is it a perfect system? No. But a system is better than no system at all.
In regards to the freedom of religion specifically, I don't think the solution is to remove it. I think we each must change the way we approach it. The freedom to believe (or not believe) in a manner of our choosing is a personal choice and an intimate reflection of our freedom. Never should it be used as a weapon to ridicule, demean, hurt, or condemn those around us.
But it seems to be human nature, at least among the generally less educated people, to paint every member of a group with the actions of the few. And since that *IS* human nature, and you know that it will be done, shouldn't those of you that profess a certain faith that disagree with the hate-based actions of the few speak out against them, lest you be painted with that brush?

I'm not saying it's right that you be saddled with that responsibility, just that you are if you don't want to be considered part of that crowd by default.

How many times does the ENTIRE freaking gay community get tarnished and labeled with public indecency by 4-second video clips on the news of buff go-go boys dancing in g-strings on parade floats in a pride parade?? Isn't that pretty much the same issue??

I can assure you, I am about as far from a buff go-go boy dancing in a g-string as a person can get, but I still suffer from the ignorant assumptions made by idiots that ALL gay people do that. Seriously?? Yeah, they do. And they also figure that we all must be having sex in public every chance we get, too.

And I absolutely do shut people down every time they I hear them saying such ridiculous things. But most of the Christians I know that ARE supportive of equal rights and *don't* seek to force their religion onto everyone else, just sit back and let the hate-mongers talk for them. So they shouldn't be surprised with they all get painted with that same brush of ignorance and hate.
Francisco dAnconia

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3459
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't claim that same-sex marriages have anything in common with interracial marriages that they don't have in common with any other marriage. We claim that the arguments are the same. In many cases, the arguments are based on similar bigotry and ignorance.
I get that, and I am saying you are more like polygamist than interracial marriages...

and the point is, which one is banned again?
Francisco dAnconia

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3460
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you offer no legitimate governmental interests sufficient for denial of equal treatment to same sex couples under the laws currently in effect.
except for the scientific study showing gay marriage contributed to a decline in all the aims of marriage for society!

see how that answers your question?
You don't like it because gays are not the center of the analysis, but that's the point.....
marriage..its not about you!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 3,281 - 3,300 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••