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
3,381 - 3,400 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3544
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Reverend Wilson wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin some churches condone it but it is a clear violation of Bible scripture
(Yawn). No, it's not. If you believe it is, you've been too busy thumping your Bible to bother reading it.

And (yawn) judging and condemning others are far greater sins than anything sex-based. See ya' in hell, sister.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3545
Mar 8, 2013
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, stupid, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry, so the fact gay couples can't procreate is a non issue when it comes to the marriage debate.
Next.
Actually Rose a gay couple can procreate.....as long as they're of the opposite sex.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3546
Mar 8, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy--the irrelevant argument they always bring up when all their anti-gay anti-marriage arguments have fallen flat.
Congratulations!
Polygamy-the relevant argument they always dismiss when all their pro gay, poly phobic arguments have fallen flat. "Oh please just redefine marriage for us, but not for them, because we're the better, more respectable sexual minority".

Congratulations!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3547
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you've obviously never studied the social history of marriage, have you? Throughout most of history, marriage has been about consolidating and preserving family fortunes and protecting inheritance rights.
Yet, other than a few scattered examples of formally recognized same sex unions, marriage has been overwhelmingly a male female relationship. Why? Same sex sexual behavior is not new, various societies have tolerated it, even celebrated it on some levels. The Romans did....although they didn't put rainbow stickers on their chariots.(smirk) But it didn't automatically segway into same sex marriage. Why not?
This bizarre notion that only married people are allowed to have babies and people that have babies must be married has no basis at all in history. Or reality.
Not quite sure on that Johnny...perhaps not in this country over the past 60 years or so, there was that expectation, that procreation should take place within marriage How many a "shot gun" marriages took place, because the bride to be found herself in a family way?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3548
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. "Traditional" marriage is really a rather modern concept.
I suppose that depends on how one defines "traditional". Perhaps "conjugal" might be a more accurate term.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3549
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention the fact that we allow people that can't procreate to marry every single day and, so far, those other couples that CAN procreate are still somehow managing to get the job done.
I would suggest that irrational isn't quite the right term. I think totally and hopelessly delusional is closer to the mark.
I agree
Makes sense

Dearborn, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3550
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

LOL

Last one out of the church, please extinguish the candle.

The "church" is the people and the people are voting with their feet and donations. The churches are finding themselves empty and penniless with huge sexual damages claims to pay. Say bye bye to churches. Then let's pass legislation to tax them, like everyone else.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3551
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you've obviously never studied the social history of marriage, have you? Throughout most of history, marriage has been about consolidating and preserving family fortunes and protecting inheritance rights.
This bizarre notion that only married people are allowed to have babies and people that have babies must be married has no basis at all in history. Or reality.
==========
The "basis" marriage does have in history that is not "bizarre" is that it is a union between a man and a woman, between male and female, between a husband and a wife.

"Throughout most of history, marriage has been about consolidating and preserving family fortunes and protecting inheritance rights" that accrue between man and woman and their progeny.

Family throughout history naturally and normally is born of male and female.
harpocrates

Rockholds, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3552
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Reverend Wilson wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin some churches condone it but it is a clear violation of Bible scripture
Idolatry is an abomination but every christian who worships a man is errant.

also, sodom and gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13...

furthermore you have to ask yourself, even without the above link to clarify, why would lot be living in a town of only homosexuals and then attempting to give his daughters to them en lieu of men?

why was lot's son-in-laws not taken into consideration?

what were women living in the confines of a supposedly gay seaside resort? better yet why was lot residing in a town supposedly inhabited by homosexual males?

Genesis 14:16
And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
harpocrates

Rockholds, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3553
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
The "basis" marriage does have in history that is not "bizarre" is that it is a union between a man and a woman, between male and female, between a husband and a wife.
"Throughout most of history, marriage has been about consolidating and preserving family fortunes and protecting inheritance rights" that accrue between man and woman and their progeny.
Family throughout history naturally and normally is born of male and female.
actually this is untrue. the original adam before adam as in "mankind" was intersexed. this is how eve was taken from adam's side because

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/76...

notice again what it infers in this verse

Genesis 5:2
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

he called them adam because they were male and female
Makes sense

Dearborn, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3554
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
The "basis" marriage does have in history that is not "bizarre" is that it is a union between a man and a woman, between male and female, between a husband and a wife.
"Throughout most of history, marriage has been about consolidating and preserving family fortunes and protecting inheritance rights" that accrue between man and woman and their progeny.
Family throughout history naturally and normally is born of male and female.
LOL Historically, it was male and females. Females were property ripe for collecting by wealthy men who owned them. Add to that concubines and you see, yes indeed, wealthy Republicans long for and want to promote the olden days, especially the prevalence of pedophilia. Long live GOP Sharia Law!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3555
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Makes sense wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL Historically, it was male and females. Females were property ripe for collecting by wealthy men who owned them. Add to that concubines and you see, yes indeed, wealthy Republicans long for and want to promote the olden days, especially the prevalence of pedophilia. Long live GOP Sharia Law!
Absolutely. Throughout nearly all of the history that the neo-cons all love to wax poetic about, women were little more than heir-producers for her husband's estate. She wasn't even allowed to inherit any of it, if she should happen to outlive her husband, which didn't happen very often since most women died in childbirth--eventually....

Funny how THOSE are the "traditional marriages" that the idiots all want to promote and go back to. Are we surprised? Nope.
Francisco dAnconia

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3556
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Single people can get married.
There is no reason to require one of each gender.
says you.
how about if we let voters decide?
why do you think your view (in the minority at that) should prevail?
Francisco dAnconia

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3557
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Get a new scrying device, Mr. Copper Mines, was it?
"I, supported by this expert analysis of marriage trends in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Canada and some U.S. states were gay marriage has been legalised," disagree as is rational to do as well."
Expert analysis of marriage trends? ahahahahahahahahahh
are over the psychotic seizure that was your prior post?
You know I toy with you right, skippy?
you are a good lil doggie...
Francisco dAnconia

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3558
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Same-sex couples have such power?!?!?!? So 2-3% of the married couples that are same-sex have the power to "negate marriage as providing stability for procreation" and be "a detriment to society"?? Really??
Tell me, is that because same-sex couples are so awesome that everyone will want to be part of one??
Or is it that the 97-98% of married couples that are straight are so fragile that the mere presence of a tiny percentage of same-sex couples will confuse and upset them to the point where they will forget that they're heterosexual and stop having sex with each other?
You make a compelling argument. I just need some clarification on it. Okay??
nope you just are loud and your agenda is counter to society's betterment..
that's all...
who needs compelling argument?

I need only rationality and a man is not a woman is enough...you'll see soon.
but you wont understand...
Francisco dAnconia

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3559
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!! OMG!! You actually believe that, don't you??? Too funny!!
I take it you were born without the part of your brain that handles basic logic functions, weren't you??
just as much as you believe the studies you support that have the same flaws...One of us is consistent and its not you...
Francisco dAnconia

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3560
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet that op ed you're referring to forgot to mention that marriage rates in those places have been on a steady decline since the 1950's--nearly 50 years before the first same-sex marriages became legal.
Care to explain to us the link to an "effect" that started 50 years before the "cause"??
see how you read it but didn't accept that they said it was a SYMPTOM and a cause...
so they did address it...you must have sand in your ears...
Francisco dAnconia

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3561
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
What type of sex do you imagine children have with their parents such that the gender of the parents matters?
.
gross and shows you have no idea what is the central issue is here...
the scotus will explain it to you later this year...I know you will ignore it and call them bigots...good luck with that!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3562
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely. Throughout nearly all of the history that the neo-cons all love to wax poetic about, women were little more than heir-producers for her husband's estate. She wasn't even allowed to inherit any of it, if she should happen to outlive her husband, which didn't happen very often since most women died in childbirth--eventually....
Funny how THOSE are the "traditional marriages" that the idiots all want to promote and go back to. Are we surprised? Nope.
Ohhhhhh.....I get it now....elevation of the wife WITHIN the marriage means she's no longer legally necessary to the marriage itself. Gee wilikers Mr eCleaver, are you saying my Mom isn't needed? Wait till my Dad finds out.
Francisco dAnconia

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3563
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhh.....I get it now....elevation of the wife WITHIN the marriage means she's no longer legally necessary to the marriage itself. Gee wilikers Mr eCleaver, are you saying my Mom isn't needed? Wait till my Dad finds out.
I mean what kid wants a mother's bosom to cry on....
feminism has nothing to offer kids that dads don't have...
right?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••