Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5010 Jun 26, 2013
barry wrote:
you are all over the place.
Because I'm chasing YOU from one irrelevent topic to the next.
barry wrote:
she drew the line at participating in and or appearing to condone and celebrate something that she strongly felt was morally wrong.
She thinks too highly of her level of interaction, and not highly enough of her obligations as a merchant.

I work for an etailer, and I'm an atheist. If I see an order going to a church (which I often do), I don't just get to deny shipping it to them, simply because I don't condone what they might do with it. That's none of my business. A florist just needs to sell flowers, and keep their opinion of the PURPOSE of the flowers to themselves. If someone wants to use them to build a shrine to Satan, the florist should have no say in it.
barry wrote:
if i work on a catholic church it might be perceived that i condoned their religious practices and perhaps i was offering my services at a discount or free to serve them. i might do that to evangelical churches that i agree with and certainly would do it for the church i attend.
What you do as an independent contractor is irrelevent to the discussion.
barry wrote:
how touching. you have never run a business that competed with other businesses in the retail industry nor in the service industry. if he wants to "decorate himself" let him do it on his own time and his own dime. not when my dollars are involved.
How you feel about Radio Shack's uniform policy is irrelevent to the discussion.
barry wrote:
i never harrassed homosexuals who were only interested in doing business.
I never said you did. You said that you would stop evangelical customers from harassing other customers. I'm pointing out that we aren't discussing denying gay people service because they're harassing anyone. Customers who harass others is irrelevent to the discussion.
barry wrote:
your comment about he florist really shows that you do not understand the business. nor do you understand the sacredness that some people attribute to a wedding.
I don't really care what other people find "sacred". That has nothing to do with the business world. Maybe if they hold something "sacred", they should reconsider trying to make a buck off it. "Sacred" belongs in church. If the guy at Subway thinks tomatoes are "sacred", does he get to tell gay people they can't have any?
barry wrote:
if i must do business with everybody then i become a slave to society.
I would call it "participating in society".
barry wrote:
i should be able to require a dress code for my employees.
Irrelevent to the discussion.
barry wrote:
i should be able to require a certain standard of public behavior from my employees.
Irrelevent.
barry wrote:
the same would go for my customers.
IRRELEVENT.

We aren't talking about dress codes, or employee behavior, or even the standards of public behavior of customers. A gay couple simply ordering flowers or a cake ARE observing good standards of behavior.
barry wrote:
i once walked onto a job where the lady was bathing inappropriately but not necessarily illegally. i turned around and walked out and came back later. there is no chaos if we hold to convictions and accept the consequences of possibly losing business. that is free enterprise.
An incident between an independent contractor working on the premesis of another person's private property has no bearing on what we're discussing.

OF COURSE you should have the right to dictate what your employees wear, or how employees and customers should behave while in your business. But that's all IRRELEVENT to whether a merchant can say to someone who walks through their open doors, "I don't condone the (LEGAL) way in which you live, so I won't provide the same services that I openly provide to everyone else".

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5011 Jun 26, 2013
barry wrote:
we are talking about the same thing. for years i ran a very large camera store. i shot weddings on the side as an independent contractor. i had homosexual customers and homosexual employees. but i would not ever consider shooting a SS wedding. for that mater i would never consider shooting a divorce ceremony. and as a contractor there are certain places that i will not work. all judged by the same principle.
As soon as this became about what you did "on the side" and what choices you made "as a contractor", it became irrelevent to our discussion.
barry wrote:
what they do with their pay check is their business. how they behave on my time is my business. giving them a paycheck does not condone their life style but honors the quality of work that they do.
What they do with their flowers, or cake, is their business. If they're in a florist shop and they ARE behaving, then there should be no issue. Ordering flowers from a florist does not constitute inappropriate behavior.
barry wrote:
really? me thinks you stretch the truth.
how about a link?
Here are a few:

http://www.advocate.com/latest-news/2013/05/3...

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-t...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/swee...

You could've Googled this, instead of calling me a liar.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5012 Jun 26, 2013
http://mobile.slate.com/articles/double_x/dou...

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Think of Pietro like one of those talking toys I had when I was a kid--you know, before the days of silicone. You pulled the string and the toy said a short phrase, over and over and over and over:
"Definition of marriage. Can't change. Polygamy. Incest."
"Definition of marriage. Can't change. Polygamy. Incest."
"definition of marriage. Can't change. Polygamy. Incest."
I just don't understand why people keep pulling the string. You know what he's going to say.
Thanks Jeffy, you're the best. Marriage Equality for all!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5013 Jun 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://mobile.slate.com/articl es/double_x/doublex/2013/04/le galize_polygamy_marriage_equal ity_for_all.html
The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.
<quoted text>
Thanks Jeffy, you're the best. Marriage Equality for all!
well, since scotus didn't legalize polygamy, your "point" is moot. if you want polygamy legalized, then file the suits, pay the fees and the attornies and fight that fight. it'll be interesting to watch.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5014 Jun 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://mobile.slate.com/articl es/double_x/doublex/2013/04/le galize_polygamy_marriage_equal ity_for_all.html
The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.
I for one would agree. Let's start with re-writing marriage benefits distributions, so that people in a multi-party marriage will be assured of fair and equitable application of all their rights.

There are about 1,138 federally-granted marriage rights. Since you're obviously such a fan of polygamous rights, I look forward to hearing all your suggestions for changes to each of these rights, so that they will apply just as fairly to arrangements of any number of people as they currently do for two. This will need to include provisions which allow different people within the party to designate different distributions to different partners than other partners within the party might designate.

For example, If Spouse A wants to designate 80% of their pension to go to Spouse B and 20% to Spouse C, while Spouse B wants 50% to go to Spouse C and 50% to Spouse D. Or, if Spouse A wants Spouse D to raise Spouse B's children in the event of the death of Spouse A, while Spouse B wants 2 of their children to go to Spouse C, and 1 to go to Spouse E. Or if Spouses A, B and C want a divorce from Spouses D and F, but Spouses D and E don't want this, and Spouse F only wants a divorce from Spouse G.

This could go on for a while. It's daunting, to be sure, but it could be done. It should be tackled by someone with extensive training in the matter, with the assistance of someone personally invested in it. Are you up for it?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5015 Jun 26, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I for one would agree. Let's start with re-writing marriage benefits distributions, so that people in a multi-party marriage will be assured of fair and equitable application of all their rights.
There are about 1,138 federally-granted marriage rights. Since you're obviously such a fan of polygamous rights, I look forward to hearing all your suggestions for changes to each of these rights, so that they will apply just as fairly to arrangements of any number of people as they currently do for two. This will need to include provisions which allow different people within the party to designate different distributions to different partners than other partners within the party might designate.
For example, If Spouse A wants to designate 80% of their pension to go to Spouse B and 20% to Spouse C, while Spouse B wants 50% to go to Spouse C and 50% to Spouse D. Or, if Spouse A wants Spouse D to raise Spouse B's children in the event of the death of Spouse A, while Spouse B wants 2 of their children to go to Spouse C, and 1 to go to Spouse E. Or if Spouses A, B and C want a divorce from Spouses D and F, but Spouses D and E don't want this, and Spouse F only wants a divorce from Spouse G.
This could go on for a while. It's daunting, to be sure, but it could be done. It should be tackled by someone with extensive training in the matter, with the assistance of someone personally invested in it. Are you up for it?
Stop confusing Pietro with practicalities. He enjoys his little cocoon of fantasy.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5016 Jun 26, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Stop confusing Pietro with practicalities. He enjoys his little cocoon of fantasy.
The funny thing is that I'm not even kidding. I DO support polygamous rights. I do think that sorting out their marriage benefits will be a Rubik's Cube of a job, but that it CAN be done by the right people.

Pietro may think I'm being sarcastic, because I pointed out how convoluted the process will be, but I think that convolutedness would only slow the process, not stop it.

The irony is that he "promotes" polygamous rights only in hopes of finding someone who opposes them yet supports gay rights, so that he can say "See? All you gay people are hypocrites, and shouldn't get your own rights!". He doesn't ACTUALLY support polygamous rights, he just wants them to be a stumbling block to discussing gay rights.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5017 Jun 26, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
.....
The irony is that he "promotes" polygamous rights only in hopes of finding someone who opposes them yet supports gay rights, so that he can say "See? All you gay people are hypocrites, and shouldn't get your own rights!". He doesn't ACTUALLY support polygamous rights, he just wants them to be a stumbling block to discussing gay rights.
as is the case with almost all the polygamy supporters in these topix threads. we all see them for what they are and what they're trying to do. they just fail to see that we know what they're trying to do and they think they're being "cute" or "clever" (which couldn't be further from the truth of the matter)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5018 Jun 26, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop confusing Pietro with practicalities. He enjoys his little cocoon of fantasy.
Now now Jeffy....u can't keep all the marriage equality in the rainbow room for yourself. Share the wealth.

“We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,” said Illig, who is the head of polyamory advocacy group called Practical Polyamory.

Anticipating the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage this week, US New’s reporter Steven Nelson interviewed Illig to see how polyamorists and polygamists feel about the possibility of redefining marriage. Nelson reported that Illig admitted “the polyamory community has expressed little desire for legal marriage” until now, but that in light of gay marriage gaining wider acceptance,“more options seem possible in the future.”

Illig insisted that the legalization of gay marriage would set an undeniable precedent for polyamorists seeking legal “multi-partner marriage.”

“A favorable outcome for marriage equality is a favorable outcome for multi-partner marriage,” she argued, because gay marriage would then provide “precedent” for “other forms of non-traditional relationships.”

Illig, whose husband has a girlfriend, believes that the legal acceptance for polygamy would “eliminate a common challenge polyamorists face,” and would be more likely to happen should the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage this week.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5019 Jun 26, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish you'd read once in a while. The point is that people who hyperventilate about same-sex marriages countenance all sorts of immoralities. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which is currently the loudest voice against SSM around the world, profits from a gay bath house.
And your own morals are no less hypocritical.
so you want to lump me in with the very same people that i would not associate with just because of a common position we might hold on ssm. you accuse me of being hypocritical but the best you can say is that the cc holds the same position. well i know of a lot of drug addicts that hold your position. that doesn't make you hypocritical.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5020 Jun 26, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I'm chasing YOU from one irrelevent topic to the next.
<quoted text>
She thinks too highly of her level of interaction, and not highly enough of her obligations as a merchant.
I work for an etailer, and I'm an atheist. If I see an order going to a church (which I often do), I don't just get to deny shipping it to them, simply because I don't condone what they might do with it. That's none of my business. A florist just needs to sell flowers, and keep their opinion of the PURPOSE of the flowers to themselves. If someone wants to use them to build a shrine to Satan, the florist should have no say in it.
<quoted text>
What you do as an independent contractor is irrelevent to the discussion.
<quoted text>
How you feel about Radio Shack's uniform policy is irrelevent to the discussion.
<quoted text>
I never said you did. You said that you would stop evangelical customers from harassing other customers. I'm pointing out that we aren't discussing denying gay people service because they're harassing anyone. Customers who harass others is irrelevent to the discussion.
<quoted text>
I don't really care what other people find "sacred". That has nothing to do with the business world. Maybe if they hold something "sacred", they should reconsider trying to make a buck off it. "Sacred" belongs in church. If the guy at Subway thinks tomatoes are "sacred", does he get to tell gay people they can't have any?
<quoted text>
I would call it "participating in society".
<quoted text>
Irrelevent to the discussion.
<quoted text>
Irrelevent.
<quoted text>
IRRELEVENT.
We aren't talking about dress codes, or employee behavior, or even the standards of public behavior of customers. A gay couple simply ordering flowers or a cake ARE observing good standards of behavior.
<quoted text>
An incident between an independent contractor working on the premesis of another person's private property has no bearing on what we're discussing.
OF COURSE you should have the right to dictate what your employees wear, or how employees and customers should behave while in your business. But that's all IRRELEVENT to whether a merchant can say to someone who walks through their open doors, "I don't condone the (LEGAL) way in which you live, so I won't provide the same services that I openly provide to everyone else".
see, you don't understand the florist business either. it is not about shipping them to them. it is about making congratulatory messages in floral arrangements and physically going to the place of the event and setting them up.
besides why would an athiest who claims that God is just a myth and church is a crutch be upset with shipping something to a mythical organization?
i don't think she would have had any problem selling them random arrangements that they would take and set up as they desired. but they are not florists and they wanted her creative eye to decorate their event. she respectfully declined.

you said;
"What you do as an independent contractor is irrelevent to the discussion."
i was/am an independent contractor and i have managed a large retail location. both at the same time.
many florists are independent contractors. if you own your own shop and work for yourself you are an independent contractor.

you said;
"How you feel about Radio Shack's uniform policy is irrelevent to the discussion." it wasn't about their policy it was about my freedom to walk away. i didn't have to do business with them. the homosexual movement would like to see that freedom taken away.

you said;
"I don't really care what other people find "sacred"."
really, that says everything about you. you don't care about rights or better yet other peoples rights. you only care about forcing your beliefs onto someone else to the point where they must accept, condone and celebrate your lifestyle.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5021 Jun 26, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I'm chasing YOU from one irrelevent topic to the next.
<quoted text>
S...
<quoted text>
What you do as an independent contractor is irrelevent to the discussion.
<quoted text>
How you feel about Radio Shack's uniform policy is irrelevent to the discussion.
<quoted text>
I never said you did. You said that you would stop evangelical customers from harassing other customers. I'm pointing out that we aren't discussing denying gay people service because they're harassing anyone. Customers who harass others is irrelevent to the discussion.
<quoted text>
I don't really care what other people find "sacred". That has nothing to do with the business world. Maybe if they hold something "sacred", they should reconsider trying to make a buck off it. "Sacred" belongs in church. If the guy at Subway thinks tomatoes are "sacred", does he get to tell gay people they can't have any?
<quoted text>
I would call it "participating in society".
<quoted text>
Irrelevent to the discussion.
<quoted text>
Irrelevent.
<quoted text>
IRRELEVENT.
We aren't talking about dress codes, or employee behavior, or even the standards of public behavior of customers. A gay couple simply ordering flowers or a cake ARE observing good standards of behavior.
<quoted text>
An incident between an independent contractor working on the premesis of another person's private property has no bearing on what we're discussing.
OF COURSE you should have the right to dictate what your employees wear, or how employees and customers should behave while in your business. But that's all IRRELEVENT to whether a merchant can say to someone who walks through their open doors, "I don't condone the (LEGAL) way in which you live, so I won't provide the same services that I openly provide to everyone else".
you try to twist the topic by claiming this;
"But that's all IRRELEVENT to whether a merchant can say to someone who walks through their open doors, "I don't condone the (LEGAL) way in which you live, so I won't provide the same services that I openly provide to everyone else"."
it's not about serving someone who simply walks through the doors. it's about be forced to condone, participate in and celebrate something that that merchant feels is morally wrong. but then you knew that. selling a guy makeup or a hand bag is not the same thing.
you claim that you did not say something and try to explain it this way;
"You said that you would stop evangelical customers from harassing other customers. I'm pointing out that we aren't discussing denying gay people service because they're harassing anyone. Customers who harass others is irrelevent to the discussion." you were the one who suggested that if i turned away a customer from my shop just because they were gay that i was a hypocrite for not turning other sinners away. however, that is only an attempt to shift the topic and distract from the issue that i make. it has nothing to do with who they might be. it has everything to do with what they do in the shop. and what they want me to do.

your subway example is stupid.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5022 Jun 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so you want to lump me in with the very same people that i would not associate with just because of a common position we might hold on ssm. you accuse me of being hypocritical but the best you can say is that the cc holds the same position. well i know of a lot of drug addicts that hold your position. that doesn't make you hypocritical.
You are willing to profit from trade with gays and lesbians, but you want to arbitrarily withhold those services and goods that you wish to withhold. That makes you a hypocrite.

Let's change the flower example slightly. I have twice rented tents for celebrations of my marriage from the only local provider of those services. The next nearest party rental company is 100 miles away. Should the party supply store be able to withhold custom from my husband and me because it would be "approving" of our union? Of course not. They show up the morning of the event, put up the tent and tables, then take them away the next day. That's it. That's what they do. As long as the tent and table are in good condition when they take them back, what kind of celebration we had is of no concern.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5023 Jun 26, 2013
barry wrote:
see, you don't understand the florist business either. it is not about shipping them to them. it is about making congratulatory messages in floral arrangements and physically going to the place of the event and setting them up.
Florists aren't the only ones who work at weddings. Can ANYONE in a wedding-industry job refuse to provide this portion of their services, and can they refuse this service to anyone? Can caterers refuse to serve at an interracial marriage? Can a golf course refuse to rent its banquet hall to Jews? What if only PART of the staff of a particular business has a problem with the wedding? Can they refuse and make the rest of the staff do their work? Are there ANY lines you would draw with this system?

If this is going to be a religious issue, then it seems to me that people in related jobs should be expected to label their businesses according to their religion, so that they can continue to cater to ONLY that religion, and there'll be no confusion among customers.
barry wrote:
besides why would an athiest who claims that God is just a myth and church is a crutch be upset with shipping something to a mythical organization?
The organization isn't mythical, now is it? Such organizations actually exist. Suppose they are ordering supplies for a rally against atheist rights, or against gay rights? Can I refuse to ship them their products, because I don't want to be perceived as celebrating or condoning what they do? Are you arguing that ONLY religious people should have this "right" to discriminate?
barry wrote:
i don't think she would have had any problem selling them random arrangements that they would take and set up as they desired. but they are not florists and they wanted her creative eye to decorate their event. she respectfully declined.
When the decline is on such horrid grounds, it's hardly respectful. If she operates her business according to religious guidelines, it should be advertised as such.
barry wrote:
i was/am an independent contractor and i have managed a large retail location. both at the same time.
many florists are independent contractors. if you own your own shop and work for yourself you are an independent contractor.
My turn to ask for links backing this up. Granted, I'm hardly an expert in this area, but it seems that EVERY shop is owned by SOMEONE who works for themselves. There might as well be NO rules. EVERYONE is an independent contractor! Yay!
barry wrote:
it wasn't about their policy it was about my freedom to walk away. i didn't have to do business with them. the homosexual movement would like to see that freedom taken away.
You have this backwards. We are not discussing forcing customers to visit businesses. I'm sure you and I will agree that customers should ALWAYS have the freedom to walk away. No gay person is trying to take away your freedom to walk away from businesses you don't like.
barry wrote:
really, that says everything about you. you don't care about rights or better yet other peoples rights. you only care about forcing your beliefs onto someone else to the point where they must accept, condone and celebrate your lifestyle.
You don't have a right to declare something "sacred" and therefore off-limits to certain customers. Every person on Earth thinks something different is sacred. Obeying laws doesn't stop you from calling something "sacred" on your own time. No one can force you to believe, accept, condone or celebrate something which you don't. But if you hold a job within a particular industry, then you should be expected to DO that job, without singling out your least favorite citizens for exclusion.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5024 Jun 26, 2013
barry wrote:
you try to twist the topic by claiming this;
"But that's all IRRELEVENT to whether a merchant can say to someone who walks through their open doors, "I don't condone the (LEGAL) way in which you live, so I won't provide the same services that I openly provide to everyone else"."
it's not about serving someone who simply walks through the doors. it's about be forced to condone, participate in and celebrate something that that merchant feels is morally wrong. but then you knew that. selling a guy makeup or a hand bag is not the same thing.
I'm trying to keep us discussing whether a business can refuse to serve law-abiding customers. I'm trying to steer us AWAY from discussing whether a business has the right to impose a dress code, whether employers have the right to choose who they hire, or whether a business can eject a rowdy or disruptive customer... all of which you keep trying to bring up, and all of which have nothing to do with the topic.
barry wrote:
you claim that you did not say something and try to explain it this way;
"You said that you would stop evangelical customers from harassing other customers. I'm pointing out that we aren't discussing denying gay people service because they're harassing anyone. Customers who harass others is irrelevent to the discussion." you were the one who suggested that if i turned away a customer from my shop just because they were gay that i was a hypocrite for not turning other sinners away. however, that is only an attempt to shift the topic and distract from the issue that i make. it has nothing to do with who they might be. it has everything to do with what they do in the shop. and what they want me to do.
Let me try to clear up the confusion on this one....

You said: i wouldn't allow a Bible evangelist to come in and harrass my customers even if i agreed with everything he would say.

To me, this suggests that you're defending your right to toss a customer out if they're creating a disturbance of any kind. I don't disagree with that. But my point is that we aren't discussing customers who are causing a disturbance. Gay customers who walk into a florist to buy flowers are not harassing other customers. There was no reason for you to use the evangelical as an example, it was unrelated to this scenario. Harassing other customers SHOULD constitute a reason for ejecting a person from the premises. But when harassment is NOT happening, as in the case of a gay couple shopping for flowers in a flower shop, then it doesn't serve as an example.
barry wrote:
your subway example is stupid.
Oh no! You're taking away other people's rights, and forcing your beliefs onto them to the point where they must accept, condone and celebrate a lifestyle!

It's a stupid example on purpose, because the whole idea is stupid. Businesses can't hold some of their practices as "sacred" just to keep them out of reach of certain people. These discussions BECOME stupid, once someone starts using such vague and meaningless terms as "sacred". Don't stop there, let's throw in "spiritual" and "holy" while we're at it. Maybe an "unnatural" or two, these discussions never get far without one of those.

I don't care about what others consider "sacred" because I don't HAVE to. You don't have to care about what I consider sacred, EITHER. The concept shouldn't be involved in business. If I ran a diner, and you came in to order coffee, pie and ice cream, I'd be off my rocker if I said the coffee and pie were fine, but the ice cream is "sacred" so I don't serve it to your kind.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5025 Jun 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
All is forgiven Wastey (chuckle). DOMA is down, now bring in the poly people.:)
What is your interest in poly? Most people don't give a rat's ass about it. What man would want to support multiple wives and children other than a rich oil sheikh?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5026 Jun 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your interest in poly?
It's all part of the issue, which can be summed up in one question, "How do we, as a society, define marriage?". That what the whole SSM debate boils down to. If the nature, conjugal as in husband AND wife, of,the marital relationship, is no longer necessary, desired, and/or maintained, why should monogamy be? After all polygamy is a valid form of marriage in many parts of the globe, and for much of human history. Even in this country it is practiced, albeit without government sanction. So why do we as a society, accept marriage, divorce, and remarriage, "baby's daddies", "baby's mommas", serial monogamy, gay relationships, lesbian relationships, etc., but find a consensual polygamous relationship, taboo, even morally unacceptable?
Most people don't give a rat's ass about it.
I never quite understood that expression. Who keeps rat's asses anyway? Remember there are those who don't care about SSM, one way or another.
What man would want to support multiple wives and children other than a rich oil sheikh?
Kody Brown? Joe Darger? Larry King?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5027 Jun 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's all part of the issue, which can be summed up in one question, "How do we, as a society, define marriage?". That what the whole SSM debate boils down to. If the nature, conjugal as in husband AND wife, of,the marital relationship, is no longer necessary, desired, and/or maintained, why should monogamy be? After all polygamy is a valid form of marriage in many parts of the globe, and for much of human history. Even in this country it is practiced, albeit without government sanction. So why do we as a society, accept marriage, divorce, and remarriage, "baby's daddies", "baby's mommas", serial monogamy, gay relationships, lesbian relationships, etc., but find a consensual polygamous relationship, taboo, even morally unacceptable?
<quoted text>
I never quite understood that expression. Who keeps rat's asses anyway? Remember there are those who don't care about SSM, one way or another.
<quoted text>
Kody Brown? Joe Darger? Larry King?
Sorry. You have nothing. If you brought that up in court they would laugh you out of the place. That is a tangent. Courts have no time for tangents, besides it means you really have no pertinent argument.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5028 Jun 27, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry. You have nothing. If you brought that up in court they would laugh you out of the place. That is a tangent. Courts have no time for tangents, besides it means you really have no pertinent argument.
Yet you are unable, or unwilling, to address the simple question I posed. How do we, as a society, define marriage? Is not complicated. Spouting off about courts, indicates rhetoric is more important than the issue itself. Really Wastey, a honest answer that addressed the question would suffice.
Lamer

Hopkins, MN

#5030 Jun 27, 2013
thread to long to follow...

Has the backlash started yet or is it still "brewing"?

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 7 min Get Real 9,780
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 8 min Clark 1
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 24 min Clark 3
News No 'Armageddon' if euthanasia, same-sex marriag... 1 hr The Bible Student 1
News Postal survey: gay Muslims shake off conservati... 1 hr T-bag 26
News Worker fired for same sex 'No' vote hits out 13 hr Prosperity Fundie... 11
News Roger Hines: Clarity and controversy from the B... 20 hr facts 92
More from around the web