Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 20 comments on the Jan 7, 2013, NBC Chicago story 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11204 Oct 9, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You're probably right.....but I'm certain that poster will just change the word to something else.....lol!!!
Buuuuuuut......not for coitus!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11205 Oct 9, 2013
http://i.word.com/idictionary/coitus

Main Entry: co·i·tus
Pronunciation:\&#712;k &#333;-&#601;-t&#6 01;s, k&#333;-&#712;&#27 5;-, &#712;k&#559;i-t&# 601;s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from coire
Date: 1845
: physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements :

Main Entry: coitus in·ter·rup·tus
Pronunciation:\-&#716;in-t &#601;-&#712;r&#60 1;p-t&#601;s\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, interrupted coitus
Date: 1900
: coitus in which the penis is withdrawn prior to ejaculation to prevent the deposit of sperm into the
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither "colitis" not "coitus" are exclusive to opposite sex couples.
Coitus is.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11206 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The Supreme Court affirmed marriage as a fundamental right even in case where the husband AND wife, who comprise the marital union upon which the fundamental right is based, cannot, or will not procreate, engage in "marital relations" also known as sexual intercourse, coitus.
Then the marriage fundamental right must not be dependent on any ability to have sex or engage in any particular sexual act.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11207 Oct 9, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Then the marriage fundamental right must not be dependent on any ability to have sex or engage in any particular sexual act.
Its based on the male female union. The only union capable of producing little DaveinMass-es. All the sexual references apply to that union. Its not difficult. The idea of a "same sex" marriage is a virtual new invention in both Western civilization and American history.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11208 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Its based on the male female union. The only union capable of producing little DaveinMass-es. All the sexual references apply to that union. Its not difficult. The idea of a "same sex" marriage is a virtual new invention in both Western civilization and American history.
But you don't need marriage to produce MiniMes and since no particular sex act need be accomplished for marriage why would any court stipulate that only males and females can legally marry?

And let's not forget that the court already recognizes same-sex marriages as legal and valid.

I have the fundamental right to marry.

John has the fundamental right to marry.

Why can John and I not exercise that right together?

You don't have a very strong foundation to build your argument.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11209 Oct 9, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
I have the fundamental right to marry.
John has the fundamental right to marry.
Why can John and I not exercise that right together?
It depends. If your state allows it you can.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#11210 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
New Jersey State University.
Is that right.... and your major was Prevarication?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#11211 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Its based on the male female union. The only union capable of producing little DaveinMass-es. All the sexual references apply to that union. Its not difficult. The idea of a "same sex" marriage is a virtual new invention in both Western civilization and American history.
Afraid of change, eh?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11212 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
New Jersey State University.
Unfortunately for you, that is not on SCOTUS's approved list for justices. Better see if you can get into Harvard or Yale.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11213 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Its based on the male female union.
You have yet to provide any compelling state interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11214 Oct 9, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Unfortunately for you, that is not on SCOTUS's approved list for justices. Better see if you can get into Harvard or Yale.
Are you kidding? They'd have difficulty getting into kindergarten.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11215 Oct 9, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
But you don't need marriage to produce MiniMes
[QUOTE]

No, but it is the desired, preferred setting.

[QUOTE]
and since no particular sex act need be accomplished for marriage
I don't know if that's 100% accurate.
why would any court stipulate that only males and females can legally marry?
Its still the procreational union, and the one nessessary for societal stability.
And let's not forget that the court already recognizes same-sex marriages as legal and valid.
Some same sex marriages.

[QUOTE[
I have the fundamental right to marry.
[/QUOTE]

same as any other man.
John has the fundamental right to marry.
Same as any other man.
Why can John and I not exercise that right together?
Oh a double wedding....maybe a set of twin sisters....both you and John get a bride. What a great idea.
You don't have a very strong foundation to build your argument.
Sure I do, boy girl.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11216 Oct 9, 2013
Fundamental rights are based on being human.

Gender is irrelevant to fundamental rights. Fundamental rights belong to all "persons" regardless of gender.

As neither procreation nor even ability to have sex are requirements of marriage, the gender restriction serves no legitimate governmental purpose.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11217 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if that's 100% accurate.
<quoted text>
Its still the procreational union, and the one nessessary for societal stability.
<quoted text>
Some same sex marriages.
<quoted text>
same as any other man.
<quoted text>
Same as any other man.
<quoted text>
Oh a double wedding....maybe a set of twin sisters....both you and John get a bride. What a great idea.
<quoted text>
Sure I do, boy girl.
Pietro, can infertile heterosexual couples marry?

Can you indicate a state interest served by restricting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman?

Can you formulate a big boy argument?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#11218 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Its still the procreational union, and the one nessessary for societal stability.
Since marriage is available to couples regardless of procreational ability, doesn't marriage offer the SAME stability to same-sex couples? Doesn't their stability contribute to society as much as the stability of a childless, opposite-sex couple? If a same-sex couple were raising a child (raising being more vital than procreating), wouldn't they, and society, benefit from stability?

Is there some reason they should be DENIED stability? Does society benefit from their INstability? Should instability be encouraged for gay couples, and stability discouraged?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh a double wedding....maybe a set of twin sisters....both you and John get a bride. What a great idea.
I'm sure you could be more condescending if you tried a little harder.

People don't run out to find spouses just because they're excited to have a marriage. It's the other way around. They go out and get a marriage, once they've found the spouse who excites them. You seem to think that gay people are simply after the TITLE of "marriage", and that we aren't interested in discerning a suitable mate, as long as we get that title.

You seem to be suggesting--"Get a bride! Every man wants a bride!" And you don't seem to care that SOME men DON'T want brides. Nothing could be LESS apt for these men than a bride, for themselves AND for the bride. Nothing could be a WORSE recipe for a bad marriage, than shoe-horning someone into life choices that don't suit them.

We aren't after marriage simply because we want to wave it like a banner, proclaiming "I got mine!". We seek specific benefits for the person we want as family, benefits which only marriage can provide. A marriage doesn't do anything for the people involved unless they've married the RIGHT person (a decision you're not involved in).

Shallowly suggesting that a gay man find a bride betrays either an ignorance of ALL the issues at hand, or else a deliberate insensitivity to the needs of the people you oppose.

Our marriages would not threaten the marriages of heterosexuals. The stability of our families will contribute to the stability of society. Civil unions do this inadequately, and only intermittently from state to state.

13 states, plus DC, currently recognize same-sex marriages. Another NINETEEN states are considering legislation, or actually have some pending. The Supreme Court recently ruled it unconstitutional for the federal government to refuse to recognize state-sanctioned marriages. Despite this much support, how much longer can you continue to insist that gay people accept a secondary role in society? How much longer will you pretend to be blind to our needs, and make spousal suggestions which suit no one involved (least of all YOU)?

I know, I know. You'll answer ZERO of these questions. Your personal "defense" of your position will be to wonder why polygamous and incestuous marriages are not also supported, even though such groups have nothing to do with the subject. ANYONE can be polygamous or incestuous, if they want to be. These are not "classes" of people who require protections. People who are already family have no need of the familial bonds which marriage provides. Three or more people bring too many families into the mix, confusing the protective purposes of marriage and making them unregulatable. Their needs, if they truly have any, must be heard separately.

How long can you truly oppose this trend in society, and on what grounds?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11219 Oct 9, 2013
lides wrote:
Can you formulate a big boy argument?
Do you like big boys?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11220 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://i.word.com/idictionary/ coitus
Main Entry: co·i·tus
Pronunciation:\&#712;k &#333;-&#601;-t&#6 01;s, k&#333;-&#712;&#27 5;-, &#712;k&#559;i-t&# 601;s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from coire
Date: 1845
: physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements :
Main Entry: coitus in·ter·rup·tus
Pronunciation:\-&#716;in-t &#601;-&#712;r&#60 1;p-t&#601;s\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, interrupted coitus
Date: 1900
: coitus in which the penis is withdrawn prior to ejaculation to prevent the deposit of sperm into the
<quoted text>
Coitus is.
No, it isn't. Ignoring the dictionaries with definitions that prove you a liar doesn't negate their existence.

From dictionary.com :

co·i·tus
noun
sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman

Note the word "especially" is not a synonym for exclusively.

Evolve or die, small Peter.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11221 Oct 9, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Since marriage is available to couples regardless of procreational ability, doesn't marriage offer the SAME stability to same-sex couples? Doesn't their stability contribute to society as much as the stability of a childless, opposite-sex couple? If a same-sex couple were raising a child (raising being more vital than procreating), wouldn't they, and society, benefit from stability?
Is there some reason they should be DENIED stability? Does society benefit from their INstability? Should instability be encouraged for gay couples, and stability discouraged?
<quoted text>
I'm sure you could be more condescending if you tried a little harder.
People don't run out to find spouses just because they're excited to have a marriage. It's the other way around. They go out and get a marriage, once they've found the spouse who excites them. You seem to think that gay people are simply after the TITLE of "marriage", and that we aren't interested in discerning a suitable mate, as long as we get that title.
You seem to be suggesting--"Get a bride! Every man wants a bride!" And you don't seem to care that SOME men DON'T want brides. Nothing could be LESS apt for these men than a bride, for themselves AND for the bride. Nothing could be a WORSE recipe for a bad marriage, than shoe-horning someone into life choices that don't suit them.
We aren't after marriage simply because we want to wave it like a banner, proclaiming "I got mine!". We seek specific benefits for the person we want as family, benefits which only marriage can provide. A marriage doesn't do anything for the people involved unless they've married the RIGHT person (a decision you're not involved in).
Shallowly suggesting that a gay man find a bride betrays either an ignorance of ALL the issues at hand, or else a deliberate insensitivity to the needs of the people you oppose.
Our marriages would not threaten the marriages of heterosexuals. The stability of our families will contribute to the stability of society. Civil unions do this inadequately, and only intermittently from state to state.
13 states, plus DC, currently recognize same-sex marriages. Another NINETEEN states are considering legislation, or actually have some pending. The Supreme Court recently ruled it unconstitutional for the federal government to refuse to recognize state-sanctioned marriages. Despite this much support, how much longer can you continue to insist that gay people accept a secondary role in society? How much longer will you pretend to be blind to our needs, and make spousal suggestions which suit no one involved (least of all YOU)?
I know, I know. You'll answer ZERO of these questions. Your personal "defense" of your position will be to wonder why polygamous and incestuous marriages are not also supported, even though such groups have nothing to do with the subject. ANYONE can be polygamous or incestuous, if they want to be. These are not "classes" of people who require protections. People who are already family have no need of the familial bonds which marriage provides. Three or more people bring too many families into the mix, confusing the protective purposes of marriage and making them unregulatable. Their needs, if they truly have any, must be heard separately.
How long can you truly oppose this trend in society, and on what grounds?
Thank You. Couldn't have put it better.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11222 Oct 9, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Fundamental rights are based on being human.
Gender is irrelevant to fundamental rights.
Both men and women have the fundamental right to marry.
Fundamental rights belong to all "persons" regardless of gender.
Yes, all men, and all women, have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
As neither procreation nor even ability to have sex are requirements of marriage,


Nor is "love", or cohabitation.
the gender restriction serves no legitimate governmental purpose.
No gender is restricted from marriage, both are included.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11223 Oct 9, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it isn't. Ignoring the dictionaries with definitions that prove you a liar doesn't negate their existence.
From dictionary.com :
co·i·tus
noun
sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman
Note the word "especially" is not a synonym for exclusively.
Evolve or die, small Peter.
"Coitus" is a specific form of sexual intercourse, one requiring both male and female genitals. Sorry but "same sex", can't do this one. Thanks for playing.

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 Poll: Majority want businesses to serve gay wed... 12 min Wall 20
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 14 min Venitta 32,008
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 14 min Jonah1 3,229
News Thousands Of Religious Leaders Urge The Supreme... 16 min goonsquad 86
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 47 min Belle Sexton 44
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 51 min Belle Sexton 2,768
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr Pietro Armando 2,054
More from around the web