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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12677 Nov 6, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
That societies do allow these marriages to occur shows that your any links between marriage and procreation are not as important as you try to make it. If a society allows so couples to marry absent procreation why not these other (same-sex) couples over here?
Human societies throughout human history have understood the obvious, sex between men and women makes babies. Marriage developed as a means of dealing with the by products of the male female sexual union, children. Same sex unions produce nothing of interest for society at large. If it did, SSM would have existed cross time, cross culture and sustained itself over the long haul. Also allowing inferior opposite sex couple to marry reinforced the societal norm that marriage is a male female union.
If the right to marry rests solely with the individual regardless of who they wish to marry, then there could be no ban on same-sex couples marrying.
The flaw is in "who they wish to marry". The state does place restrictions on who may marry, and also defines, legally marriage in the first place.
Because to deny same-sex couples marrying, you would need to view them as a couple, not as individuals with the right to marry.
Not at all. Individual parties to a same sex couple, are still men and women. Equality dictates they should be treated equal to any other man or woman in regards to marriage. To argue other wise is to advocate for unequal treatment. Also there is no couple's right.
Why don't send away for the minutes of the Illinois legislature's debate. You'll probably find that the concept of conjugality never came up.
Did the issue of monogamy come up?

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12678 Nov 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
BUT you DIDN'T read what I wrote......I AM NOT HINDERING THEIR FIGHT......I have NEVER voted to add an Amendment to STOP anyone from marrying.....so, kindly read MY comment......thanks!!!
No one voted to stop anyone from marrying, people voted to constitutionally define marriage for their particular state, a definition that existed long before "homosexual", "heterosexual", "gay", and "lesbian" we're introduced.
Sorry, Polygamy IS NOT the same issue as what Gays and Lesbians are fighting for.......we want to be INCLUDED in the right to marry 1 other consenting adult of our choosing......polygamist WANT to marry MORE than just 1 other consenting adult of their choosing!!!
YOU ARE ALREADY INCLUDED.....always have been. The fact that you don't want to does not change that fact!!!! You want the state to reject conjugality, husband AND wife. Polygamists want the state to reject monogamy. You both want the state to fundamentally alter the definition of marriage as it's been understood, a union of ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN as husband AND wife.
ONLY you keep using the word "CONJUGAL" as if it is something meaningful and special......when in reality it's NOT...
It refers to husband AND wife, opposite sex. So yes, it is special and meaningful. It's the conjugal union that produced you and I. Special it is.
...again, I have NOT seen, read or actually heard of ANY polygamist fighting to either decriminalize bigamy/polygamy or fighting to have a right to marry multiple individuals......and using Kody Brown as the poster child for this is just pathetic when EVEN he has stated he's NOT looking to fight the BIG fight!!!
It FIRST HAS TO BE DECRIMINALIZED, just like same sex sexual behavior had to! Do you think SSM would have been legalized if the Supreme Court had upheld laws prohibiting same sex sexual behavior? Another commonality between same sex marriage advocates and polygamists. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12679 Nov 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thanks Pete for the lovely repeated post......but I need to take a step out of this round-about discussion of yours......you don't care about having a civilized discussion or a debate, you just care about what you care about and NOTHING else.....well, yesterday we had good news out of Illinois and within the next week or so we will finally have Hawaii, taking us up to 16 states and DC.....with adding New Mexico probably by the end of the year.........and you will still be going round in circle about conjugal sexual activity between your version of marriage........enjoy!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12683 Nov 7, 2013
ah verkligen wrote:
Yawn......lol!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12686 Nov 7, 2013
ah verkligen wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the most intelligent post you've made so far.
More like that would be great....
Too bad NONE of your post show any signs of intelligence.....in fact you appear to be a poster who can't seem to keep registered accounts.......wonder why.....lol!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12688 Nov 7, 2013
ah verkligen wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the topic of this thread, dopey.
If your attention span was any shorter, it would need platform shoes just to show up in this debate....
There, I fixed your SHORT comings......lol!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12690 Nov 7, 2013
ah verkligen wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're thinking about my penis.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......t hat MUST certainly be another one of your "SHORT" comings..........lol!!!

Sorry, but it was YOU who brought up that ummmm disgusting item, not interested in it or you......I'm married and I ONLY have attention for my wife and vows:-)

Oh and I KNOW for a fact that YOU aren't the topic of ANYTHING being discussed.......except for your own delusional mind!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12698 Nov 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: "I am frustrated because I cannot rebut your argument."
So you say he's not interested in discussing it. Ah good times!
Sorry, but you'd be wrong!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12699 Nov 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
What the hell is wrong with you flipping trolls? Are you an adult? or a child? My guess is just an uneducated idiot who seeks attention!!!

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12700 Nov 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently all the courts thought otherwise. But thanks for trying. What form of birth control do same sex couples use again?
“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.
“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33
“The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.– De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864.
Procreation is “[o]ne of the prime purposes of matrimony.”– Maslow v. Maslow (1952) 117 Cal.App.2d. 237, 241.
“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.
“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628
“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254
“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)
“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.
Let us know when you find one that states "procreation is THE ONLY purpose for marriage".

Until then, you're just wasting space. As always.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12701 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
i suppose you think that she would have provided the flowers if they were two women instead? riiight
no sex discrimination either.
You "suppose" a lot of stupid things Barry, this would just be one more. You "suppose" a myriad of circumstances, because you are completely unable to demonstrate the religious persecution you have made up, nor are you able to demonstrate how Ms. Stutzman is above the law. So you dream up a ridiculous amount of alternate reality scenarios hoping that one of them might help you. To date, none of them have.

Ms. Stutzman is on record for refusing to create flowers for weddings involving two people of the same gender. That would include two women moron. Here Barry, since you seem so very, very, very hung up on this, let us lay out every possible scenario that your bigot florist would have refused....

* Straight man marrying a gay man
* Straight man marrying a straight man
* Gay man marrying a gay man
* Straight woman marrying a gay woman
* Straight woman marrying a straight woman
* Gay woman marrying a gay woman

Oddly, we are all perfectly aware that your bigot florist would have had absolutely no problem providing flowers for a wedding if a gay man were marrying a gay woman. And it's pretty much assumed that she would have had no problem providing flowers for people that were divorced from previous spouses, even though her little bible condemns this MUCH, MUCH more than it ever even supposedly brings up gay people.

All straight on your bigot florist now Barry? Have we made it clear all the various alternate reality scenarios that she would have discriminated against?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12702 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so are you suggesting ....
Barry, every time you deceitfully begin your response with "so are you suggesting...", the answer will always be "no". This is fundie argument tactic 101.

If you are going to start your rebuttal with, "So what you are really saying...", or "So what you mean.....", or "so are you suggesting.....", then don't bother. You have demonstrated your intent to be deceitful from the start so the rest of whatever you are posting will not be worth considering.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12703 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
if the brain does not match the body is it a physical problem or a mental problem or is it even a problem at all?
It appears to be a "problem" for those that would like to pretend that such scenarios don't exist so that they wouldn't have to think about them, or pretend that they are affected by them.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
what do we choose to adjust and why adjust it at all?
Why would you think that you, or anyone other than the individual themself, get a say in what is adjusted on another human being?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
sounds like confusion to me but don't let logical questions get in your way.
The only confusion is yours. Must stem from your ridiculous viewpoint you, and others like you, have some entitled influence on what other people feel.

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#12704 Nov 7, 2013
Gandhi: "I like your Christ. It's your Christians I'm not so fond of."

Most of these so called Xtian homophobes have no idea what their faith is based on. They think screaming "Amen, Praise the Lord, Sweet Jesus" louder than the person next to them makes them uber holy. Then they leave the church and turn back into black bigots, just like the white racists they relish looking down upon.

They are all FAUX Christians and they aren't fooling anyone except themselves.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12705 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i{ll bet that washington couple would never ask a muslim florist to provide flowers for their 'wedding'. isn't that discrimination?
And you would make this "bet" based upon what information Barry? What insight do you have about the couple that married that led you to believe they would not choose a Muslim florist?

Specifics please.

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

Oh, and just fyi, the couple getting married were planning a "PRIVATE" event, they are not beholden to anti-discrimination laws. They were free to choose WHOMEVER they wanted. that's why your imaginary alternate reality scenario would NOT be discrimination. Unfortunately for Christian fundies everywhere, they originally wanted your beloved florist because at the time they were unaware that she was a bigot.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12706 Nov 7, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Pete for the lovely repeated post......but I need to take a step out of this round-about discussion of yours......you don't care about having a civilized discussion or a debate, you just care about what you care about and NOTHING else.....well, yesterday we had good news out of Illinois and within the next week or so we will finally have Hawaii, taking us up to 16 states and DC.....with adding New Mexico probably by the end of the year.........and you will still be going round in circle about conjugal sexual activity between your version of marriage........enjoy!!!
Apparently YOU continue to fib on two points:

"......your version of marriage" implying that little ole me just conjured that up all by my self. Way off the mark.

I use "conjugal" not to refer to sexual activity but "husband AND wife", conjugal marriage is husband and wife.

Hope that clears things up for you.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12707 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the salient point? there are sufficient florists available who are legally able to and want to service the need for flowers at any ss 'wedding'. the customers were not obstructed from having their ceremony.
Your bigot florist was legally able to service the need for flowers. Whether or not your florist WANTS to do her job is irrelevant. The wedding participants chose her, they weren't required to look elsewhere just because your florist is a bigot.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12708 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so what is your point?
would a small corner deli have the right to not hire muslims based on their religious belief and practices?
'the right wing religious wackos want to force businesses to accommodate people who are unwilling to do their jobs based in religious excuse- making'? but you want them to be forced to accommodate people against their religious convictions
"Forced" Nice attempt at the persecution card Barry. Such a tired and lame routine. But then, it's all you've got.

Accommodating people is what her business is. If that makes her feel "forced", she should get out of business.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12709 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>then prove or show me wrong
Read any post directed at you and there you go.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12710 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>that's what i thought. so, how would she be illegally discriminating if she refused all ss ceremonies regardless of whether they were homosexual or heterosexual?
She wasn't refusing a ss ceremony because no such entity exists. In addition, she wasn't refusing the ceremony she was refusing the participants. And the reason she refused them was because of their gender make up. Gender is a protected class, thus her discrimination was illegal.

But please, don't let that stop you from asking yet again using another of your alternate reality made up scenarios.

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 Scouts steady after easing gay-leader rules 50 min Rabbi 4
News Almost one year since gay marriage ruling, LGBT... 12 hr Rose_NoHo 213
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) 20 hr aaa 159
News Baker wants US Supreme Court to hear gay weddin... Sat davy 10
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge (Aug '15) Sat swedenforever 513
News Connecticut's convention-goers head home, many ... Fri In Hillary Gays T... 1
News Can a new chief rabbi change the Israeli Rabbin... (Apr '13) Jul 22 indict ELTON JOHN 17
More from around the web