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

#13036 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ohhhhhhh....we get to the gist. The purpose is for SSC, not for society at large. Is there a compelling societal need for men to "marry" men, or women to "marry" women?
There’s no “compelling societal need” for ANYONE to marry. You can cohabitate with your favorite humans just as easily as I can.

But when two people pool all their resources and properties, and begin planning all future life decisions in tandem, they will require a legal contract to back all that up. Marriage is that contract. The government recognizes and upholds THAT contract the same as it upholds any OTHER contract.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Waitaminit here....weren't you complaining early in this post about all the rewrites?
Can you be more specific? What do rewrites (of what?) have to do with the merits of a polygamy argument?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Back to those pesky polygamists crashing our Big Fat Gay Wedding. Polygamist can, and do commit to each other and their families. Thanks for denigrating them, and their families though.
I’m sorry, but no. Holding open a revolving door of spouses coming and going does not constitute “commitment”.

And stop pretending to play bleeding-heart on behalf of polygamists. We all know you couldn’t care less about them except where they serve as a red herring to be thrown into unrelated arguments.

If you TRULY wanted polygamists to "crash the wedding", then you'd put in SOME effort in re-writing those 1,138 marriage rights that they would want to use. You haven't lifted a FINGER in that department, so I know you don't care if marriage could function between 3 or more parties.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Bully for you! Will the Village People be performing?
Whether or not there’s a band, a gift registry, a photographer, a pastor or even a church present will not change the governmental recognition of our marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So why have some judges found the arguments lacking?
I don’t know. Why do some judges believe in the devil? Why do some people gear their decisions around their fear of magical beings on the attack?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why have the people themselves, when offered the chance to vote on what definition of marriage is important to them, their state and society, voted thirty time in favor of the definition of marriage which had already existed?
Because Leviticus. Because of a pervading and slanderous campaign against gay people that’s been ongoing for about 20 centuries. Because most people are morons who would vote for slavery if it meant they got to have one. Popular doesn’t mean correct. When people are FINALLY made to THINK about the issue, and realize the impact it has on the loved ones in their lives, and the unfairness inherent in their previous position, then they change their minds.
Free Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13037 Nov 11, 2013
Disappeared! Like in some cheesy low rent third world banana republic! Censorship sucks. Don't let Poof Daddy Jizzy get away with this outrageous violation of my rights. Free Frankie!

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TK0EA9RFQ ...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13038 Nov 11, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, wealfare abuse,forced marriage of underage children, it is entirely different
As long as it consensual, why does it matter to the Glibtees?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13039 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as it consensual, why does it matter to the Glibtees?
They can have the consensual relationship, they are not entitled to the greater protection of the law they seek.

Com back to the topic at hand Pietro. If you are able.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#13040 Nov 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
They can have the consensual relationship, they are not entitled to the greater protection of the law they seek.
What greater protection?
Is a family of 3 entitled to this greater protection of the law?
A family of 4?
Your parents obviously had at least one child, did they get greater protection?
Are these protections (?) not individual?
Did you finish high school?
Poof

Rock Island, IL

#13041 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as it consensual, why does it matter to the Glibtees?
Paco, repost in english

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13043 Nov 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
They can have the consensual relationship, they are not entitled to the greater protection of the law they seek.
They seek the same as you seek, state designation of their personal intimate relationships as "marriage".

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13044 Nov 11, 2013
ah verkligen wrote:
So is Obama.
(Unless he's lying AGAIN...)
If you say so. That's unrelated to what I was talking about. Take it up with Obama.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13045 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
They seek the same as you seek, state designation of their personal intimate relationships as "marriage".
Which the 1,138 rights associated with marriage cannot serve, because they serve only two people who apply them to each other and no others. Marriage rights cannot be applied to an endless stream of spouses forever. Each right only functions when a single person applies them all to a single other person. They must be drastically rewritten first before pensions, inheritances, custodies, etc can be applied to a countless parade of petitioners.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13046 Nov 11, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
People attracted to the opposite sex and the same sex have existed throughout recorded history, small Peter. In less enlightened times, the majority simply discriminated against and/or criminalized the behavior of the minority as being "abnormal", typically based on religious belief. Whether such people labeled themselves in accordance with our current understanding doesn't mean sexual attraction targeted at the same or opposite gender didn't exist.
Same sex sexual behavior is not new, is that what you mean?
Much like today, heterosexuals considered themselves "normal" and "non-deviant". Language was directed at labeling gays and others as being different or deviant so the majority could then claim to be the opposite.
So such labeling didn't take place until the late 19th, early 20th centuries, despite hundreds, thousands of years of human history. Odd. Perhaps the idea of a sexual identity wasn't a necessary, nor desired component of society, cross time, cross place.
That you fail to grasp the actual point of that particular citation and latch instead onto this oft repeated lie just demonstrates your illiteracy and general lack of intellect and education.
What "lie" are you referring to? Or are you simply projecting your androgynous thoughts onto the English language?
I'd agree the uneducable like you probably aren't but hope springs eternal.
We are so blessed to have you.
No. Bisexuality refers to being attracted to both men and women; it has noting to do with wanting to marry more than one person at a t imd as yo stupidly assert.
So why would you inject to a bisexual person wishing to marry more than one person at a time, in line with their orientation?
No, because the number restriction of marriage laws is separate and distinct from the gender restriction. Which is why polygamy wasn't automatically legalized in any state where same sex marriage is now legally recognized. Even your pathetic intellect should be capable of better reasoning than this, stupid Peter.
Simply because it was not automatically legalized does not mean it can't, or won't be legalized. Even your limited intellect is capable of grasping that.
Or perhaps the people fighting for legal recognition of same sex marriage aren't interested in marrying more than one person at a time. Regardless, how they choose to exercise their right to petition government to address their grievances isn't subject to your demands or criticism.
No, bad strategy, because it would undermine their cause, give legitimacy to criticism that SSM could lead to polygamy. SSM advocates really don't care if polygamy is legalized, as long as SSM is.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13047 Nov 11, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy by definition is more than one legal partner at the same time.
Yes, more than one wife, or husband at a time.
They only get visas if they are married in a country such as Saudi Arabia where Polygamy is practiced due to the fact that women are second class citizens.
Oh so they come to the U.S. And become first class citizens, and get to stay with their husband?
Same sex marriage changes no rules. It is about two people making a legal marriage commitment.
It changes the very nature, conjugal, opposite sex, upon which the understanding of marriage, in American jurisprudence, rooted in English common law, is based.
Exactly. No structure is in place because the state has no compelling interest to do so.
There's no compelling state interest in designating a same sex intimate relationship, "marriage", either.
Traditional marriage was a paternal construct which has become out-moded in many ways.
So why then double the paternity by designating male same sex relationships as "marriage"?

If traditional marriage is "out mixed" why should it be recognized at all?
Why do you promote discrimination against committed same sex couples? Why do you look down your nose on my marriage? That's not very nice.
By that reasoning it's not very nice to promote discrimination against committed plural marriage families, either. What's good for the gay goose, is good for the poly gander.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13048 Nov 11, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Which the 1,138 rights associated with marriage cannot serve, because they serve only two people who apply them to each other and no others.
They're not all "rights".
. Marriage rights cannot be applied to an endless stream of spouses forever. Each right only functions when a single person applies them all to a single other person. They must be drastically rewritten first before pensions, inheritances, custodies, etc can be applied to a countless parade of petitioners.
Again, they're not all "rights", and they could be proportioned. That should not be an obstacle to recognizing plural marriage practitioners, and their families. Birds of a feather.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13051 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
They're not all "rights".
Collectively, they are rights, responsibilities and benefits. I'm just shorthanding. 4000 characters doesn't go that far.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Again, they're not all "rights", and they could be proportioned. That should not be an obstacle to recognizing plural marriage practitioners, and their families. Birds of a feather.
Sounds like there's no argument there against same-sex couples marrying.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13052 Nov 11, 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/irene-monroe/mo...

The one thing you don't expect to see in any of the Bible Belt states (most of which have amended their constitutions to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman) is an organization promoting polyamory.

Last month at Atlanta's pride parade, the group Atlanta Polyamory Inc. did just that -- and out in the light of day. The result was the shock, awe, and disgust of a mixed group.

Atlanta Polyamory Inc.'s purple-lettered banner read, "Polyamory: Having simultaneous close emotional relationships with two or more other individuals."

While many religious conservatives might argue that the legalization of same-gender marriage and shows like HBO's Big Love, about a fictional polygamist Mormon family, plant seeds to destroy the conventional family unit, we have to ask ourselves whether monogamy is a natural instinct in us or a social construct devised to protect and regulate the institution of heterosexual marriage.

Being nonmonogamous in this culture carries a stigma for both heterosexuals and LGBTQs. Nonmonogamous people are widely assumed to be sexually promiscuous, sex- and love-addicted and unable to achieve emotional and sexual intimacy. But this assumption ignores the reality that some people really are in polyamorous relationships, and their ability to love more than one person at a time is not about a lust-fest for them.

Deepak Chopra, a renowned spiritual master and director of educational programs at the Chopra Center for Well Being in California, told The Advocate in 1998:

As far as monogamy is concerned, I honestly believe that human beings are not monogamous biologically; they were not created that way. However, it is certainly helpful in society and social structure ... because of the family structure....[W]ith gay and lesbian relationships, I think you're going to see families. You're going to see children.... So in the interest of family structure, we've evolved biologically to the point where we are social creatures.
But the purported evolutionary benefits of monogamy have not panned out as expected. The biggest claim touted in support of monogamy is that it's the best social and psychological arrangement for children. However, if a couples is in a monogamous relationship solely for the kids, the children suffer because they witness no love, compassion or respect between the parents.

Sociologist Elisabeth Sheff's forthcoming book The Polyamorists Next Door argues that, contrary to popular belief, polyamory is a "legitimate relationship style that can be tremendously rewarding for adults and provide excellent nurturing for children."

Mark, a computer programmer, talked to CNN about his own polyamorous relationship. Mark's wife is an electrical engineer, and they have been married for over a decade. They have no children themselves, but they are actively engaged with the children of the two couples with which they have been sexually involved for six years. "I'm more involved in [the children's] lives and more aware of their inner thoughts or aspirations," Mark said. "I'm more involved in their long-term happiness."

Many people have avoided taking the walk down the aisle knowing that we may not be wired to uphold the wedding vow to stay married to one person until death. The evidence is the skyrocketing divorce rate, and married gay and lesbian couples are not immune. As the number of states with marriage equality climbs, so will our own divorce rate.

Many social scientists are recognizing that sexual fidelity to one person is a doomed aspiration. I believe that monogamy will soon evolve into an antiquated notion, because our human clock is ticking longer than it did in previous generations, while our appetite and yearning for sexual variety -- with people of the same and other genders -- is also expanding.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13053 Nov 11, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Collectively, they are rights, responsibilities and benefits. I'm just shorthanding. 4000 characters doesn't go that far.
<quoted text>
Sounds like there's no argument there against same-sex couples marrying.
Sounds like there's no arguments against plural marriage either, or.......
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#13054 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as it consensual, why does it matter to the Glibtees?
It doesn't matter. polygamy is irrelevant.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#13055 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like there's no arguments against plural marriage either, or.......
Read it and weep:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/...
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#13056 Nov 11, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
What greater protection?
Is a family of 3 entitled to this greater protection of the law?
A family of 4?
Your parents obviously had at least one child, did they get greater protection?
Are these protections (?) not individual?
Did you finish high school?
Children are not participants in the contract of marriage, DUMBASS.
Poof

Rock Island, IL

#13057 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like there's no arguments against plural marriage either, or.......
Paco, what does polygamy have to do with same sex marriage?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#13058 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
If traditional marriage is "out mixed" why should it be recognized at all?
If an orange goes bad in your refrigerator, do you throw out EVERYTHING?

Black&white thinking will get you in trouble every time.

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 Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 22 min General Kabaka Oba 52,056
News Anti-gay marriage fight costs Kentucky at least... 3 hr Wondering 6
News Couple who sued Kentucky clerk Kim Davis marry (Oct '15) 7 hr Yep 11
News Prime Minister reaffirms stance disagreeing wit... Thu Fundiementally ill 4
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) Wed cpeter1313 6,950
News Glasgow cathedral becomes first in UK to offer ... Jul 19 Marco R s Secret ... 2
News Muslim mother forced to resign after attending ... Jul 18 Dr Reker s Bellhop 4
More from around the web