Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15856 Jan 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with one thing, same sex marriage DOESN'T exist.
Marriage has a fundamental male/female aspect, for procreation. Marriage is husband and wife so children may be raised by mom and dad.
Get it?
It must suck to be the village idiot!!

Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Never has been, never will be.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15857 Jan 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
According to the PC left, anti-gay means you believe marriage should be between man and woman. That explains how they ignore the murder of gays and lesbians overseas because they use all their political capital for power to rewrite marriage laws here.
No hon, according to the PC left, anti-gay means you believe that marriage should be denied to some people, but not to others.

Don't you ever get tired of being so stupid?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15858 Jan 23, 2014
I never wrote procreation was a requirement for marriage, that was Jon. I wrote procreation is a benefit from marriage. That's why we want to keep marriage one man and one woman.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15859 Jan 23, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Liddie, until you can offer a compelling governmental interest served by expanding the definition of legal marriage beyond that of one man and one woman as husband and wife, individual men and women, will still possess the same constitutional right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Is it just me, or are you becoming progressively dumber as this discussion progresses?
hellooooooooooooo.......... it's a done deal. There is no 'until.'
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15860 Jan 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I never wrote procreation was a requirement for marriage, that was Jon. I wrote procreation is a benefit from marriage. That's why we want to keep marriage one man and one woman.
You lost that fight 10 years ago. Grow up.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15861 Jan 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with one thing, same sex marriage DOESN'T exist.
But it does exist Brian. Denying reality makes you appear less than sane.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15862 Jan 23, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's the American way. Each state is allowed to designate which relationships it wishes to legally recognize, and how.
.
Think there's no exceptions to that, do ya? States cannot pass laws that violate the federal constitution.

What if a State decided to forbid Catholics from marrying? or people of Irish decent? or people that aren't college educated?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15863 Jan 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I never wrote procreation was a requirement for marriage, that was Jon. I wrote procreation is a benefit from marriage. That's why we want to keep marriage one man and one woman.
Brian, is procreation possible outside marriage?
Do all married people procreate?
Can all married people procreate?

Stop being a willful imbecile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15864 Jan 23, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
hellooooooooooooo.......... it's a done deal. There is no 'until.'
Not quite. The fact that some states have dropped conjugality as the basis for legal marriage, doesn't mean there's this sudden compelling governmental in same sex marriage. It still matters not if two men, or two women marry.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15865 Jan 23, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Think there's no exceptions to that, do ya? States cannot pass laws that violate the federal constitution.
That's all in the eye of the beholder, or judge. One judge can say a law violates the constitution, another judge says, no it doesn't.
What if a State decided to forbid Catholics from marrying? or people of Irish decent? or people that aren't college educated?
What do any of those characteristics have to to with marriage, and as obstacle to, entering into the legally recognized union of husband and wife?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15867 Jan 23, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No hon, according to the PC left, anti-gay means you believe that marriage should be denied to some people, but not to others.
Don't you ever get tired of being so stupid?
Oh like marriage is denied to polygamists?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15868 Jan 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I agree with one thing, same sex marriage DOESN'T exist.
Just as no legitimate compelling state interest exists for the sex restriction in marriage laws.
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage has a fundamental male/female aspect, for procreation.
Procreation has never been a requirement of marriage nor is marriage required for procreation. So a "male/female" aspect isn't fundamental to marriage or the actual legal accomplishment of marriage which is to establish kinship between previously unrelated parties (which occurs for same sex couples as well as opposite sex couples).
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage is husband and wife so children may be raised by mom and dad.
Get it?
Moms and dads become such by having children, not by marrying. And since opposite sex couples that can't or choose not to procreate aren't prohibited from marrying and unmarried people are allowed to adopt children, the state neither requires nor cares that children be raised by both a mom and a dad, much less if the parents or guardians of children are married.

Try again, bigot.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15869 Jan 23, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not quite. The fact that some states have dropped conjugality as the basis for legal marriage, doesn't mean there's this sudden compelling governmental in same sex marriage. It still matters not if two men, or two women marry.
It's not that they have dropped it, it never existed.
"Gill, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 389 (“[T]he ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country.”)."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/199722739/4-04-cv-0...
Page 58

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15870 Jan 23, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh like marriage is denied to polygamists?
They do not seek equality under the law. They seek greater protection for three or more people. The polyamorous are still able to marry the person of their choosing, and should the couple decide live jointly with as many others as they wish.

Learn to count, Pietro.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15871 Jan 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
According to the PC left, anti-gay means you believe marriage should be between man and woman. That explains how they ignore the murder of gays and lesbians overseas because they use all their political capital for power to rewrite marriage laws here.
Sorry Brian, you don't get to dictate to others what causes they wish to advocate or how they must invest their time and money in doing so.

However, no one is stopping you from setting an example bytaking a plane to a country that's murdering gays to fight on their behalf. Be sure to update us on your progress via Topix.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15872 Jan 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I never wrote procreation was a requirement for marriage,
You implied it was a requirement when you asserted (erroneously):

"Marriage has a fundamental male/female aspect, for procreation. Marriage is husband and wife so children may be raised by mom and dad."
Brian_G wrote:
that was Jon.
No, it was you.
Brian_G wrote:
I wrote procreation is a benefit from marriage. That's why we want to keep marriage one man and one woman.
The decision whether or not to have children is a constitutionally protected liberty interest and a fundamental right separate and distinct from that of marriage as ruled by SCOTUS. Neither you nor the state can condition the ability to exercise the fundamental right of marriage on if or whether an individual wishes to have children.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15873 Jan 23, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite. The fact that some states have dropped conjugality as the basis for legal marriage, doesn't mean there's this sudden compelling governmental in same sex marriage. It still matters not if two men, or two women marry.
Once more for intellectually impaired Peter: people wanting to exercise a fundamental right like marriage are not required by the constitution to demonstrate a compelling state interest in order to be allowed to do so. The actual constitutional burden falls on the state to provide a legitimate compelling interest when it wishes to restrict the exercise of a fundamental right by a class of people.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15874 Jan 23, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh like marriage is denied to polygamists?
Who passed the federal and state anti-bigamy laws? Oh that's right, people like you who wished to define marriage as one man and one woman.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15875 Jan 23, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You implied it was a requirement when you asserted (erroneously):
"Marriage has a fundamental male/female aspect, for procreation. Marriage is husband and wife so children may be raised by mom and dad."
<quoted text>
No, it was you.
Brian, it was you.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TP39MT577...

Why do you lie, Brian?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15876 Jan 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I never wrote procreation was a requirement for marriage, that was Jon. I wrote procreation is a benefit from marriage.
LIE.

http://www.topix.com/forum/us-senate/barack-o...

You said procreation was an aspect, not a benefit. Why do you lie so much?
Brian_G wrote:
That's why we want to keep marriage one man and one woman.
When gays marry are they preventing marriages of one man and one woman idiot?

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 Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 9 hr Eagle 12 64
News Barbara Bush (Feb '11) 10 hr Barbara P Bush 7
News Backpedaling on same sex marriage? What did the... 20 hr Elizabeth1912 1
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) Feb 24 Rainbow Kid 36,049
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) Feb 23 Shiralee 5,286
News Muslim cleric tells Australians: 'Husbands shou... (Jan '09) Feb 23 Rabbeen Al Jihad 65
News OK divorce bill passes committee vote Feb 22 wontyoumarrymebill 1
More from around the web