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.

Poof

Madison, WI

#16511 Feb 10, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there are other laws against polygamy still.
Just one, the same one in every state. Prop 8 had nothing to do with polygamy

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16512 Feb 10, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it's quite common that the State allows TWO consenting adults, regardless of gender make-up, not to closely related by blood, not currently married, of age to marry, every day,
Much more common if the two adults are of the opposite sex.
as it should be in ALL states!!!
Atta girl!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16513 Feb 10, 2014
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Just one, the same one in every state. Prop 8 had nothing to do with polygamy
"Marriage is a man and a woman only" bans polygamy as much as it bans same sex marriage. You know, the same. As in EQUALLY.

Glad I could help but it's a simple concept really, prop 8 was not ambiguous. " a man and a woman only" bans polygamy.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16514 Feb 10, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it's quite common that the State allows TWO consenting adults, regardless of gender make-up, not to closely related by blood, not currently married, of age to marry, every day, as it should be in ALL states!!!
Why two though? Why not three? Would legalizing polygamy really hurt your marriage?

I know it would hurt Poof's marriage because then his wife could go out and get another husband. A decent one. One with a JOB. And with some couth!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#16515 Feb 10, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot two other elements, "married", and "stable home".
That's hardly an important distinction, since we all agree that stable is a requirement regardless of who does the parenting. "Married," of course, can contribute to stability and security of the household. You do like to distract from the issues being discussed, don't you?
Sigh.....I have acknowledged that the biological nuclear family home is not always possible. No shame in acknowledging that.
And yet, you argue that your concept that some non-existent (and impossible) situation would be better for the child trumps the need to provide the greatest level of support to the family. That is your shame.
Really?!!!! Are you that biased by the rainbow colored lenses through which you see the world, to claim that child welfare experts believe that married biological parents in a stable home is not the ideal environment for children?!!!!!
Please! How many thousands of times to you have to hear that? You keep asking the same questions and being surprised by the same answers. Do you have severe short-term memory problems?
Both mothers and fathers play important roles in the growth and development of children. The number and the type of parents (e.g., biological, step) in the household, as well as the relationship between the parents, are strongly linked to a child’s well-being.[1](Nationally representative data on adoptive families are relatively new, and warrant a separate treatment.[2])
Among young children, for example, those living with no biological parents or in single-parent households are less likely than children with two biological parents to exhibit behavioral self-control, and more likely to be exposed to high levels of aggravated parenting, than are children living with two biological parents.[3] Children living with two married adults (biological or adoptive parents) have, in general, better health, greater access to health care, and fewer emotional or behavioral problems than children living in other types of families.[4] Among children in two-parent families, those living with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage tend to do better on a host of outcomes than those living in step-parent families.
- See more at: http://www.childtrends.org/...
And not a word of the study you cite is dedicated to the situation of children raised from birth by a same-sex couple. The study doesn't even attempt to comment on children adopted at birth.
Same support? Meaning we call an apple an orange? A same sex sexual relationship "marriage"? Is that the support you mean, or the various government programs available to children, parents, and care givers?
[QUOTE]
Again, you are incapable of supporting of loving your fellow man because of your prejudice. Why do you need separate labels? Why can you not simply accept your neighbors as they are and support them? WWJD?

[QUOTE] Ohhhhhhh....of course! That must be it. Sigh....no Jeffy, that's not it. Maybe you're arguing that "marriage" should be affixed to a whole array of adult relationships.
Marriage is the commitment of two people to love and care for one another for the rest of their lives. Neither more nor less.
Not at all. If fact, family should step in when the bio mom and dad can't or won't raise the kids. Should we designated the relationship, "marriage", between two uncles/aunts?
What would you call it? Why is it so important for you to deny the couple the dignity of the well-understood term "marriage?" Why do you find gay couples so reprehensible?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#16516 Feb 10, 2014
Oh Madone!.......sigh.
<quoted text>
A same sex couple is not equatable to an opposite sex couple who are the biological parents.
<quoted text>
We don't designate all adult relationships "marriage" just because children are involved.
<quoted text>
So you're not a married father, to a wife, raising your own children. Understood.
One grandchild?
Thirteen between myself and my siblings.
No annulments needed.
Ah, so children have nothing to do with whether a marriage is recognized or not. I'm glad we finally cleared that up. Now please don't bring up that tangent again.
Which of your parents would you exchange for a gender duplicate of them?
Most people would not give up members of their family. Which mother do you think Zach Wahls would give up so that he could have a father?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#16517 Feb 10, 2014
who="Pietro Armando"]<quoted text>
You forgot two other elements, "married", and "stable home".
That's hardly an important distinction, since we all agree that stable is a requirement regardless of who does the parenting. "Married," of course, can contribute to stability and security of the household. You do like to distract from the issues being discussed, don't you?
Sigh.....I have acknowledged that the biological nuclear family home is not always possible. No shame in acknowledging that.
And yet, you argue that your concept that some non-existent (and impossible) situation would be better for the child trumps the need to provide the greatest level of support to the family. That is your shame.
Really?!!!! Are you that biased by the rainbow colored lenses through which you see the world, to claim that child welfare experts believe that married biological parents in a stable home is not the ideal environment for children?!!!!!
Please! How many thousands of times to you have to hear that? You keep asking the same questions and being surprised by the same answers. Do you have severe short-term memory problems?
Both mothers and fathers play important roles in the growth and development of children. The number and the type of parents (e.g., biological, step) in the household, as well as the relationship between the parents, are strongly linked to a child’s well-being.[1](Nationally representative data on adoptive families are relatively new, and warrant a separate treatment.[2])
Among young children, for example, those living with no biological parents or in single-parent households are less likely than children with two biological parents to exhibit behavioral self-control, and more likely to be exposed to high levels of aggravated parenting, than are children living with two biological parents.[3] Children living with two married adults (biological or adoptive parents) have, in general, better health, greater access to health care, and fewer emotional or behavioral problems than children living in other types of families.[4] Among children in two-parent families, those living with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage tend to do better on a host of outcomes than those living in step-parent families.
- See more at: http://www.childtrends.org/...
And not a word of the study you cite is dedicated to the situation of children raised from birth by a same-sex couple. The study doesn't even attempt to comment on children adopted at birth.
Same support? Meaning we call an apple an orange? A same sex sexual relationship "marriage"? Is that the support you mean, or the various government programs available to children, parents, and care givers?
[QUOTE]
Again, you are incapable of supporting of loving your fellow man because of your prejudice. Why do you need separate labels? Why can you not simply accept your neighbors as they are and support them? WWJD?
[QUOTE] Ohhhhhhh....of course! That must be it. Sigh....no Jeffy, that's not it. Maybe you're arguing that "marriage" should be affixed to a whole array of adult relationships.
Marriage is the commitment of two people to love and care for one another for the rest of their lives. Neither more nor less.
Not at all. If fact, family should step in when the bio mom and dad can't or won't raise the kids. Should we designated the relationship, "marriage", between two uncles/aunts?
What would you call it? Why is it so important for you to deny the couple the dignity of the well-understood term "marriage?" Why do you find gay couples so reprehensible?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#16518 Feb 10, 2014
who="Pietro Armando"]<quoted text>
You forgot two other elements, "married", and "stable home".
That's hardly an important distinction, since we all agree that stable is a requirement regardless of who does the parenting. "Married," of course, can contribute to stability and security of the household. You do like to distract from the issues being discussed, don't you?
Sigh.....I have acknowledged that the biological nuclear family home is not always possible. No shame in acknowledging that.
And yet, you argue impossibly that some non-existent situation would be better for the child instead of simply supporting the family. That is your shame.
Really?!!!! Are you that biased by the rainbow colored lenses through which you see the world, to claim that child welfare experts believe that married biological parents in a stable home is not the ideal environment for children?!!!!!
How many thousands of times to you have to hear that? Do you have severe short-term memory problems?
Both mothers and fathers play important roles in the growth and development of children. The number and the type of parents (e.g., biological, step) in the household, as well as the relationship between the parents, are strongly linked to a child’s well-being.[1](Nationally representative data on adoptive families are relatively new, and warrant a separate treatment.[2])
Among young children, for example, those living with no biological parents or in single-parent households are less likely than children with two biological parents to exhibit behavioral self-control, and more likely to be exposed to high levels of aggravated parenting, than are children living with two biological parents.[3] Children living with two married adults (biological or adoptive parents) have, in general, better health, greater access to health care, and fewer emotional or behavioral problems than children living in other types of families.[4] Among children in two-parent families, those living with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage tend to do better on a host of outcomes than those living in step-parent families.
- See more at: http://www.childtrends.org/...
The white paper you cite does not address the situation of children raised from birth by a same-sex couple. The study doesn't even attempt to distinguish children adopted at birth from other adoptees.
Same support? Meaning we call an apple an orange? A same sex sexual relationship "marriage"? Is that the support you mean, or the various government programs available to children, parents, and care givers?
[QUOTE]
Are you incapable of supporting of loving your fellow man because of your prejudice. Why do you need separate labels? Why can you not simply accept your neighbors as they are and support them? WWJD?

[QUOTE] Ohhhhhhh....of course! That must be it. Sigh....no Jeffy, that's not it. Maybe you're arguing that "marriage" should be affixed to a whole array of adult relationships.
Marriage is the commitment of two people to love and care for one another for the rest of their lives. Neither more nor less.
Not at all. If fact, family should step in when the bio mom and dad can't or won't raise the kids. Should we designated the relationship, "marriage", between two uncles/aunts?
What would you call it? Why is it so important for you to deny the couple the dignity of the well-understood term "marriage?" Why do you find gay couples so reprehensible?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#16519 Feb 10, 2014
Sorry about double posting. . . . Topix is having one if its weird moments.
Poof

Madison, WI

#16520 Feb 10, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Marriage is a man and a woman only" bans polygamy as much as it bans same sex marriage. You know, the same. As in EQUALLY.
Glad I could help but it's a simple concept really, prop 8 was not ambiguous. " a man and a woman only" bans polygamy.
March, 1882. Edmunds Act, which reinforced Morrill by making polygamy a felony in the jurisdictions covered by Morrill; also prohibited "bigamous" or "unlawful cohabitation" as a misdemeanor offense, which removed the need to prove that actual marriages had occurred in order to obtain convictions on polygamy related charges.

1882,Frank, 1882.
You see Prop 8, no matter how you spin it had nothing to do with polygamy. It's still illegal, that however can no be said about same sex marriage. If prop 8 banned polygamy, then it would now be legal.
Poof

Madison, WI

#16521 Feb 10, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why two though? Why not three? Would legalizing polygamy really hurt your marriage?
I know it would hurt Poof's marriage because then his wife could go out and get another husband. A decent one. One with a JOB. And with some couth!
I have been married for well over 30 years. I have a job, and you are still a troll.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16522 Feb 10, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Marriage is a man and a woman only" bans polygamy as much as it bans same sex marriage. You know, the same. As in EQUALLY.
Glad I could help but it's a simple concept really, prop 8 was not ambiguous. " a man and a woman only" bans polygamy.
No it doesn't. Prop 8 is gone, polygamy is still illegal.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16523 Feb 10, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Marriage is a man and a woman only" bans polygamy as much as it bans same sex marriage. You know, the same. As in EQUALLY.
Glad I could help but it's a simple concept really, prop 8 was not ambiguous. " a man and a woman only" bans polygamy.
Not legally. But stay stupid.... it suits you.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16524 Feb 10, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there are other laws against polygamy still.
So then polygamy was already banned BEFORE Prop 8.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16525 Feb 10, 2014
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the whole problem with your 'segregation' argument.
Segregation is only illegal when forced upon unwilling participants. But it is perfectly legal as a private practice.
Racially segregated public school -- illegal.
Sexually segregated private school ie (Wellesley College)-- legal.
The local Order of Elks/Moose/Masons...-- legal
Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts -- legal
For your scenario to be illegal, the law would have to mandate that you, as a male, could marry only another male. Just like gays and lesbians have a problem with state laws that also mandate which gender of person that they can marry and cannot marry.
You are using facts. They aren't understood by the village idiot.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16526 Feb 10, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Segregation under apartheid was legal and wrong.
Yes, because it was forced on people.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage means sex apartheid marriage
No, it doesn't. No one is being forced against their will to enter or not enter into a same sex marriage.

Idiot. Nothing is more amusing that watching you use words you can't comprehend.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16527 Feb 10, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
Sorry about double posting.... Topix is having one if its weird moments.
No prob....I've done it too thinking my post didn't post.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16528 Feb 10, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
So then polygamy was already banned BEFORE Prop 8.
Never said it wasn't Miss Thang. All I'm saying is that a law that says marriage is a man and a woman only bans polygamy. It's a simple concept really.

A man and a woman = singular as in monogamy
Men and women = plural as in polygamy

See? Easy!

May I ask why this point is so important to you? Trying to hog all the victimhood? Typical.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16529 Feb 10, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No prob....I've done it too thinking my post didn't post.
I've done it too. And accepted the blame like you did. Notice nhjeff blames topix.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16530 Feb 10, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't. Prop 8 is gone, polygamy is still illegal.
Of course! Prop 8 wasn't the only law against polygamy, but now that it is gone there is one less. You disagree?

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 Smiling Tennessee hardware store owner puts 'No... 17 min Messenger of Love 82
News US top court rules for baker in gay wedding cak... 43 min Vino- Veritas 664
News Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in gay w... 1 hr Messenger of Love 4
News Methodists consider rules about same sex marria... 7 hr Hudson 16
News Fatherlessness is harder on Father's Day, but '... 8 hr Messenger of Love 2
News Natalie Portman slams Jared Kushner, calls her ... 8 hr Messenger of Love 3
News Indiana GOP platform keeps marriage between man... 18 hr Messenger of Love 27