Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments
1,581 - 1,600 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1660 Jan 18, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<LOL!!!! How does one "protect" marriage?? And what, exactly, is attacking marriage such that I needs protecting?? A person can grandly declare that pies need "protecting", too, but unless he or she can accurately define and describe what that means, they're pretty much just making up craziness, aren't they?
Protecting marriage means keeping its male/female aspect. Same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender segregation to marriage where before it was always gender diverse.

If you love integration and hate apartheid; keep marriage male/female.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#1661 Jan 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Protecting marriage means keeping its male/female aspect. Same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender segregation to marriage where before it was always gender diverse.
If you love integration and hate apartheid; keep marriage male/female.
That may work with Ken and Barbie; but not with real people
.
You err by connecting the sex of the physical body with the sex of the soul living within

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1662 Jan 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't want divorce outlawed because that would harm marriage; marriage must contain consent and divorce maintains consent after the wedding. Most same sex marriage supporters don't understand marriage; that's why they want to radically redefine it for everyone.
BTW, even the child of divorced parents still has something no same sex couple can provide: a mother and father.
That is some twisted reasoning.

"The" bibles are much more explicitly clear about divorce than they are about gay marriage.

Of course same sex marriage supporters understand marriage; many are heterosexual married couples.

A child of divorced parents does not have a two-parent household.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1663 Jan 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Protecting marriage means keeping its male/female aspect. Same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender segregation to marriage where before it was always gender diverse.
If you love integration and hate apartheid; keep marriage male/female.
Protecting marriage includes protecting mine from bigotry and discrimination.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#1668 Jan 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't want divorce outlawed because that would harm marriage; marriage must contain consent and divorce maintains consent after the wedding. Most same sex marriage supporters don't understand marriage; that's why they want to radically redefine it for everyone.
BTW, even the child of divorced parents still has something no same sex couple can provide: a mother and father.
Brian, I have a news flash for you. Just because you write something down doesn't make it true. You have NO evidence to back up what you write. None. And you wonder why people make fun of you? Saying something as BLATANTLY stupid as "most same sex marriage supporters don't understand marriage" is why we laugh at you. Outlawing divorce would harm marriage? Really Brian?
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#1669 Jan 18, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you just love how all the anti-marriage idiots seem to think that a child of divorced parents that's being raised in a single-parent home with an absent second parent (often totally absent, as in the kid doesn't even know him or her) are automatically better off than any kid being raised with two loving parents in their home with them?
Especially given the fact that, in most cases, one of the two same-sex parents is the bio parent of the child.
We're SO surrounded by idiots.....
You can say THAT again.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1670 Jan 18, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest that, with their 50+% divorce rates, one could easily demonstrate that straight people don't seen to know much about marriage, either, wouldn't you agree?
Or do you believe that "'Til death do you part" really means, "'Til one of you wants out"?
And you're wrong about the kids of gay couples. Most of the ones I know have three parents--two moms or two dads and the bio mom or dad.
If two loving and caring parents are good, isn't three loving and caring parents even better?? Or does that interrupt your "Leave it to Beaver" fantasy of a family experience that's never been reality?
And the ones that have no bio parents in the picture, would be languishing away in foster care or a state home with NO ONE. You think that's better??
Careful, eJohn. The "why not polygamy" troll is waiting in the wings.

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

#1671 Jan 19, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest that, with their 50+% divorce rates, one could easily demonstrate that straight people don't seen to know much about marriage, either, wouldn't you agree?
Or do you believe that "'Til death do you part" really means, "'Til one of you wants out"?
And you're wrong about the kids of gay couples. Most of the ones I know have three parents--two moms or two dads and the bio mom or dad.
If two loving and caring parents are good, isn't three loving and caring parents even better?? Or does that interrupt your "Leave it to Beaver" fantasy of a family experience that's never been reality?
And the ones that have no bio parents in the picture, would be languishing away in foster care or a state home with NO ONE. You think that's better??
Not a good idea at all there is a sperm donor in court a court case with 2 lesbians involving paying support its best if whatever parties are left totally unknown
Quest

Woodford, VA

#1672 Jan 19, 2013
iamcuriousnow wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because it does agree.The creation account says God made them male and female for a reason so they could reproduce and fill the earth. Two men or two women could not have done that it's the same here in 2013 homosexuals cannot reproduce.
Guess what? We've ALREADY filled the earth.
Guess what? Infertile straight people marry ALL THE TIME.
Gay people are quite capable of reproducing, thank you very much, and have done it throughout history, and do it all the time today.
Now, are you trying to say that you support gay people marrying straight people for the sole purpose of producing more children to blanket the earth? That's what this post seems to be saying.
Would you demand or even accept such a marriage for yourself, or for your son or daughter?
Hmmmmm, I bet not.
I bet you only support it for the sons and daughters of OTHERS.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1673 Jan 19, 2013
eJohn wrote:
So you're one is those crazies that believe that all the straight people in the world are just chomping at the bit to dump their opposite sex partner and jump on onto a same-sex marriage just as soon as they're legal???
Of course not; where did you get that idea from this post:

Protecting marriage means keeping its male/female aspect. Same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender segregation to marriage where before it was always gender diverse.

If you love integration and hate apartheid; keep marriage male/female.

.
eJohn wrote:
Why would you think that accepting civil marriage equality would have any affect at all on straight couples,
When the law changes, rules change for everyone. If you write a new law increasing tolerance so people with above .10 blood alcohol can drive, that doesn't just affect the drunks, it changes traffic for every driver. The same conditions apply when you change the law to let same sex couples, polygamists or incest couples marry.

I'm a conservative; I want to keep marriage as is, between one consenting man and one consenting woman.

.
eJohn wrote:
let alone make them all turn gay?? Does that really make sense to you?
Are you thinking of Kant's Categorical Imperative? That's the philosophical exercise where you question if a policy is good or bad by imagining what would happen if that policy was a universal law and ask, "What would happen if everyone did it?" If you don't use that to decide right from wrong, what do you use?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#1674 Jan 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Of course not; where did you get that idea from this post:
Protecting marriage means keeping its male/female aspect. Same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender segregation to marriage where before it was always gender diverse.
.......
I like how you feel that the prime threat to all straight folks marriages is gay people marrying.

Seems pretty silly to the rest of us.

Gay folks will be marrying each other, which you should consider a good thing. No one will be segregating a single straight person into a same gender marriage.

Are you really trying to say that gay folks should be marrying straight folks if they value marriage? Do you know what kind of twisted situation would that be? That gay folks should aspire to loveless marriages of convenience for the sake of maintaining your PERSONAL definition of marriage?

Sacrificing tens of thousands of nice gay folks to those loveless marriages, and the pain of every straight person dragged into that situation with them. Not to mention the poor kids seeing that kind of loveless union as normal.

Pretty selfish of you, and all for YOUR comfort and peace of mind.

It would make much more sense for you to grow up a bit, and stop worrying so much about damaging other folk's families, and just work harder on your own.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#1675 Jan 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
........When the law changes, rules change for everyone. If you write a new law increasing tolerance so people with above .10 blood alcohol can drive, that doesn't just affect the drunks, it changes traffic for every driver. The same conditions apply when you change the law to let same sex couples, polygamists or incest couples marry.
..........
No, you BELIEVE the same conditions apply, but that isn't logical.

Please tell us where ANY straight person will be required to marry anyone of the same gender.

And then, prove that allowing gay people to marry the one adult consenting single person in THE SAME WAY that we already allow straight people to marry will cause acceptance of incest and polygamy?

At least stick to logic.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1676 Jan 19, 2013
Quest wrote:
I like how you feel that the prime threat to all straight folks marriages is gay people marrying.
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality; gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. The prime threat to the fundamental cultural institution are forces weakening the family to make people more dependent on government. Same sex marriage is just another brick in the wall.

.
Quest wrote:
Seems pretty silly to the rest of us.
I understand many same sex marriage supporters feel the issue is silly; they base their views on emotion, not considering the consequences of their policy to radically redefine marriage.

.
Quest wrote:
Gay folks will be marrying each other, which you should consider a good thing.
A gay man may marry a lesbian woman in any state; there is no orientation test for a marriage license. The problem isn't homosexuals; the problem is bringing gender segregation to the perfectly integrated institution of male/female marriage.

.
Quest wrote:
No one will be segregating a single straight person into a same gender marriage.
No, but same sex marriage supporters want to change marriage laws for everybody. When a state becomes more tolerant and let's drivers with .1% blood alcohol drive, it affects every driver and pedestrian, not just the drunk drivers.

.
Quest wrote:
Are you really trying to say that gay folks should be marrying straight folks if they value marriage?
Marriage isn't for everybody.

.
Quest wrote:
Do you know what kind of twisted situation would that be?
Homosexuals have always married; I cite Meredith Baxter and Oscar Wilde as two examples. I suppose they marry because it's nicer for their kids to be legitimate, to have a mother and father.

.
Quest wrote:
That gay folks should aspire to loveless marriages of convenience for the sake of maintaining your PERSONAL definition of marriage?
You wouldn't love the mother of your child? What kind of person are you?

.
Quest wrote:
Sacrificing tens of thousands of nice gay folks to those loveless marriages, and the pain of every straight person dragged into that situation with them. Not to mention the poor kids seeing that kind of loveless union as normal.
Oscar Wilde's kids said he was a good father; who are you to judge? I say, if you want kids, marry your kid's other parent.

.
Quest wrote:
Pretty selfish of you, and all for YOUR comfort and peace of mind. It would make much more sense for you to grow up a bit, and stop worrying so much about damaging other folk's families, and just work harder on your own.
Not as selfish as radically redefining marriage to satiate sexual predilection.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#1677 Jan 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality; gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. The prime threat to the fundamental cultural institution are forces weakening the family to make people more dependent on government. Same sex marriage is just another brick in the wall.
.
<quoted text>I understand many same sex marriage supporters feel the issue is silly; they base their views on emotion, not considering the consequences of their policy to radically redefine marriage.
.
<quoted text>A gay man may marry a lesbian woman in any state; there is no orientation test for a marriage license. The problem isn't homosexuals; the problem is bringing gender segregation to the perfectly integrated institution of male/female marriage.
.
<quoted text>No, but same sex marriage supporters want to change marriage laws for everybody. When a state becomes more tolerant and let's drivers with .1% blood alcohol drive, it affects every driver and pedestrian, not just the drunk drivers.
.
<quoted text>Marriage isn't for everybody.
.
<quoted text>Homosexuals have always married; I cite Meredith Baxter and Oscar Wilde as two examples. I suppose they marry because it's nicer for their kids to be legitimate, to have a mother and father.
.
<quoted text>You wouldn't love the mother of your child? What kind of person are you?
.
<quoted text>Oscar Wilde's kids said he was a good father; who are you to judge? I say, if you want kids, marry your kid's other parent.
.
<quoted text>Not as selfish as radically redefining marriage to satiate sexual predilection.
We have redfined marriage many many times......IT IS CALLED PROGRESS......

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1678 Jan 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I'm a conservative; I want to keep marriage as is, between one consenting man and one consenting woman.
Good luck with that, because it's highly improbable.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1679 Jan 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
When a state becomes more tolerant and let's drivers with .1% blood alcohol drive, it affects every driver and pedestrian, not just the drunk drivers.
This is one of the silliest things on these pages.

Gay marriages already exist. They already have an effect on society.

If the government doesn't recognize a tree as a tree, it still soaks up sunlight and water and still gives off oxygen.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1680 Jan 19, 2013
Tony C wrote:
If the government doesn't recognize a tree as a tree, it still soaks up sunlight and water and still gives off oxygen.
But is a planet still a planet?

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#1681 Jan 19, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>glad i could bring a little levity into your day.
you still haven't figured it out, have you. the man you were posting to is an orthodox priest and has been for many, many years.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1682 Jan 19, 2013
ToManyLaws wrote:
We have redfined marriage many many times......IT IS CALLED PROGRESS......
Until the 21st century, all written law in every nation defined marriage as male/female. Polygamy was outlawed under federal law in 1862; same sex marriage has never been illegal in any US state.

If you care about tolerance and integration; keep marriage gender diverse. Same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender apartheid into the perfect integration of marriage as one man and one woman.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1683 Jan 19, 2013
Quest wrote:
No, you BELIEVE the same conditions apply, but that isn't logical. Please tell us where ANY straight person will be required to marry anyone of the same gender...
If a state changes it's law to become more tolerant and inclusive; to allow people with more than .1% blood alcohol to drive, that doesn't force teetotaler drivers to drink. Still, the law affects everyone, other drivers and pedestrians too, not just the drunks.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 8 min Wondering Why 31,195
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 20 min mahz 49,473
Younger members split with GOP on social issues 25 min swedenforever 32
3 states, plaintiffs want Supreme Court to hear... 5 hr WeTheSheeple 1
Church firing stirs up controversy over same-se... 5 hr RalphB 52
Women dish on their most embarrassing wardrobe ... (Sep '13) 10 hr Kelly DJ 281
Testimony wraps up in former Va. governor trial 16 hr Natural Disasters 1
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••