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
1,601 - 1,620 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1684
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Tony C wrote:
This is one of the silliest things on these pages.
Not sillier than the claim, changing marriage laws only affects same sex couples and nobody else.

.
Tony C wrote:
Gay marriages already exist. They already have an effect on society.
I'm glad you agree.

.
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.
The issue is what the government accepts as marriage, not your individual freedom to associate as you wish.

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1685
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Not sillier than the claim, changing marriage laws only affects same sex couples and nobody else.
.
<quoted text>I'm glad you agree.
.
<quoted text>The issue is what the government accepts as marriage, not your individual freedom to associate as you wish.
how's the wife

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1686
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Not sillier than the claim, changing marriage laws only affects same sex couples and nobody else.
.......
Explain, in detail, how a gay couple's marriage negatively affects anyone else's marriage.

Explain how such a marriage will negatively affect anyone or anything at all.

Now, if you are claiming that there will be positive effects for people other than the gay married couple, you would be right. Marriage has always had a positive impact on families and kids, and more secure families and kids means a stronger society as a whole.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1687
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
........
So, please - in detail - explain how gay couples marrying will force them, and their children, to be MORE dependent on government.

Isn't it usually the other way around?

How can anyone say that when people marry and value marriage, it weakens marriage as a whole?

Lets see the facts, Sir.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1688
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>.......
<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.
........
No, actually, we base our views on the issue on personal experience, facts, statistics and logic, along with a good dose of common sense.

It is your type who is only working from emotion. You "feel" that a gay couple marrying is wrong because you lack basic empathy, so you imagine all sorts of dire predictions, that you can't logically prove or even rationally explain, and that never seem to come to fruition.

For instance, I have asked you many may times to explain how stronger and more secure families will harm other married couples or society, and you can't provide a single concrete answer.

It's all about your feelings, not reality.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1689
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
......
<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.
..........
Can you prove that allowing gay folks to legally marry will cause them to recklessly kill other people?
If not, your analogy is a bit weak. You might want to work on a more logical comparison.
For instance, you can compare the laws banning same sex marriage to the ones that used to ban interracial marriage.
You often use the same rhetoric used back then, so your comparison would be a little stronger. You seem to like the "everyone can already marry - it's just that some of you can't do it for love, but it's really the same" argument.
It didn't hold too well back then, but, who knows, it might work now.
There's also the "It feels icky to me so you shouldn't be allowed to do it" argument. And the "Your marriage and family will destroy the fabric of society because I say so" message.
All of those are historically tried, if not true.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1690
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I guess you think that means something.

Until the 20th century, all women couldn't vote.

Get a clue.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1691
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
If a state changes its law to become more tolerand and inclusive; to legally recognize interracial marriages, that doesn't force people to marry outside their race. The law applies to everyone, even the loudmouth freaks who vocally oppose it and predict doom and gloom...which never happens.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1692
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Not sillier than the claim, changing marriage laws only affects same sex couples and nobody else.
.
<quoted text>I'm glad you agree.
.
<quoted text>The issue is what the government accepts as marriage, not your individual freedom to associate as you wish.
No, the issue is equality for all American citizens.

Also, the issue is the fruitlessness of failing to recognize what already exists.

But to clarify, legal recognition of same sex marriages does not affect anyone outside of same sex marriages any further than interracial marriages affect anyone outside of those.

That's not to say interracial marriage had no effect. It prevented overt discrimination. It forced bigots to comply with the law.

The same will happen with same sex marriages. Since it wasn't a dealbreaker with interracial marriage (and those who opposed interracial marriage were simply wrong) likewise it can't be a dealbreaker now (and those who oppose gay marriage are simply wrong.)

Your days are numbered on this issue. Face it.
Brad

Manchester, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1693
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you think that means something.
Until the 20th century, all women couldn't vote.
Get a clue.
You couldn't vote unless you were a land owner and member of the local parish until the 19th century either.
Its called evolving as a nation.
Its a little different when you ask the vast majority to accept an evolution of the laws of nature virtually over night to appease a hand full of people.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1694
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
......
.
<quoted text>Marriage isn't for everybody.

And no one is saying that it is.
.
<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.

Would YOU tell your child that marrying only to procreate and with no love and attraction in the union is the same as marrying someone they can love romantically?

<quoted text>You wouldn't love the mother of your child? What kind of person are you?

My Dear, I DO love the Mother of my children. But I love her in the way a spouse loves another. Romantically. Spiritually, emotionally. I do not love her only for her ability to make children. I believe you have never married, and really can't understand - there seems to be an odd disconnect on your part.

<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.

Did you ask how his wife felt about the union? And, if you require any parent, biological or otherwise, to marry the parent of any child they raise, it will get very complicated. It will likely destroy adoption all together, with all of those required marriages, and might require polygamy as well in the case of blended families.


<quoted text>Not as selfish as radically redefining marriage to satiate sexual predilection.
Again, I believe you have never married, if you believe that falling in love, marrying, and forming a family is all about " satiating sexual predilections"

I really feel sorry for you in your isolated and lonely life.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1695
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
You couldn't vote unless you were a land owner and member of the local parish until the 19th century either.
Its called evolving as a nation.
Its a little different when you ask the vast majority to accept an evolution of the laws of nature virtually over night to appease a hand full of people.
No, it isn't. People should learn from past mistakes and realize that denying any law abiding citizens equality is wrong. Why didn't you learn that?

Womens' suffrage started slowly, picked up speed, and must have seemed to happen overnight as well to those who were around at the time.

Our fight began to coalesce in the 60's and 70's. It's 2013. That's not overnight. That's some peoples' entire lives.

It is immoral to not rectify this inequality immediately, as more good gay folks die every day without the legal recognition we all know is coming.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1697
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Ummmmm
.
The first state to license gay marriage was Massachusetts; and that was May 17, 2004
.
Nearly 'nine' years ago
.
You didn't even know it!
.
Apparently you didn't know this either:
http://makeitequal.org/

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1698
Jan 20, 2013
 
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.

And tell us just exactly what are those consequences. I don't want you're opinion I want facts proven facts, facts based on science, not religion or fiction just cold hard facts. I challenge you
Brad

Manchester, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1699
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it isn't. People should learn from past mistakes and realize that denying any law abiding citizens equality is wrong. Why didn't you learn that?
Womens' suffrage started slowly, picked up speed, and must have seemed to happen overnight as well to those who were around at the time.
Our fight began to coalesce in the 60's and 70's. It's 2013. That's not overnight. That's some peoples' entire lives.
It is immoral to not rectify this inequality immediately, as more good gay folks die every day without the legal recognition we all know is coming.
I disagree,across the board.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1700
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree,across the board.
And that matters how?

You can't disagree with facts.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1701
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

disaster in the making wrote:
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.
And tell us just exactly what are those consequences. I don't want you're opinion I want facts proven facts, facts based on science, not religion or fiction just cold hard facts. I challenge you
Actually, it's the opposite. Anti-gay marriage un-American, pro-discriminatory folks base their opposition to gay marriage on irrational, unsubstantiated emotions like fear, feelings of losing status, insecurity, etc.

We, however, offer a rational argument based on equal rights and treatment under the law for us and our children.

The facts are these, as they apply to both homosexual and heterosexual couples:

Marriage reduces the chances of spreading STD's.

Married people statistically live longer lives.

Married people statistically live healthier lives.

Married people statistically rely less on the public dole.

Children suffer under the law when their same-sex parents are not treated the same as their heterosexual counterparts.

Married gay couples suffer undue hardship and uncertainty when it comes to mundane marital issues such as transfer of property, etc.

Brad

Manchester, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1702
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
And that matters how?
You can't disagree with facts.
Gay lifestyle,by its definition alone,is a far cry from factual.

If you want to drag facts into it,,,,that is.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1703
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you might consider your own experiences and those of the foster care agencies you work with. It's not like professionals in the field find that observation controversial. It's only ideologues who believe that there is any correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia.
well we do have experience that backs up the claim. i was just wondering if tony c had any links to support his claim that "almost all child molesters were heterosexual". of course his claim might be a little off subject as the original claim was that children abused by homosexuals turn into abusers themselves.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1704
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay lifestyle,by its definition alone,is a far cry from factual.
If you want to drag facts into it,,,,that is.
Wow. OK, are you even in the realm of reality?

That first sentence makes absolutely no sense.

There is no such thing as "gay lifestyle."

However, I am gay, married, and real, so that's factual for ya.

Try to disprove my existence LOL.

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
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr The Rogue 49,393
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 5 hr KiMerde 24,863
Refusal to sell wedding gowns to lesbian couple... 7 hr TomInElPaso 145
Crackdown on foreign affairs 8 hr Joe 3
Election 2014: Labour's three gender options fo... 11 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 8
Virginia prepares for possibility of gay marriage 12 hr swedenforever 32
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 12 hr DNF 3,886
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••