Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,568

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.

Full Story

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1940 Jan 27, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>who said anything about originals. you didn't ask that question and i certainly wasn't talking about originals. however the preponderance of evidence when all the manuscripts are looked at would indicate what the originals said.
And how would you know that if there are no originals in existence?

Duh.

Game over.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1941 Jan 27, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
And how would you know that if there are no originals in existence?
Duh.
Game over.
duh, of course the game is over if you are implying that any originals still exist.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1942 Jan 27, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>duh, of course the game is over if you are implying that any originals still exist.
So there you go. You're quoting things and you don't even know where they came from.

I understand how easy it is to just believe whatever you were told as a kid. But when you are an adult, you have to question those things and see if they stand up. That one does not, at least not in the way you guys use it as if it is infallible and solid enough to be used against fellow citizens. That's messed up.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1943 Jan 28, 2013
The issue isn't freedom; same sex couples have the right to cohabit; the issue is redefining marriage for everyone to make it gender segregated.

Down with gender apartheid marriage; keep marriage gender diverse.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#1944 Jan 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The issue isn't freedom; same sex couples have the right to cohabit; the issue is redefining marriage for everyone to make it gender segregated.
Down with gender apartheid marriage; keep marriage gender diverse.
So you promote folks just shacking up because one person's marriage always redefines another person's marriage?

Do you think this stuff through before you post?

And, I know you are really in love with these new concepts and word combinations you have created, but they don't appear in ANY marriage law.

For good reasons.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1945 Jan 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The issue isn't freedom; same sex couples have the right to cohabit; the issue is redefining marriage for everyone to make it gender segregated.
Down with gender apartheid marriage; keep marriage gender diverse.
I see. So you start over when nobody's addressing you.

The issue is all men are created equal, and there is no valid reason to deny American citizens petitioning to have their already existing marriages legally recognized. No harm can be shown in real terms or theoretical terms. You have no argument. You lose.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1946 Jan 28, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So you promote folks just shacking up because one person's marriage always redefines another person's marriage?
Do you think this stuff through before you post?
And, I know you are really in love with these new concepts and word combinations you have created, but they don't appear in ANY marriage law.
For good reasons.
Nor do they even make sense.

I guess it fulfils the old saying; "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull" by W.C. Fields.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#1947 Jan 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Not just the bible; every pre21st Century holy text defines marriage as male/female.
You are invited to enjoy pre-21st Century society, if that's what you like. The rest of us have our eyes on the future, and that entails change.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1948 Jan 28, 2013
Quest wrote:
So you promote folks just shacking up because one person's marriage always redefines another person's marriage?
Changing marriage law changes everyone's marriage. I support civil unions and domestic partnerships as a perfect compromise.

.
Quest wrote:
Do you think this stuff through before you post?
Don't you?

.
Quest wrote:
And, I know you are really in love with these new concepts and word combinations you have created, but they don't appear in ANY marriage law.
You mean, same sex marriage is gender apartheid marriage? Does't that strike a nerve?

You can't ride on the shoulders of the Freedom Riders without showing what a freeloader same sex marriage is.

.
Quest wrote:
For good reasons.
Glad you like my posts.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1949 Jan 28, 2013
Tony C wrote:
I see. So you start over when nobody's addressing you. The issue is all men are created equal, and there is no valid reason to deny American citizens petitioning to have their already existing marriages legally recognized. No harm can be shown in real terms or theoretical terms. You have no argument. You lose.
What about the price? If men in prisons have the right to marry other prisoners; what's that cost? Harm isn't just physical insult and injury, harm is the price of your bus driver's same sex husband's Viagra, when the taxpayer and public benefit pool pay.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#1950 Jan 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Changing marriage law changes everyone's marriage. I support civil unions and domestic partnerships as a perfect compromise.
Are you inviting us to your civil union?

Since: Feb 09

My Own World

#1951 Jan 28, 2013
AzAdam

Mesa, AZ

#1952 Jan 28, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you inviting us to your civil union?
Well said.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1953 Jan 28, 2013
There is no reasonable or legitimate governmental interest served by denial of equal treatment under the law. Straight couples gain nothing, and gay couples are harmed for no reason other than to support a traditional irrational prejudice.

Allowing gay people to participate under the laws currently in effect does not change the marriages of straight people.

Allowing more people to participate can in no way be considered exclusionary. Pejorative terminology fails to provide a rational or legitimate governmental interest served by denial of equal treatment under the law.

The fact that marriage is such a fundamental right that even convicts remain married or can marry while incarcerated, does not mean the government is required to provide shared housing or even conjugal visits.

But "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull." (W.C. Fields)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1954 Jan 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I don't have to defend gender diversity marriage, it stands on its own merits. Keeping marriage as is, between one man and one woman, is the centrist, moderate position. Changing the definition of marriage or criminalizing same sex behaviors are the radical, extremist views.
Instead of drinking the Jesuit koolaid and insisting that Marriage is being "redefined", a Moderate view would see merely an expansion of the criteria for participation.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1955 Jan 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
Instead of drinking the Jesuit koolaid and insisting that Marriage is being "redefined", a Moderate view would see merely an expansion of the criteria for participation.
What are the consequences of that 'expansion', to men in prisons? If you think prison rape is bad, wait for prison forced marriages.

Writing new marriage laws redefines marriage. Until the 21st Century, marriage has always been gender diverse; same sex marriage brings a bad standard of gender apartheid to marriage.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1956 Jan 29, 2013
There is no reasonable or legitimate governmental interest served by denial of equal treatment under the law. Straight couples gain nothing, they lose nothing, and gay couples are harmed for no reason other than to support a traditional irrational prejudice.

Allowing gay people to participate under the laws currently in effect does not change the marriages of straight people. There is no redefinition of their marriages.

Allowing more people to participate can in no way be considered exclusionary. This absurd idea is fear mongering using pejorative terminology. It fails to provide a rational or legitimate governmental interest served by denial of equal treatment under the law.

The fact that marriage is such a fundamental right that even convicts remain married or can marry while incarcerated, does not mean the government is required to provide shared housing or even conjugal visits. It is abusrd to propose rape leads to marriage. Rape is not love.

But "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull." (W.C. Fields)
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1957 Jan 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
And how would you know that if there are no originals in existence?
Duh.
Game over.
the copies came from somewhere. the preponderance of their agreement settles any argument over the few times that they disagree. the source of their place of origin gives value to the weight of consideration given to their validity. and the agreement that they would have with the ancient churches and commentators plays a roll in determining their place in understanding the word of God.
if God gave us his word and then promised to preserve his word, then he being God would have done just that. otherwise he would not be God.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1958 Jan 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Changing marriage law changes everyone's marriage.
...only the stupid people.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1959 Jan 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What about the price? If men in prisons have the right to marry other prisoners; what's that cost? Harm isn't just physical insult and injury, harm is the price of your bus driver's same sex husband's Viagra, when the taxpayer and public benefit pool pay.
I see, so we can save money by not recognizing certain peoples' marriages.

We can save a lot more by not recognizing opposite-sex marriages.

Only an unpatriotic person would suggest freedom is dependent on a price tag.

But rest assured, many of us already can get Viagra from our spouse's health care plan - if we live in a civilized area and he works for a decent company. So you're already paying for that. Not to mention, many simply have their own insurance, so it would more likely just be a case of doubling-up on which spouse had the better plan - the same decision made by many opposite sex households.

So in short, your objection was BS and was handily refuted.

Here, you can have your ass back now.

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
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 20 min Jonah1 49,838
Pakistan flood sinks boat carrying wedding party 53 min NITiN 3
There was 'blood everywhere' says witness of Or... 1 hr Elaphant Man 1
It Takes 7 Police Agencies to Break Up Wedding ... 1 hr Buybull Mullahs 1
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 hr Jonah1 25,022
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 4 hr Infidel 18
Norfolk Island considers gay marriage 18 hr Professor Jumper 2
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••