Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2252 Feb 7, 2013
Poly Marriage Equality wrote:
<quoted text>
Such an arrangement would be part of the discussion, however it begs the question, "if the men are intimate with each other, what role does the wife play?". Unless you are implying a gender stereo type role that she would cook, clean, and bear children. That would seem to contradict the notion of equality.
You've heard of bisexuals, haven't you?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2253 Feb 7, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you asking whether it's nature or nurture? Personally, I think Brian had to nurture it.
It would be fun to hook him up to a ViagraŽ IV to see which way he really swings
AzAdam

United States

#2254 Feb 7, 2013
Poly Marriage Equality wrote:
<quoted text>
Such an arrangement would be part of the discussion, however it begs the question, "if the men are intimate with each other, what role does the wife play?". Unless you are implying a gender stereo type role that she would cook, clean, and bear children. That would seem to contradict the notion of equality.
Why can't one of the men do the cooking and cleaning? And it's kind of a big assumption that men intimate with each other would not give the wife a role to play. More interesting that you don't find that exact same question being begged when the women are intimate.

This is the problem with pleural marriage. Gender role rigidity seems to follow it around. Upon further reflection, I am more supportive of poly marriage than pleural marriage. I hadn't realized the nuances of the two before.

If a man married 2 women, the women must also mary each other and must be bi.

The same for MMF. The guys must be bi.

MMM and FFF, all 3 must mary each other.

Is there going to be any number limit? 100? 200?

There are alot of unsettled questions in my mind. Maybe we can just move forward with same sex marriage for now . Those of us not in the couple norm imposed by gay and straight communities alike can talk amongst ourselves.
AzAdam

United States

#2255 Feb 7, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be fun to hook him up to a ViagraŽ IV to see which way he really swings
I'd rather see an IQ test
Poly Marriage Equality

Schenectady, NY

#2256 Feb 7, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't one of the men do the cooking and cleaning?
As well they could
And it's kind of a big assumption that men intimate with each other would not give the wife a role to play.
She would be the one to bear any children that might be conceived. Perhaps she could fill the role of 'den mother'. There are various possibilities.
. More interesting that you don't find that exact same question being begged when the women are intimate.
The most common model of plural marriage is one husband several wives.
This is the problem with pleural marriage. Gender role rigidity seems to follow it around.
Is it a matter of "gender broke rigidity", or the fact that certain functions, reproductively speaking, are gender specific. As in the case of the Brown family they have chosen which roles they wish to fill.
Upon further reflection, I am more supportive of poly marriage than pleural marriage. I hadn't realized the nuances of the two before.
If a man married 2 women, the women must also mary each other and must be bi.
Not necessarily. Suppose the two women were sisters, would you advocate sibling marriage?
The same for MMF. The guys must be bi.
MMM and FFF, all 3 must mary each other.
Is there going to be any number limit? 100? 200?
There are alot of unsettled questions in my mind.
Again, not necessarily. Legal same sex marriage has opened up a whole host of possibilities.
Maybe we can just move forward with same sex marriage for now . Those of us not in the couple norm imposed by gay and straight communities alike can talk amongst ourselves.
There's no reason plural marriage families should be denied equality while they wait for when, or if same sex marriage is legal nationwide. There' no reason why the two linked movements cannot move forward together.
AzAdam

United States

#2257 Feb 7, 2013
Poly Marriage Equality wrote:
<quoted text>
As well they could
<quoted text>
She would be the one to bear any children that might be conceived. Perhaps she could fill the role of 'den mother'. There are various possibilities.
<quoted text>
The most common model of plural marriage is one husband several wives.
<quoted text>
Is it a matter of "gender broke rigidity", or the fact that certain functions, reproductively speaking, are gender specific. As in the case of the Brown family they have chosen which roles they wish to fill.
<quoted text>
Not necessarily. Suppose the two women were sisters, would you advocate sibling marriage?
<quoted text>
Again, not necessarily. Legal same sex marriage has opened up a whole host of possibilities.
<quoted text>
There's no reason plural marriage families should be denied equality while they wait for when, or if same sex marriage is legal nationwide. There' no reason why the two linked movements cannot move forward together.
In sorry. I stopped listening at what if they were sisters. You gross.
AzAdam

United States

#2258 Feb 7, 2013
Poly Marriage Equality wrote:
<quoted text>
As well they could
<quoted text>
She would be the one to bear any children that might be conceived. Perhaps she could fill the role of 'den mother'. There are various possibilities.
<quoted text>
The most common model of plural marriage is one husband several wives.
<quoted text>
Is it a matter of "gender broke rigidity", or the fact that certain functions, reproductively speaking, are gender specific. As in the case of the Brown family they have chosen which roles they wish to fill.
<quoted text>
Not necessarily. Suppose the two women were sisters, would you advocate sibling marriage?
<quoted text>
Again, not necessarily. Legal same sex marriage has opened up a whole host of possibilities.
<quoted text>
There's no reason plural marriage families should be denied equality while they wait for when, or if same sex marriage is legal nationwide. There' no reason why the two linked movements cannot move forward together.
Sibling marriage would remain illegal of course. You wouldn't be able to marry sisters because they couldn't marry each other.
Giggs

Bristol, UK

#2259 Feb 7, 2013
They have done this debate in England this very week.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-2134771...

The house of Commons voted for Gay people to have the right to get married.

400-175 Majority were in favour of letting them.
Poly Marriage Equality

Schenectady, NY

#2260 Feb 7, 2013
From Wikipedia

Sororate marriage

Sororate marriage is a type of marriage in which a husband engages in marriage or sexual relations with the sister of his wife, usually after the death of his wife, or once his wife has proven infertile.[1]

From an anthropological standpoint, this type of marriage strengthens the ties between both groups (the wife's family or clan and the husband's) and preserves the contract between the two to provide children and continue the alliance. It is seen among some European-American families, although it is not an imperative tradition.

The Athabaskan-speaking Inuit people (formerly known as Eskimos) of northern Alaska, Canada and Greenland follow or followed this custom. It is also followed by the Chiricahua group of the Western Apache, who are Athabaskan speaking, as is levirate marriage.[citation needed]

Sororate marriage is also practiced by the Sioux (Lakota) tribes, and some Western Mono tribes in California, such as the Wuksachi or Waksachi.

Sororate marriage is also practiced by the Swazi people and for the same reasons as stated.[citation needed] This type of marriage is also made in Bhutan. The former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck (the current king's father) is married to four wives, all of whom are sisters. There is also evidence that sororate marriage existed in ancient China.

Levirate marriage and junior sororate marriage are permitted for the Hindu Bania caste. Levirate marriage was encouraged among ancient Jewish cultures.
Poly Marriage Equality

Schenectady, NY

#2261 Feb 7, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Sibling marriage would remain illegal of course. You wouldn't be able to marry sisters because they couldn't marry each other.
If marriage equality were extended to families such as the Dargers, there would be no reason the sisters would be married to each other, only to their husband.
Giggs

Bristol, UK

#2262 Feb 7, 2013
Something I don't understand though is why people want to get married in the first place?

I see it as pointless.

Why share your time and living space with someone else for the rest of your life?

Dont you realise how stressful that will be and how your life will have to change to suit someone else all the time.

Its basicly setting yourself up for a huge financial con.

When I think of Marriage I see Alan Harper hiding from Judith on Two and a half men.

Thats how it all ends up these days.

There are more interesting things to do with your time than spend it inside watching saturday night TV with your partner.

Having children and Religion for me are the only real reasons for people to get married.

Im happy to let Gays get married because I dont care. Im neither for nor against because I dont see the point in it all.
Giggs

Bristol, UK

#2263 Feb 7, 2013
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>There ya go....no equality in a poly marriage.
I dont have a problem with Polygamy either.

I think they should make it legal.

I dont want to get married let alone have 4 or however many wives.

However if the right idiot with more money than sense or foolish woman wants that then im cool with it. The Equality thing is a non issue. Women should know that before they enter the marriage.

Im 100% all for letting everyone do whatever they want as long as it has no negative effect on my life.

Drugs, Prostitution, Gambaling etc... are all cool in my book also.
Giggs

Bristol, UK

#2264 Feb 7, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Sibling marriage would remain illegal of course. You wouldn't be able to marry sisters because they couldn't marry each other.
Now that does have a negative effect.

That is totally wrong.

Siblings should never have sex.

It is a drain on healthcare and hospitals when they have children with defects.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#2265 Feb 7, 2013
Poly Marriage Equality wrote:
<quoted text>
It would represent a significant change in the legal structure.
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage also represents a change in the definition of marriage.
<quoted text>
Gender equity? Please clarify.
Spousal equity could be arranged in a variety of ways. Designating different spouses for different functions. Sharing marital resources equally, etc.
<quoted text>
Although recommendations from plural marriage families would assist lawmakers, ultimately they would be the ones deciding, and logically the courts.
I don't have many argurments with what you are saying. I don't personally have a stake in it, but you do the legal footwork for your cause and if it ever comes to a referendum, personally I'll support it.

The only arguement I have is that same sex marriage fundamentally changes our definition of marriage. It doesn't. What it does is allow yet another variation in a basic application. Let me give a loose analogy: say you have two dogs, say a german shepherd and a beagle. Though they may vary in appearance, they both share fundamental qualities that constitute what a canine is. You are making an argument akin to saying that when you think of a dog of you think of a german sheherd, that because a beagle does not have the same appearance as a german shepherd therefore it cannot be a dog, and that to include beagles under the catagory of "dog" fundamentally changes what a "dog" is. Same sex marriage is simply a variation among many variations on the theme of marriage and in no way changes the function of what a marriage does. Even among straight couples there are variations on the theme, especially if the theme you are using is the man is head of household and there is a strict division of both power and duties within the home according to gender, and, usually, the presence of children. If the womyn is the breadwinner and the man is the home-maker, is their marriage somehow not a marriage because it doesn't fit into the 'traditional christian" standard? A childless marriage? Society doesn't make the case, and the law certainly doesn't require some "tradional" template for couples to follow. So to say that same-sex couples "change the definition of marriage" or that somehow this particular variation is less valid, less acceptable is simply not a credible argument. Marriage is for society, as much as religion wants to use it to serve their ends. And as serving society should be applied as broadly as reasonably possible to address the needs of the members of that society. There are times when polygamy serve a culture-who knows, maybe that day will come in America. But right now there are law-abiding, tax-paying same-sex couples as members of society to whom the benefits in the forms of tangible assets, legal protection and social acceptance are necessary, and that should have access to the institution of marriage.

Let me apologize in advance for any misspelling, grammer errors-I do my best to catch it before I post but not always sucsessful.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2266 Feb 7, 2013
Poly Marriage Equality wrote:
<quoted text>
At issue here, as stated by same sex marriage advocates, is 'marriage equality'. Therefore plural marriage is part of the discussion.
Everybody already has equal rights when it comes to getting married to more than one person. Therefore, plural marriage isn't part of the marriage equality issue. So, why not start a forum about polygamy if that's the topic you are interested in? But it's not. You don't give a damn about polygamy one way or another. You just don't have an actual argument against gay marriage, so you bring up the polygamy red herring.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2267 Feb 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you, I often provide quotes to back up my opinions.
Same sex marriage is bad because there is no gender equality right in the Constitution,
Yes there is, stupid, 14th Amendment.
Brian_G wrote:
government isn't allowed to bring gender segregation to marriage.
They wouldn't be. But I have to remember, you are an idiot who thinks allowing gay marriage will lead to forced marriages between members of professional sports teams.
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage was gender diverse and integrated before the Constitution was written; interference with marriage is ex post facto law.
And you have no idea what "ex post facto" means.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2268 Feb 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
a man does not equal a woman.
two women or two men therefore do not equal a man and woman.
you should go back to dodging the issue of polygamy and what it says about your claims as to gay marriage...
Men and women should have equal rights.
Everybody has equal rights when it comes to getting married to more than one person. Should people be able to marry more than one person? Well, if you actually gave a damn, you would have started a forum about it by now.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2269 Feb 7, 2013
Giggs wrote:
They have done this debate in England this very week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-2134771...
The house of Commons voted for Gay people to have the right to get married.
400-175 Majority were in favour of letting them.
Good news!

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#2270 Feb 7, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. They do. So how about we get a bunch of people together and start voting on YOUR right to marry the person of your choice? Sound like a plan?? Would you think that to be a fair and equitable use of the public vote if it was YOUR religious freedom that was being voted down??
I've seen a number of her bigoted posts before. The religious reactionaries are the worst.
She operates on the principle of "Freedom for me, but not for thee."
For me, it's a question of civil rights and freedom. Gays don't have the right to keep me from marrying whomever I want. I should assume no right to decide who they can marry either.
And though people resent the analogy, it probably is akin to interracial marriage years ago.
I'm pretty certain that the right to IR marriage would not have survived a referendum in the 1960s (especially in the South).
But why should some people get to tell other people how to live?
My lady is Black. But if a brother or sister wants to marry white person, that's their business.
Mia and I are both straight, but we voted FOR Question 6 last November. It didn't occur to us that we have any more right to tell them how they must live than they have to tell us how we must live.
Deciding the direction of your own life? Is this essential to the very meaning of freedom?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2271 Feb 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
2 equals 2 [] 3 or more does not equal 2
We agree.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Marriage equality requires treating gay couples equally under the laws currently in effect.
A gay married to a lesbian is treated equally under the laws of every state; there is no orientation test for a marriage license. There are no 'couple's' rights in the Constitution, either.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
It does not require changing the laws that determine what marriage is for straight couples, nor is there any retroactive change to their marriages.
Some straight couples might choose same sex marriage; you wouldn't demand an orientation test, would you? People marry for many reasons other than sexual attraction.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Poly arrangements require changing the laws that determine what marriage is for straight couples.
And what marriage is for gay couples, so does getting rid of marriage's gender integration and adding a new standard of gender segregation. Face it, same sex marriage is just as bad as polygamy, if not worse.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
It therefore is not equality, but something very different;
It's not equal, it's different; men and women are different too. Marriage isn't for everybody.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
NE Jade - Queer POS - Nuf Said!!! 3 min TheTrioSpamGroup 7
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 13 min Termiraider 3,708
News Ireland same-sex marriage 29 min American_Infidel 30
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 31 min UncommonSense2015 147
News Australia PM resists gay marriage referendum push 33 min Rosa_Winkel 2
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 35 min Blackburn 33,068
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 41 min YUP YUR A DUH 59,894
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr NoahLovesU 21,533
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 2 hr TheTrioSpamGroup 5,635
News Church reels after Ireland's huge 'Yes' to gay ... 2 hr Reverend Alan 7
News Josh Duggar apology not enough? Fallout from mo... Sat Fa-Foxy 24
More from around the web