Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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

#2415 Feb 14, 2013
Right, Brian. You've got no good arguments about same-sex marriage. So you make up a straw man. Or perhaps you ARE a straw man. Maybe you need to visit the Wizard?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2417 Feb 14, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>your invented scenario was proved wrong before you were told to parrot it. it hasn't happened in the US states that have had it for a while now nor in the countries that have had it for a long while now...
you should research and think before you post things you were told to parrot but you do not understand....
What doesn't he understand? Polgsmy, or plural marriage is gaining greater consideration thanks to legal ssm. Kody and the Sister wives thank their gay brothers, and lesbian sisters for their support.

The question he posed, which I have also posed, is where do we draw the line?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2418 Feb 14, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Right, Brian. You've got no good arguments about same-sex marriage. So you make up a straw man. Or perhaps you ARE a straw man. Maybe you need to visit the Wizard?
He has "no good arguments" which you agree with. There is no good argument for it, for redefining legal marriage, for state sanctioned gender segregated marriage, for excluding one gender....

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2419 Feb 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The question he posed, which I have also posed, is where do we draw the line?
That is the wrong question, though. You are merely introducing a straw man. The question is: What are the pros and cons of the issue before us now, which is same-sex marriage?

Down the line, a different group of people may advocate for plural marriages. They have a right to do so, whether or not same-sex marriages are the accepted law of our land. Let them tell us how they want it to work, and we will evaluate the merits of their argument at that time.

You, too, have shown that you have no good arguments against same-sex marriage. If you did, you would concentrate on them instead of introducing straw men.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2420 Feb 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What doesn't he understand? Polgsmy, or plural marriage is gaining greater consideration thanks to legal ssm. Kody and the Sister wives thank their gay brothers, and lesbian sisters for their support.
The question he posed, which I have also posed, is where do we draw the line?
Currently the line is two people, not closely related, not married to anyone else, with reasonable restrictions on age and ability to demonstrate informed consent.

Treating gay couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not require any change in those restrictions. Gender restrictions serve no legitimate governmental interest.

Poly is a different argument because it changes the numbers involved and all of the divorce, custody, and property laws in effect. Marriage equality is so named because all of the laws that determine "what" marriage is remain the same. Only the gender restriction is removed.

2=2
3 or more does not equal 2

The poly excuse for denial of equal treatment for same sex couples is almost as irrational as the "segregation" claim. Segregation is imposed separation, while marriages is a voluntary joining. It does not impose any restrictions on straight or gay couples.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2421 Feb 14, 2013
sickofit wrote:
Greed and gltuony are mentioned both over 20 times in bible as being bad sins...WHY DOESNT CHURCHES BAN FAT AND RICH PEOPLE FROM CHURCH???
Because fundamentalist redneck preachers are fat and rich

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2422 Feb 14, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because gay people are PEOPLE. Human beings. Politicians should not be scoring points by speaking out against their fellow citizens. You don't need the "freedom" to tarnish and villainize your fellow human beings. Instead, you need to figure out how to live and work WITH them, peaceably and cooperatively.
Politicians SHOULD apologize when they call for the mistreatment and exclusion of an entire class of people. It's not an expression of "freedom" to demand that gay people accept fewer rights than straight people. It's not an admirable quality to divide people into those who deserve dignity, respect and equality, and those who don't.
Those same arguments could be used in support of plural marriage advocates and practitioners.
You certainly don't need the "freedom" to enforce your religion's policies onto people who are not part of your religion, or people who interpret your religion differently than you do. Your religious beliefs are your own, to apply to YOUR life however you decide. You may NOT require that other people apply them to THEIR lives in the same way. Your freedom to be a Christian citizen is not infringed, simply because someone else is not interested in obeying Christian rules.
Agreed. What does that mean?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2423 Feb 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage didn't exist in written law, before the 21st century. Same sex marriage hasn't existed "for a long while", a few more generations and we can say "for a long while". We're still watching, astounded.
.
<quoted text>Note, I don't suspect my political opponents motivations; I know good and bad people exist on both sides of this argument. Please give me resources, who do you think "told" me to "parrot" arguments? Have you read my gender segregation arguments on other forums?
It's been around long enough to prove your invented scenario wrong...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2424 Feb 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What doesn't he understand? Polgsmy, or plural marriage is gaining greater consideration thanks to legal ssm. Kody and the Sister wives thank their gay brothers, and lesbian sisters for their support.
The question he posed, which I have also posed, is where do we draw the line?
hardly...just from people like you making absurd arguments...

how'dya like that picture of me..i'm the uglier of the two...

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2425 Feb 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If same sex marriage supporters win and gender segregation marriage is licensed, next they'll promote polygamy and incest marriage.
When are members of pro sports teams going to be forced to marry each other in states that recognize gay marriage? You claimed that would happen.
Brian_G wrote:
If you're on the left, let me ask you 'Where's the final line?' How far will you go, then no further?
Let me ask you 'When prison rape will become legal in states where gay marriage is recognized'? You claimed that would happen.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2426 Feb 14, 2013
Ooops, When will prison rape become legal?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2427 Feb 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
He has "no good arguments" which you agree with. There is no good argument for it, for redefining legal marriage, for state sanctioned gender segregated marriage, for excluding one gender....
Equal rights. That's the only argument needed.

You got the "gender segregated marriage" line from Brian_G, aren't you embarrassed to use it?
But gay marriage is no more "gender segregated" than a marriage between two members of the same race is "racially segregated".
sickofit

Northfield, MN

#2428 Feb 14, 2013
Greed and glutony are said in the bible to be very bad evils. In fact they both are mentioned over 20 times in bible as being bad. Same sex is mentioned 5 times.

WONDER WHY CHRISTIANS DONT BAN AND ATTACK FAT AND RICH PEOPLE??????????HMMM WHY OH WHY??????????

Oh yea most christians are fat and rich.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2429 Feb 14, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>hardly...just from people like you making absurd arguments...
how'dya like that picture of me..i'm the uglier of the two...
I'm proud of ya Woody!

Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder.:)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2431 Feb 14, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the wrong question, though. You are merely introducing a straw man. The question is: What are the pros and cons of the issue before us now, which is same-sex marriage?
Who is this straw man? Any relation to the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz? Hmmmmm....pros and cons of same sex marriage.

Its inCONceiveable...CONception can't take place.
Its CONtrary to the CONcept of marriage as a CONjugal union of husband and wife.
Its a CONtradiction in terms. Same Sex marriage, veggie burger, male lesbian, Tofurkey...
ITs an effort to CONvince people that marriage is about mothers and fathers and their children.

It PROmotes the idea that marriage isn't centered around PROcreation.
It PROmugates gender segregated marriage

I'm sure there's more, those will work for now. The gist of the matter is how society, legally defines marriage. Yes, its that simple. Which is it? A conjugal union of husband and wife? A two person pairing, regardless of gender composition, of "spouses for life"? An opposite sex union of one man several women, one woman several men, or any combination of opposite sex groupings?
Down the line, a different group of people may advocate for plural marriages. They have a right to do so, whether or not same-sex marriages are the accepted law of our land.
Actually they're doing that now, have you not been following the "Sister Wives" lawsuits? BTW, Kody and his family thank all their gay brothers, and lesbians sisters for all the hard work they put into "marriage equality", because if not for them, their cause would not be possible. Remember plural marriage never went away in this country even after the Supreme Court issued its anti Mormom ruling, and it preexisted the Mormons. The SSM crowd is virtually a new player in the marriage game.
Let them tell us how they want it to work, and we will evaluate the merits of their argument at that time.
"us"? "we"? The rainbow committee?
You, too, have shown that you have no good arguments against same-sex marriage. If you did, you would concentrate on them instead of introducing straw men.
Oh but I have, you simply don't like them. Besides the burden is on you as to why it should be legal. Its been said that marriage developed as a way of dealing with the products of the male female sexual union, children. If it is true, it would explain why SSM is virtually a recent modern Western invention. There's not a problem to solve. Why, pray tell, does American society in the 21st century need men to marry other men, and women to marry other women? What will happen if they don't? Will anyone notice? Is it to eliminate the stigma of "living in sin"? "Make honest men, and women"?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2432 Feb 14, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Currently the line is two people, not closely related, not married to anyone else, with reasonable restrictions on age and ability to demonstrate informed consent.
That is correct. One male and one female, except for those states that have seceeded from the conjugal union.
Treating gay couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not require any change in those restrictions.
That works if the gay couple is of the opposite sex. No different treatment from any other opposite sex married couple.
Gender restrictions serve no legitimate governmental interest.
No gender is restricted, each may equally participate in the marital relationship, in fact each is necessary for said relationship, founded on the male female sexual and physical union.
Poly is a different argument because it changes the numbers involved and all of the divorce, custody, and property laws in effect. Marriage equality is so named because all of the laws that determine "what" marriage is remain the same. Only the gender restriction is removed.
"Poly", while it changes the number, maintains the conjugal nature of the marital relationship. The number is different, not the nature. Husband and wife are still present. The marriage(s) is(are) still consumated, conception is still possible, presumption of paternity is maintained, etc.
2=2
3 or more does not equal 2.
True, but 1 plus 1, under the proper circumstances can add up to 3, or more.
The poly excuse for denial of equal treatment for same sex couples is almost as irrational as the "segregation" claim.
Same sex couples, by the fact they are of the same sex, ARE treated differently, and that is what you seek.

The "poly excuse" is a dual edged sword. SSMers claim it is a "scare tatic" used by opponents to deny SSM. Yet proponents of SSM fail to realize that by arguing for same sex marriage under the guise of "marriage equality", they are in fact also arguing for plural marriage. They just don't want to admit it. So it begs the question, "where is the line drawn"?
Segregation is imposed separation, while marriages is a voluntary joining. It does not impose any restrictions on straight or gay couples.
The adults in the Brown family are all volunteers.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2433 Feb 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct. One male and one female, except for those states that have seceeded from the conjugal union.
<quoted text>
That works if the gay couple is of the opposite sex. No different treatment from any other opposite sex married couple.
<quoted text>
No gender is restricted, each may equally participate in the marital relationship, in fact each is necessary for said relationship, founded on the male female sexual and physical union.
<quoted text>(snip)
A man can marry a woman, but a woman can't.
A woman can marry a man, but a man can't.
That's not equal.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Poly", while it changes the number, maintains the conjugal nature of the marital relationship. The number is different, not the nature. Husband and wife are still present. The marriage(s) is(are) still consumated, conception is still possible, presumption of paternity is maintained, etc.
2=2
<quoted text>
True, but 1 plus 1, under the proper circumstances can add up to 3, or more.
<quoted text>
Same sex couples, by the fact they are of the same sex, ARE treated differently, and that is what you seek.
The "poly excuse" is a dual edged sword. SSMers claim it is a "scare tatic" used by opponents to deny SSM. Yet proponents of SSM fail to realize that by arguing for same sex marriage under the guise of "marriage equality", they are in fact also arguing for plural marriage.
But everybody already has marriage equality when it comes to getting married to more than one person. If men could marry more than one woman, but women couldn't marry more than one man, we'd have an equality issue.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They just don't want to admit it. So it begs the question, "where is the line drawn"?
<quoted text>
The adults in the Brown family are all volunteers.
That's nice. Start a forum to talk about it.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#2434 Feb 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Those same arguments could be used in support of plural marriage advocates and practitioners.
Could they? Then why aren't they? I don't see any such any of these people anywhere, making these arguments. All I ever see are people who oppose gay rights saying that these hypothetical "advocates and practitioners" COULD use these arguments. I never actually hear FROM any advocates or practitioners.

If they want to make these arguments, then I say let them. If they want to present their case, then they can step up and do it. You and I do not need to speculate on that conversation FOR them.

These "advocates and practitioners" HAD their chance to make their case, about 150 years ago, and they failed. Advocates and practitioners of gay rights, however, are doing very well. Freedom-minded Americans obviously see our situation very differently.

A person who enjoys polygamy CAN choose to have just one partner, or they can choose to have many. But a gay person cannot choose to be straight, and should not be barred from marrying the SINGULAR person that they love. Everyone should get at least ONE, I think. Plurality is an entirely different issue.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Agreed. What does that mean?
I thought it was pretty clear. It was in response to someone alarmed at a loss of their freedom of speech, but there is no such freedom which allows religious adherents to expect non-adherents to live according to religious tenets. I have the freedom to ignore anything that any religion asks of people, as long as I follow our civil, secular laws. So do you. So do Christians, in fact.

That's about it. What else COULD it mean? Was there something specific you wanted clarity on?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2435 Feb 15, 2013
http://fpiw.blogspot.com/2011/08/polygamist-l...

For the past 20 years, the same-sex "marriage" advocates have been fairly successful in divorcing homosexuality from polygamy. The sympathies generated for same-sex "marriage" have not been extended to polygamists, despite the fact that there is no rational. legal reason to distinguish them.

That is why the lawsuit filed by polygamist Jonathan Turley, whose family is featured on the reality show Sister Wives, could end up being very significant in the on-going discussion over same-sex "marriage."

Turley's lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Utah's anti-polygamy laws. His arguments rely heavily on the 2003 Supreme Court Case Lawrence v. Texas which was a landmark case striking down anti-sodomy laws. Subsequently, Lawrence v. Texas has been cited heavily in cases finding a legal right to same-sex "marriage". In that case, the Supreme Court said:
The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the [Constitution's] due process clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

Simply substitute the word "homosexual" for the word "polygamous" and nothing about this argument changes. Once you stand on the principle of "government cannot care what people do sexually, as long as it involves adults" you have to be prepared for where that road will lead. If you didn't contemplate the possibilities in advance, that's just poor planning.

This lawsuit and its arguments are not surprising. Even those in the gay community knew that their work for same-sex "marriage" would be used by those in polygamous or even incestuous relationships. The parallels are impossible to ignore. They just hoped it wouldn't be this soon.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2436 Feb 15, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
A man can marry a woman, but a woman can't.
A woman can marry a man, but a man can't.
That's not equal.
Perhaps Rosie you could explain what it means "to marry"? Why a distinction is made?

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
News Nation-Now 46 mins ago 4:12 p.m.U of L earns ga... 6 min david traversa 9
News This gay Senate candidate is running in the lan... 19 min TLO Queen of paducah 19
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr Rosa_Winkel 15,675
News ACLU settles lawsuit over 'Some People Are Gay'... 2 hr Rose_NoHo 15
News Lesbian pastor, United Methodist Church agree t... 2 hr Rose_NoHo 8
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr JODECKO 38,685
News Vt. military college holds gay pride week (Mar '12) 4 hr Brandon Cole 7
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 9 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,945
Dying off like flies 17 hr Rainbow Kid 18
News Navy names ship after gay rights advocate Harve... Mon Frankie Rizzo 162
More from around the web