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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2790 Feb 21, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when your type throws the term "foundation for marriage" around. It must impress the stupid people, but it's meaningless to anyone with a brain.
Oh I see you went to see the Wizard of Oz and got yourself a brain. Good for you. In time you'll be using it just like the rest of us.
Civil marriage is not now nor has it ever been about a sexual union. How many times do you have to be told that before you'll get it?? When does the government official witness the couple having sex together to verify the validity of their marriage???
How silly of me to think that, "consumation of the marriage", "marital relations", "presumption of paternity", "begetting children", etc., has anything to do with sex withing marriage.
That's not even close to the reason it's not allowed. You've been told that, too, but you're clearly either too thick or too stubborn to listen.
Yes it is. Either way it would not apply to same sex siblings. If same sex first cousins can marry, why not same sex siblings?
Marriage laws have been in a constant state of change since they begin. Why don't you know that?
The one constant, at least in terms of American marital jurisprudence is male female, at least unil1 2004. All the other changes, such as elevating the wife's status within the marriage didn't eliminate her from the marriage, at least legally, again prior to 2004 in all fifty states, since then she still is referenced as an integral part of the martial relationship in 32 states.
Nope. Simply calling him what he is. Legally, he's my husband. And I am HIS husband. Why is that hard for you to understand?
[/QUOTE}

Ahhhhh..the hererosexualization of homosexuality. Redundant. "Yes, I have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, only hold the jelly and add more peanut butter".

[QUOTE]
So what? For at least the third time now, they are free to use any and all arguments that they believe will help their case. They would be remiss if they didn't. That still has N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with equal rights for same-sex couples, does it?
Oh yes it does, and you know it. Thanks to legal SSM we now have "couples rights". What is a plural marriage? An interconnecting combination of couples. Kody and Mrs. Brown are one couple. Kody and Mrs. Brown are another couple, Kody and Mrs. Brown are a third couple. Do you see a pattern here? Good, I see your're getting the hang of that brain the Wizard gave you. You should be proud, equal rights for same sex couples has opened the door to equal rights for opposite sex couples within a plural marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2791 Feb 21, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
New-agey crap.
"New agey crap"? The leg lamp from the Christmas Story movie is new agey?
You don't have an argument against gay marriage so you flood the forum with the polygamy red herring.
Leg Lamp, there's no argument for it either.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2792 Feb 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you are following Brian down the path toward imbecility. The Loving decision ALLOWED mixed race couples to marry, but it provided absolutely no requirement that marrying couples be of mixed race.
Why would there need to be a requirement that couples be of mixed race? How would that even work anyway. So if a person is half Asian and half African marries a person who is half Northern European and half Medditeranean, what racial categories would be used?
I think any research you do into the matter will demonstrate that, even today, the vast majority or marriages are between people of the same race.
Same race, same ethnicity, same religion, same economic class, geographic location.....human nature.
Same-sex marriage will provide no prescription that marrying couples be of the same sex, and I am sure a similar majority of couples will always be opposite-sex.
Actually the overwhelming majority will be of the opposite sex. Among same sex couples that marry, the girls outnumber the boys. Apparently gay men, like their straight brothers are just as shy about heading to the altar.
Your desperation to make an argument, no matter how stupid, has been underscored.
Its only stupid because SSM is such a secular sacred cow, that no argument against it will suffice, and is blasphemy.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2793 Feb 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>not really, but there is another thread for that conversation.
What purpose does calling a priest father serve?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2794 Feb 21, 2013
Part 1
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation IS NOT the sole reason why marriage is recognized by the state.
Why does marriage exist in the first place? So people can hook up and get a government bennies package?
Civil marriage provides benefits for the partners, any children they MAY have, and society as a whole.
Yes....yes it does.
Take away the children, or even the possibility of children, and there is STILL LEGAL CIVIL MARRIAGE.
Do that, and it begs the question, "why does it matter who marries who?" Who cares if brother and sister want to marry? Why prevent it? Two men? Two women? A man and a woman? A man and three women? A woman and three men?
Not when my 73-year-old aunt got married last summer. Her second marriage. She had no children in her first.
So what, pray tell, is the meaning of that? Does it somehow indicate that marriage is not about procreation because the elderly are allowed to marry? Let me see if I understand your implication. Because we allow an elderly WOMAN to marry an elderly MAN, it must mean that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, and children. Really....that's the implication?
According to your way of thinking, her marriage is worthless.
I dare you to tell her that.
Not at all. Marriage between the elderly confirms marriage is a union of a husband and wife. Do we not look upon an elderly couple, and project onto them the title of "grandma, and grandpa"? Of course we do.
Because the Supreme Court ruled that civil marriage is a civil right. The state has no legitimate interest in denying it. If that's true for these individuals, who have been stripped of other civil rights, clearly same-sex couples should be recognized in civil marriage.
Yes, marriage, as in, boy AND girl, fiance` AND fiancee`, and bride AND groom, husband AND wife, mother AND father.

http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/ba...
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2795 Feb 21, 2013
Part 2
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
The nonsense that marriage IS ONLY a conjugal union of husband and wife, orientated around the sexual aspect of that union, and what it produces, children.
Why would any intelligent person think that?
Oh gee I don't know...because it is.
Appeal to history. A logical fallacy that assumes simply because something has always been done or recognized in a particular way, it should always continue to be that way.
So history has no use at all then? Or is it only in this case? I see... so I guess those countries/states that have civil unions for same sex couples shouldn't do so because it wasn't done in the past. History can be, and is a guide for the present. Besides its more of an appeal to biology,rather than history, or perhaps both.
Well, I guess you decided against the logic tactic.
As did you.
Did I ever argue this? You've created so many strawman arguments that I think you're trying to write examples for a textbook on logical fallacies.
The logic is very simple, marriage, union of husband and wife, ORIENTATED around their physical sexual union, and what that union produces, children. No strawman...well maybe a straw man, and a straw woman, and their little straw children.
You've failed to support the claim that the SOLE purpose of marriage is "a union centered around the sexual union of a man and a woman, and what that union produces, children."
What else is it? You have to argue against that in order to make an argument for SSM.
You've failed because your argument demonstrates circular reasoning, a logical fallacy where you begin with what you are trying to end up with; your conclusion is actually part of your unsupported premise, and therefore logically fallacious.
We all start out from that point. It all begins with a man and woman having sex, if it wasn't for that, neither you or I would be here. Marriage is societies means of connecting men, women, and the children they produce. That's it. That ain't no circular reasoning, thems the facts of life.
You've failed because you are actually begging the question ("petitio principii", assuming the initial point); in that the question isn't WHETHER same-sex couples HAVEN'T BEEN included in civil marriage in the past. The question at hand is what legitimate reason exists to deny their ability to obtain a marriage NOW.
Obtain one now? A license for what exactly? To become "husband and wife"? Physical impossiblity. You're not seeking to marry, but rather have the state declare your intimate personal relationship with another man, marriage. You want a license to become "husband and husband". That's what your seeking.

Why does it matter if two men/women marry or not? What will happen if they don't? is there a moral stigma attatched to same sex intimacy occuring outside of wedlock? Of "living in sin"?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2796 Feb 21, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
If you believe that, then you clearly don't understand the law or how it works with regards to marriage.
Gender is completely irrelevant with it comes to civil marriage law. There is not requirement involved in civil marriage contracts that would in any way require gender specificity.
Oh so any two persons could marry?
Numbers a HUGE when it comes to civil marriage because the law is charged with treating people equally. Our current system of family law only accommodates one spouse at a time. Adding additional, concurrent spouses exponentially complicates the legal equity issues involved in recognizing and regulating the marriage.
You CAN talk about the two in the same discussion, but it's pointless and confusing if you do. They're very much not the same issues at all.
Ohhhhh....so long as its two people, its okay?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2797 Feb 21, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think I find being told I have a body like an idealized female form is insulting?
What the heck does that have to do with a leg lamp? Are you told that as well..other than me?
Guess you have to be a fundie to understand that kind of "logic"!
I'm a fundie, you'r a fundie, wouldn't you like to be a fundie too?
Again, stupid, the subject is equal protection under the law. EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS MEN AND WOMEN. Not types of medical tests, or urinals.
Exactly, trollette, equal protection for men, and women. We don't protect women by giving them prostate exams, and we don't protect men by giving them pap smears. We recogize different situation call for different solutions. Phonics are phun.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#2798 Feb 21, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
What purpose does calling a priest father serve?
i have no idea. why even call him a priest? are there any Christian priests in the good book?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2799 Feb 21, 2013
Part 1
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you are free to view marriage anyway you choose. The law does not. Procreation is not a requirement.
Nor is sex, nor is love, nor is cohabitation, none of these things are required by law. What do you think the odds are there is a presumption in the law that a husband and wife will have sex, consumate their marriage, and who knows even beget children?

http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/ba...
The iinstitution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.
You fail to show how allow equal treatment for same sex couples will stop procreation among those who so choose. It does not alter their marriages in any legal way. It does not encourage them be to be better parents. Whether they procreate or not remains their choice, protected equally under the law. Denial only harms same sex couples needlessly, while providing no benefit to the government.
If that is so, and I not necessarily disagreeing with you, then there's no reason not to allow, plural marriages, sibling marriages. Neither of those will effect those things you mentioned either.
But allowing same sex couples equal treatment under the current laws does not fundamentally alter marriage.
It does. It removes the conjugality as the basis for marriage. It renders those aspects of marriage that pertain to the male female married sexual union void. It also eliminates a prohibition against sibling, at least same sex sibling, marriages.
There is no fundamental change to the laws that determine what marriage is. The marriages of straight couples is not changed.
Its not 'straight' couples, its either opposite sex, or same sex. An opposite sex couple could be of mixed orientation....tecnically so could a same sex couple.
Polygamy would change their relationships on a fundamental level and require a fundamental overhaul of the laws currently in effect, but equal treatment for same sex couples makes no such change in the laws.
"Equal treatment" for same sex couples requires removal of the conjugal basis for marriage, which affects all opposite sex couples.
It also does not alter society for straight couples, while polygamy results in a very different social order.
Such a social order still preserves the conjugal nature of the marital relationship, and is not that far removed from the current social realities of some male female relationships where the male has fathered several children with several different women, or a woman has given birth to children fathered by several different men. An example of one type of consentual polygamous relationship, involves that social realtiy, and allows all parties involved, the father and the mothers to cohabitate, and mutually support each other, and their children, emotionally, physically, and financially.
Nor does removal of the gender restriction require removal of any other restrictions.
That fails logically. If the restriction against opposite sex siblings marrying is based on the possibility of sexual relations and conception resulting in children born with birth defect, no such restriction is necessary with same sex siblings.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2800 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Part 1
[Take away procreation], and it begs the question, "why does it matter who marries who?"
That's your problem; you assume the wrong question is "begged".

The question is "Why is there civil marriage?"

The answer: Civil marriage creates a close kinship where none existed before. It benefits the partners, any children they may have, and society as a whole.

That's true of ALL marriages, even childless ones. And the sex of the partners matters not at all.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not at all. Marriage between the elderly confirms marriage is a union of a husband and wife.
Yes, marriage, as in, boy AND girl, fiance` AND fiancee`, and bride AND groom, husband AND wife, mother AND father.
Circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/ba...
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman...
Not even a good try. That's not from the US Supreme Court. That's from the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Baker v Nelson is dead. DOMA killed it as a precedent.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2801 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Part 2
Oh gee I don't know...because it is.
That's actually your best attempt at an argument. It just happens to be as circular as all your other attempts.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So history has no use at all then? Or is it only in this case? I see... so I guess those countries/states that have civil unions for same sex couples shouldn't do so because it wasn't done in the past. History can be, and is a guide for the present. Besides its more of an appeal to biology,rather than history, or perhaps both.
Your inability to understand the logical fallacies that you use doesn't excuse them, or you.

They're still fallacies.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The logic is very simple, marriage, union of husband and wife, ORIENTATED around their physical sexual union, and what that union produces, children.


I agree that it's very simple, but it's not logic. You don't get to create your own definitions and expect others to agree.

This logical fallacy is known as argument ad infinitum. You're making the same mistake, and repeating it over and over, as if by sheer repetition it will become true.

You're repeatedly attempting to define a civil institution solely by an attribute that is neither necessary nor sufficient for its legal establishment.

It doesn't work.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What else is it? You have to argue against that in order to make an argument for SSM.
I've stated several times what marriage is. It's not my problem that you don't (or won't) read.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It all begins with a man and woman having sex... That ain't no circular reasoning, thems the facts of life.
That's classical circular reasoning. You begin with what you are trying to end up with.

Civil marriage doesn't start with a man and a woman having sex.

Let me know when they write that into the ceremony.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Obtain one now? A license for what exactly? To become "husband and wife"? Physical impossiblity. You're not seeking to marry, but rather have the state declare your intimate personal relationship with another man, marriage. You want a license to become "husband and husband". That's what your seeking.
We're seeking a civil marriage. You insist on the gendered terms "husband" and "wife", but there is no legitimate reason that the sex of the partners be different. It's just not relevant for all marriages, opposite-sex or same-sex.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why does it matter if two men/women marry or not? What will happen if they don't? is there a moral stigma attatched to same sex intimacy occuring outside of wedlock? Of "living in sin"?
If it's important to the couple, then it matters to the couple. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the desires of couples to marry, and the wide varieties of reasons that they may wish to do so, whether they're opposite-sex or same-sex.

If they wish to marry, what legitimate interest is it of you, or the state, or anyone else to prevent it?

How selfish do you have to be to want to maintain civil marriage as solely a heterosexual privilege?

Civil marriage benefits the couple, any children they may have, and society. The sex of the partners is of no consequence to those realities.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#2802 Feb 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
See....we have found common ground. All men have the same equal right to marry, to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, as do all women have the right to to the same.
This is what you wrote: "...in order to deny equal protection if first must be defined, and second the reason for denial must be explained and legitimate." Are you back-peddling?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2803 Feb 22, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i have no idea. why even call him a priest? are there any Christian priests in the good book?
As with the temple priest who performed the sacrificial rite on the altar, the Catholic priest celebrates the breaking of the bread as Jesus did who referred to himself as the "lamb of God" who was to be sacrificed. That's my 30 second explanation. Might not be fully accurate.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#2804 Feb 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
It does. It removes the conjugality as the basis for marriage. It renders those aspects of marriage that pertain to the male female married sexual union void.
No it doesn't. You and your black&white thinking! It is ruining your life. No one, no State, no legislation, no judge has EVER said anything like that. You made it up in order to feign some nebulous "harm."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2805 Feb 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks to legal SSM we now have "couples rights". What is a plural marriage? An interconnecting combination of couples. Kody and Mrs. Brown are one couple. Kody and Mrs. Brown are another couple, Kody and Mrs. Brown are a third couple. Do you see a pattern here? Good, I see your're getting the hang of that brain the Wizard gave you. You should be proud, equal rights for same sex couples has opened the door to equal rights for opposite sex couples within a plural marriage.
No, it was inter-racial marriage that opened the door to polygamy. Haven't you read this history?

This chart compares the arguments against inter-racial marriage to the arguments against gay marriage equality. You will see, they are essentially the same arguments.

http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-...

Of course polygamy is an entirely different social structure and legal structure as well, while allowing same sex couples equal treatment under the laws currently in effect doesn't change the marriage laws or social structure for straight people, rendering your argument irrational and fear based.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2806 Feb 22, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your problem; you assume the wrong question is "begged".
The question is "Why is there civil marriage?"
The answer: Civil marriage creates a close kinship where none existed before. It benefits the partners, any children they may have, and society as a whole.
Yes kinship between a man and a woman. Civil marrige is acknowledgement of the cross cultural cross time concept of marriage as a union of husband and wife.
http://everything.explained.at/Same-sex_marri...
The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race. Further, it is apparent that no same-sex couple offers the possibility of the birth of children by their union
That's true of ALL marriages, even childless ones. And the sex of the partners matters not at all.
Nor by your reasoning, by the number of partners either. A plural marriage can just as easily create "close kinship where none existed before. It benefits the partners, any children they may have, and society as a whole."
Not even a good try. That's not from the US Supreme Court. That's from the Minnesota Supreme Court.
I never said it was from the USSC. It does clearly state the prupose of marriage, how its viewed by the state, and society AS A WHOLE.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2807 Feb 22, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i have no idea. why even call him a priest? are there any Christian priests in the good book?
None. The word would be used for two reasons that I know of. The first is a sign of respect, the second is to show that the Catholic Priest stands in for the Heavenly Father.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#2808 Feb 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As with the temple priest who performed the sacrificial rite on the altar, the Catholic priest celebrates the breaking of the bread as Jesus did who referred to himself as the "lamb of God" who was to be sacrificed. That's my 30 second explanation. Might not be fully accurate.
yes, it really is off topic and is better discussed on the Catholic/protestant thread. i just don't find where anything like a christian "priest" is found recorded or explained in the good book.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#2809 Feb 22, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
None. The word would be used for two reasons that I know of. The first is a sign of respect, the second is to show that the Catholic Priest stands in for the Heavenly Father.
all believers are a "royal priesthood" in Christ so do we even need a "priest"? i get what the CC is trying to do there and respect their attempt at showing respect. the rest really is a topic for another thread.

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 min tbird19482 37,417
News Columbus veteran, ousted for sexual orientation... 10 min Imprtnrd 23
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 16 min Nopal 966
News Almost one year since gay marriage ruling, LGBT... 19 min Fa-Foxy 49
News Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 27 min Michelle in Wisco... 2,818
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 31 min lides 13,184
News Justicea s gay marriage order halts licenses in... 59 min lides 345
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 1 hr Oh Dear 992
More from around the web