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

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3236 Feb 28, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Yes I did.
Very good. You get a gold star.
Married people with no children.
Can still engage in "marital relations", and who knows that might even result in a "family way".
A bisexual can marry a a man or a woman.
So much for the "marry according to one's orientation rule".
How does polygamy safeguard against siblings marrying?
Hmmmmm.....lost track of that point,I'll have to go back and reread the transcripts. But I don't think I was stating it would, or implying it would.
Half brothers can marry half sisters in many areas as you pointed out with polygamous relationships worldwide. In fact it's even common in non polygamous situations like royal lines.
True, some of the ruling families, or former ruling families of Europe can attest to that.
As I've said to before to you and everyone who lined up before spewing the same nonsense; to me marriage has always been the joining with the one you love. The declaration to your family, friends, congregation, God, Church, and the government that you choose this PERSON to be your lawfully wedded SPOUSE, and parent of your children,(had to fix your misogyny there. It's glaringly loud BTW). I've noticed the only time you speak of the women is when they are behaving like brood cattle.
"Misogyny", sounds like something Bugs Bunny would say. Well if I've giving that impression, let me tell you brother, with a wife and several daughters, who are quite outspoken at times, that is not the case. Anyway, my take is legally, marriage should remain, still be defined as, a union of husband and wife. No "Misogyny" there. Husband and wife, Mother and father, we all have a set of the latter, at the very least biologically speaking.

Non husband AND wife? Different relationship situations, different solutions.
Then why are you advocating a complete restructuring of society and marriage laws that completely changes what you just said you value; ONE MOM ONE DAD?
"....husband, wife, and the kids, and the life they create...." How is that advocating a complete restructuring of society?
It's been pointed out that your polygamy crusade has nothing to do with applying current laws equally to all Citizens.
Sure it does. SSM advocates want the opposite sex gender requirement removed so they can marry. Polygamists want the number restriction removed. That's not applying the law equally. As it stands right now ALL men have the same right to marry ONE woman, as do ALL women have the right to marry ONE man. That applies to everyone, at least in the non SSM states.
In fact it advocates scraping the current idea of marriage being the union of two people into one family unit.
SSM also scraps the idea of a man and a woman being head of that family unit. In today's social reality of nuclear families, step families, blended families, grandparent headed families, single moms, single dads, families headed by SSCs, multiple "baby mommas", "baby daddies", is a consensual plural marriage family really that much of a stretch? I don't understand why those who wish a fundamental change in American marital jurisprudence for themselves are unable, or unwilling to acknowledge another fundamental change for others?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3237 Feb 28, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It's simple.
We apply the SAME basic rules and guidelines to all married couples, whether they are gay or heterosexual, or whatever.
They can ALL marry the one unrelated consenting adult of their choice.
They can love, or not.
They can have sex, or not.
The can have children, or not.
They can choose to stay married for life, or not.
Except for that whole "husband and wife" basic rule. Although, technically, if a gay couple is of the opposite sex, that rule would apply to them as well. First cousins are related, so are they out?
It's usually better when the government stays out of the personal lives and bedrooms of law-abiding Americans.
Agreed, might give some folks a scare.
Do you want Uncle Sam peeking in your bedroom window at night?
Considering the state of technology today, the number of cameras in our society, satelite surveilence, and the digital imprint we all leave, he may already be.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3238 Feb 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if marrige is no longer "Husband and Wife"....
<quoted text>
In that case the husband is ejected, if two men are allowed to marry each other, the wife is ejected. Of course in order for there to be SSM, one has to first redefine marriage from a exclusive legally defined conjugal union of husband and wife, on one of "Party A and Party B". Should polygamy become legal, "Party C, D, and E" could be added.
Wow. It sounds like you believe that opposite sex marriage will be banned completely when marriage equality is recognized. How can THAT be??

And, in order for you "man/woman is ejected" line of crap to fly, wouldn't you also have to throw hissy fits when a man chooses to marry a women because he's "ejecting" all the OTHER women that he's choosing NOT to marry?? Or is it okay to "eject" women providing it's a MAN that's doing the ejecting and not a women?? Why does it matter who's NOT getting married???

Can you really not see how ridiculous your "arguments" are?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3239 Feb 28, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Pete, you're the one that pointed out polygamy is worldwide. I simply pointed out that in such cultures harems are common as well.
They're common in this country as well. We just call them "babys mammas".
The hater is you dear.
I'm a lover not a hater.
Now when are you going to address the points I brought up when divorce comes in a polygamous marriage. Or when one part of the group wishes to marry someone the rest of the "family" refuses to marry?
In a plural marriage, the wives are married to the husband not to each other, as far as I understand the structure. So if one wife wants out, the others can choose to stay, they are not bound by her actions. Also any additional wives must be agreed upon by the existing wives, from a family cohesion standpoint, that makes sense, Besides, bringing another hen into the hen house the residing hens don't like, won't be pretty.
You're tap dancing has been amusing but I saw that act long ago and it's old and tired.
"Old and tired"? Maybe its time for your nap. ;)

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3240 Feb 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>In a plural marriage, the wives are married to the husband not to each other, as far as I understand the structure. So if one wife wants out, the others can choose to stay, they are not bound by her actions. Also any additional wives must be agreed upon by the existing wives, from a family cohesion standpoint, that makes sense, Besides, bringing another hen into the hen house the residing hens don't like, won't be pretty.
You're free associating your own prejudices again. NONE of the polygamous families I know of (or know personally) consider only the women married to only the man/men. NONE OF THEM.

One trio I know started out as a 1 man/1 woman marriage, he's straight, she's bi. She later met a girlfriend and brought her into the relationship. The three of them now have a beautiful son by wife#2 and another on the way with wife#1. They've been together for years now. The two wives consider themselves just as married to each other as they are to their husband and he feels the same way.

Another group I know is two husbands and three wives. Also been together for years. Several of them have bio kids from earlier relationships that are mostly grown and away from home now. I don't know the intimate details of their personal lives, but I do know that gender isn't an issue to them. They all consider themselves married to each other, equally.

And, of course, there's your favorite poly hero Kody and his four wives. Have you EVER heard the wives talk about their relationships to one another?? They might not consider themselves *married* to each other in the lesbian sense of the word, but they very much consider themselves to be all together in one plural marriage. It's very different from the first two groups I described, but so what? They get to define their own marriage, just like everyone else does.

Face it, dear. You have no understanding of what you're talking about. You know nothing about plural marriage and even less about couples marriage. All you know for sure is them damned queers should be barred, banned, and shut out of it.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#3241 Feb 28, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Careful. Pete may try to apply for the job.
Ya.. bet he would think it was great being paid for what he does as a hobby
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#3242 Feb 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
They're common in this country as well. We just call them "babys mammas".
<quoted text>
I'm a lover not a hater.
<quoted text>
In a plural marriage, the wives are married to the husband not to each other, as far as I understand the structure. So if one wife wants out, the others can choose to stay, they are not bound by her actions. Also any additional wives must be agreed upon by the existing wives, from a family cohesion standpoint, that makes sense, Besides, bringing another hen into the hen house the residing hens don't like, won't be pretty.
<quoted text>
"Old and tired"? Maybe its time for your nap. ;)
"They're common in this country as well. We just call them "babys mammas"."
Either A) that is a poor attempt at a joke... or B) you are to stupid to realize that the "baby mammas" are not married ot the fathers.... or C... all of the above

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3243 Feb 28, 2013
eJohn wrote:
You're free associating your own prejudices again. NONE of the polygamous families I know of (or know personally) consider only the women married to only the man/men. NONE OF THEM.
Easy Johnnie.....there are various structures. In plural marriage, as of the type practiced by fundamentalist Mormons, the wives are married to the husband not to each other. How many fundamentalist Mormon plural marriage families do you know?
One trio I know started out as a 1 man/1 woman marriage, he's straight, she's bi. She later met a girlfriend and brought her into the relationship. The three of them now have a beautiful son by wife#2 and another on the way with wife#1. They've been together for years now. The two wives consider themselves just as married to each other as they are to their husband and he feels the same way.
I see, sounds like an interesting set up. So the wives, who are
bisexual, married according to their orientation. Interesting.
Another group I know is two husbands and three wives. Also been together for years. Several of them have bio kids from earlier relationships that are mostly grown and away from home now. I don't know the intimate details of their personal lives, but I do know that gender isn't an issue to them. They all consider themselves married to each other, equally.
Polyamorous.
And, of course, there's your favorite poly hero Kody and his four wives. Have you EVER heard the wives talk about their relationships to one another?? They might not consider themselves *married* to each other in the lesbian sense of the word, but they very much consider themselves to be all together in one plural marriage. It's very different from the first two groups I described, but so what? They get to define their own marriage, just like everyone else does.
Again, plural marriage, as I stated above. Of course they would, why wouldn't they? Helloooooooo...."Sister Wives"....does that not give you a clued? Why aren't they worthy of legal protection?
Face it, dear. You have no understanding of what you're talking about. You know nothing about plural marriage and even less about couples marriage. All you know for sure is them damned queers should be barred, banned, and shut out of it.
No, dear, the "damned queers", are not barred, banned, or shut out of it. Ask Josh Weed. You, stated you knew of one trio where the wives are bisexual, did you not? Should they be allowed to be legally married, or is it the "damned queers" only that are given consideration?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3244 Feb 28, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"They're common in this country as well. We just call them "babys mammas"."
Either A) that is a poor attempt at a joke... or B) you are to stupid to realize that the "baby mammas" are not married ot the fathers.... or C... all of the above
C.O.N.

A.) Yes,

B.) Of course the 'baby mamas' are not married to the father, I think you're the one trying to pull a CON here.

C.) come on now-C.O.N.- or just CON

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3245 Feb 28, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya.. bet he would think it was great being paid for what he does as a hobby
That was cute Connie.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3246 Feb 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy Johnnie.....there are various structures. In plural marriage, as of the type practiced by fundamentalist Mormons, the wives are married to the husband not to each other. How many fundamentalist Mormon plural marriage families do you know?
Got it! NOW we're only talking about FLDS polygamy. Have you noticed how you always move the goalpost every time you paint yourself into a corner?
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, plural marriage, as I stated above. Of course they would, why wouldn't they? Helloooooooo...."Sister Wives"....does that not give you a clued? Why aren't they worthy of legal protection?
Why do you keep hammering this line?? NO ONE here is arguing against polygamy. We're simply trying to get it through your simple head that polygamy and same-sex marriage are NOT THE SAME THING.

But it's painfully obvious that comparing the two is the only way you can stay in the discussion since you have no real arguments against marriage equality for same-sex couples. And you clearly don't want to leave the discussion, so you continue to jerk yourself off over polygamy. Go for it. Have fun!
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>No, dear, the "damned queers", are not barred, banned, or shut out of it. Ask Josh Weed. You, stated you knew of one trio where the wives are bisexual, did you not? Should they be allowed to be legally married, or is it the "damned queers" only that are given consideration?
Again, NO ONE is arguing against legally recognizing polygamy. We're simply pointing out that it's a SEPARATE and VERY DIFFERENT issue. It's been demonstrated to you over and over and over and over and over again. But you just can't seem to understand, can you?

If the polygamists wish to pursue civil marriage equality, they have that right, do they not? And you suggesting that in order for one to support same-sex marriage equality, one must also support polygamous marriage equality, makes about as much sense as declaring if a person likes apple pie, then they must also like blueberry pie or you're obviously lying about liking apple pie.
sickofit

Faribault, MN

#3247 Feb 28, 2013
I cantw ait until the church attacks other sinners. I mean the fat(gluton) and rich(greedy) are massive sinners...Time for christian to attack those sinners also.
Barach

Pekin, IL

#3248 Feb 28, 2013
sickofit wrote:
I cantw ait until the church attacks other sinners. I mean the fat(gluton) and rich(greedy) are massive sinners...Time for christian to attack those sinners also.
Most churches in fact do, but the subject here is the Bible's many commands and condemnations of all homosexual behavior and attacks on Christian beleifs by radical homosexual hate groups.
Jaye

Pekin, IL

#3249 Feb 28, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Got it! NOW we're only talking about FLDS polygamy. Have you noticed how you always move the goalpost every time you paint yourself into a corner?
<quoted text>
Why do you keep hammering this line?? NO ONE here is arguing against polygamy. We're simply trying to get it through your simple head that polygamy and same-sex marriage are NOT THE SAME THING.
But it's painfully obvious that comparing the two is the only way you can stay in the discussion since you have no real arguments against marriage equality for same-sex couples. And you clearly don't want to leave the discussion, so you continue to jerk yourself off over polygamy. Go for it. Have fun!
<quoted text>
Again, NO ONE is arguing against legally recognizing polygamy. We're simply pointing out that it's a SEPARATE and VERY DIFFERENT issue. It's been demonstrated to you over and over and over and over and over again. But you just can't seem to understand, can you?
If the polygamists wish to pursue civil marriage equality, they have that right, do they not? And you suggesting that in order for one to support same-sex marriage equality, one must also support polygamous marriage equality, makes about as much sense as declaring if a person likes apple pie, then they must also like blueberry pie or you're obviously lying about liking apple pie.
It is you that is irrational. The biggest difference between polygamy and homosexual 'marriage' is that polygamy actual has a basis in reality. No significant percent of the homosexual population has 'married' in ANY country that allows it and no homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage.

You can make no rational arguement for homosexual 'marriage.' Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.

It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.

Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?

You just ignore these realities and Spam on!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3250 Feb 28, 2013
Really, Mr. Pekin Troll? Did Jerry Falwell lead the charge against gluttony? He must have been trying to save everyone else by eating everything first!

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#3251 Feb 28, 2013
Jaye wrote:
<quoted text>It is you that is irrational. The biggest difference between polygamy and homosexual 'marriage' is that polygamy actual has a basis in reality. No significant percent of the homosexual population has 'married' in ANY country that allows it and no homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage.
You can make no rational arguement for homosexual 'marriage.' Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
You just ignore these realities and Spam on!
And.....that is what you do----> IGNORE realities and SPAM ON. Every thread.
sickofit

Faribault, MN

#3252 Feb 28, 2013
Barach wrote:
<quoted text>Most churches in fact do, but the subject here is the Bible's many commands and condemnations of all homosexual behavior and attacks on Christian beleifs by radical homosexual hate groups.
Hate groups are you religous freaks realm..

The buybull is your cults handbook...THE REST OF US DONT HAVE TO FOLLOW YOUR CULTS RULES...GOT IT?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#3254 Feb 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good. You get a gold star.
<quoted text>
Can still engage in "marital relations", and who knows that might even result in a "family way".
<quoted text>
So much for the "marry according to one's orientation rule".
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm.....lost track of that point,I'll have to go back and reread the transcripts. But I don't think I was stating it would, or implying it would.
<quoted text>
True, some of the ruling families, or former ruling families of Europe can attest to that.
<quoted text>
"Misogyny", sounds like something Bugs Bunny would say. Well if I've giving that impression, let me tell you brother, with a wife and several daughters, who are quite outspoken at times, that is not the case. Anyway, my take is legally, marriage should remain, still be defined as, a union of husband and wife. No "Misogyny" there. Husband and wife, Mother and father, we all have a set of the latter, at the very least biologically speaking.
Non husband AND wife? Different relationship situations, different solutions.
<quoted text>
"....husband, wife, and the kids, and the life they create...." How is that advocating a complete restructuring of society?
<quoted text>
Sure it does. SSM advocates want the opposite sex gender requirement removed so they can marry. Polygamists want the number restriction removed. That's not applying the law equally. As it stands right now ALL men have the same right to marry ONE woman, as do ALL women have the right to marry ONE man. That applies to everyone, at least in the non SSM states.
<quoted text>
SSM also scraps the idea of a man and a woman being head of that family unit. In today's social reality of nuclear families, step families, blended families, grandparent headed families, single moms, single dads, families headed by SSCs, multiple "baby mommas", "baby daddies", is a consensual plural marriage family really that much of a stretch? I don't understand why those who wish a fundamental change in American marital jurisprudence for themselves are unable, or unwilling to acknowledge another fundamental change for others?
Sigh. You asked who a bisexual would marry. I answered a man or a woman.

Your response?

"So much for the "marry according to one's orientation rule"."

I'm finding it really hard to believe you honestly don't see how stupid and foolish you sound.

Like I said, I've enjoyed the show. Keep practicing your tap dancing and you may play the Apollo yet.

(What a fool)

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#3255 Feb 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
They're common in this country as well. We just call them "babys mammas".
<quoted text>
I'm a lover not a hater.
<quoted text>
In a plural marriage, the wives are married to the husband not to each other, as far as I understand the structure. So if one wife wants out, the others can choose to stay, they are not bound by her actions. Also any additional wives must be agreed upon by the existing wives, from a family cohesion standpoint, that makes sense, Besides, bringing another hen into the hen house the residing hens don't like, won't be pretty.
<quoted text>
"Old and tired"? Maybe its time for your nap. ;)
No. I think it's just time to change the channel. Your re-runs are boring. And pointless.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3256 Feb 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"BFD"? Hmmmmmmm....oh Best Friend, dude! Oh Rose, I didn't know you cared.
<quoted text>
Why are you against equal rights for men and women. Why are you against women having the exclusive right to marry a man, and a man the exclusive right to marry a woman?
Not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?
If a right is exclusive to one group, the other group doesn't have that same right. You do know what "exclusive" means, don't you?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Genitalia? Ambigous? Would a doctor's opinion help?
<quoted text>
No.
And it's a shame the point went over your head.
Pietro Armando wrote:
True, Rose. Nor do you have to be married in order to procreate. So what does that mean? That procreation and marriage aren't linked? Aren't intertwined? Hmmmmmmmm.....?
Whatever.
You don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry. So, any argument against gay marriage based on the fact that gay couples can't reproduce is invalid.

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
Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Se... 19 min NorCal Native 45
Gay marriage: Alaska, Arizona couples win fight 1 hr Fa-Foxy 28
Gay Couple Sues Vt. Town for 10 Years of Allege... (Mar '14) 1 hr blasterboy1984 27
Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage (May '13) 1 hr cpeter1313 1,608
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr cpeter1313 1,368
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 1 hr Pro Ukraine 1,945
Miss. ban on same-sex marriage challenged in... 2 hr Jumper The wise 6
Gay kiss couple 'thrown off bus' 2 hr Christsharian Law 23
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 2,995
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 5 hr KiMare 580

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE