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.

Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3461 Mar 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Derision fails as a rational response, and fails to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the laws currently in effect.
It appears you believe removing the gender requirement will result in heterosexual people choosing to marry a person to whom they have no romantic interest. Is this your assertion? Is that why you are laughing? You think we will believe straight couples will stop getting married to each other?
Gay couples are already forming relationships. Recognizing marriage equality may result in more of them getting married, but it won't stop them from forming relationships, nor will it stop straight couples from doing as they have done in the past.
nope. great attempt at stuffing words on me though...

instead...I am laughing.... literally laughing... at your claim that we can deny polygamy since it changes the social structures...

hoo ha!
so funny...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3462 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I get that, and I am saying you are more like polygamist than interracial marriages...
and the point is, which one is banned again?
You know neither arithmetic nor logic. Three is not equal to two, no matter what number system you choose.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3463 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
except for the scientific study showing gay marriage contributed to a decline in all the aims of marriage for society!
Scientific? Try pseudo-scientific. I know lawyers are fond of "experts" who accept payment for testimony that suits their purpose. This works well in a courtroom situation, where jurors are stuck with only the limited information provided by the lawyers and allowed by the judge. The rest of us choose comprehensive, peer-reviewed conclusions that are generally accepted by professionas in practice.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3464 Mar 7, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You know neither arithmetic nor logic. Three is not equal to two, no matter what number system you choose.
right, and a man is not the same as a woman...

now merely apply the same "logic"...

Your tack of condescension is duly noted though...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3465 Mar 7, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientific? Try pseudo-scientific. I know lawyers are fond of "experts" who accept payment for testimony that suits their purpose. This works well in a courtroom situation, where jurors are stuck with only the limited information provided by the lawyers and allowed by the judge. The rest of us choose comprehensive, peer-reviewed conclusions that are generally accepted by professionas in practice.
I know this is what you "believe" you do...
but you simply accept studies with which you agree...and deny those you do not like...
nothing more...

you will take a loaded survey of 103 people as conclusive and ignore all that you will rip on this study for...

that separating marriage from procreation is damaging to society is damn near self evident...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3466 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I know this is what you "believe" you do...
but you simply accept studies with which you agree...and deny those you do not like...
nothing more...
you will take a loaded survey of 103 people as conclusive and ignore all that you will rip on this study for...
that separating marriage from procreation is damaging to society is damn near self evident...
That last statement re-inforces my suspicion of anything you say. As I've often pointed out, when looking for flaws, mathemeticians always head straight for the assertions that are "self evident," "obvious," and "clear."

So provide the peer-reviewed article you are relying upon. Anybody can say anything they want in Parliament. It doesn't make it reliable.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3467 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
right, and a man is not the same as a woman...
now merely apply the same "logic"...
Your tack of condescension is duly noted though...
If you find facts condescending, I'm not surprised. I merely made an observation.

We are talking about how law applies to same-sex couples vs polygamous groups. The existing law has easily been tweaked to apply to same-sex couples in many venues. Supporting polygamous groups would require a major overhauls.

Two doesn't equal three. From a legal point of view, same-sex couples have almost nothing in common with polygamous groups.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#3469 Mar 7, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientific? Try pseudo-scientific. I know lawyers are fond of "experts" who accept payment for testimony that suits their purpose. This works well in a courtroom situation, where jurors are stuck with only the limited information provided by the lawyers and allowed by the judge. The rest of us choose comprehensive, peer-reviewed conclusions that are generally accepted by professionas in practice.
What "study" is he talking about?
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#3470 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I know this is what you "believe" you do...
but you simply accept studies with which you agree...and deny those you do not like...
nothing more...
you will take a loaded survey of 103 people as conclusive and ignore all that you will rip on this study for...
that separating marriage from procreation is damaging to society is damn near self evident...
Except that nobody.... NOBODY is trying to separate marriage from procreation.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3471 Mar 7, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If you find facts condescending, I'm not surprised. I merely made an observation.
We are talking about how law applies to same-sex couples vs polygamous groups. The existing law has easily been tweaked to apply to same-sex couples in many venues. Supporting polygamous groups would require a major overhauls.
Two doesn't equal three. From a legal point of view, same-sex couples have almost nothing in common with polygamous groups.
I think its funny that you use stereotypes and illusory burdens and call them facts yet attack the exact stuff when its applied to gay marriage.

Ignoring the elephant in the room which is that both ssm and polygamy as alternative family structures have the same issues with integration.
You also stay blind to the fact that your bold claim that the guarantee of equality overcomes any institutional burden is completely deflated by polygamy being banned on those exact grounds, and your agenda to overturn the idea that we can ban on such grounds necessarily opens the door for polygamy to follow you as it seems to do in other countries that adopt ssm...

Also:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9908...

This is as much proof as any of your studies that ssm in fact counters the very reasons we have "marriage"...
You have to admit, this is a dicey one to address:
"She continued:“Same sex marriage is both an effect and a cause of the evisceration of marriage - especially the separation between this and parenthood.”"
a symptom (which acknowledges a decline pre-ssm) and a cause...
again, this is as solid as anything else produced on this issue...all the same critiques apply to all studies...ie rational people may disagree...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3472 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that nobody.... NOBODY is trying to separate marriage from procreation.
by allowing folks who can never procreate marry, you say that does not create a divide?

how delusional and irrational are you, dude?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3473 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
by allowing folks who can never procreate marry, you say that does not create a divide?
how delusional and irrational are you, dude?
The exception thus becomes the rule.Married OSCs, or those seeking to marry, who cannot, or choose not, to procreate are the exceptions to the rule of marriage as a means by which society links children to their mother and father in one recognized family unit. SSM, changes the exception to the rule.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3474 Mar 7, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If you find facts condescending, I'm not surprised. I merely made an observation.
We are talking about how law applies to same-sex couples vs polygamous groups. The existing law has easily been tweaked to apply to same-sex couples in many venues.
"Tweaked"? It's been fundamentally altered. The very nature of the marital relationship, the exclusive union of husband and wife, as the foundation of legal marriage, has been reduced to "two persons regardless of gender composition".
Supporting polygamous groups would require a major overhauls.
Not a valid reason to deny marriage equality to plural marriage practioners.
Two doesn't equal three. From a legal point of view, same-sex couples have almost nothing in common with polygamous groups.
Nor with an opposite sex couple.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3475 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
except for the scientific study showing gay marriage contributed to a decline in all the aims of marriage for society!
see how that answers your question?
You don't like it because gays are not the center of the analysis, but that's the point.....
marriage..its not about you!
That was an opinion piece from a right wing think tank, not a scientific study.

In the US, divorce is down and marriage is up where same sex marriage is recognized.

Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3476 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I think its funny that you use stereotypes and illusory burdens and call them facts yet attack the exact stuff when its applied to gay marriage.
Ignoring the elephant in the room which is that both ssm and polygamy as alternative family structures have the same issues with integration.
Really? How's that new law coming that polygamist groups want to be bound by?
You also stay blind to the fact that your bold claim that the guarantee of equality overcomes any institutional burden is completely deflated by polygamy being banned on those exact grounds, and your agenda to overturn the idea that we can ban on such grounds necessarily opens the door for polygamy to follow you as it seems to do in other countries that adopt ssm...
When have I ever said I'm opposed to polygamy? You keep making that assertion, and I keep correcting you.
I have said that any model of polygamy must treat each member of the group equally before I would consider supporting it. That leaves out every form of polygamy that has ever been codified by any society any time.
Also:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9908...
This is as much proof as any of your studies that ssm in fact counters the very reasons we have "marriage"...
You have to admit, this is a dicey one to address:
"She continued:“Same sex marriage is both an effect and a cause of the evisceration of marriage - especially the separation between this and parenthood.”"
a symptom (which acknowledges a decline pre-ssm) and a cause...
again, this is as solid as anything else produced on this issue...all the same critiques apply to all studies...ie rational people may disagree...
That was offered as testimony to Parliament. Who has reviewed that? Which major psychological organizations or child welfare advocates support those findings?
You've spent wayyyyy too much time in the court room. Your arguments are sloppy. You can get away with that when you have a captive jury shut off from other information. You can't wave a 22-page white paper written by an individual under our noses and expect us to be impressed when internationally recognized groups have denounced those findings.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3477 Mar 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
That was an opinion piece from a right wing think tank, not a scientific study.
what was it about?

oh right, a study that "contained a detailed analysis of marriage trends in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Canada and some U.S. states were gay marriage has been legalised."
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment.
what about a study that "contained a detailed analysis of marriage trends in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Canada and some U.S. states were gay marriage has been legalised" which concluded that "“We can be certain that same sex marriage will do no such thing as encourage stable marriage whether for heterosexuals and/or homosexuals. Marriage in Scandinavia, Spain, Netherlands and elsewhere is in deep decline.”
She continued:“Same sex marriage is both an effect and a cause of the evisceration of marriage - especially the separation between this and parenthood.”"?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3478 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The exception thus becomes the rule.Married OSCs, or those seeking to marry, who cannot, or choose not, to procreate are the exceptions to the rule of marriage as a means by which society links children to their mother and father in one recognized family unit. SSM, changes the exception to the rule.
Really? What percentage of marriages actually produce children? Do you really think that failing to produce children is an exception?

Conversely, what percentage of children are conceived outside of marriage? Born outside of marriage?

An "exception" is a small number of aberrant occurrences. Anything that happens over, say, 5% of the time is not an exception. Even 5% is pretty significant.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3480 Mar 7, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? What percentage of marriages actually produce children? Do you really think that failing to produce children is an exception?
Conversely, what percentage of children are conceived outside of marriage? Born outside of marriage?
An "exception" is a small number of aberrant occurrences. Anything that happens over, say, 5% of the time is not an exception. Even 5% is pretty significant.
all smoke and mirrors as if a choice is the same as an impossibility...

you focus on the procreation is required part but you thereby neglect to see the aims of marriage to SOCIETY part of which the article I cited speaks...
i.e., the part ssm would have in negating marriage as providing stability for procreation...which in turn is a detriment to society...

in the end, we will have a decision in a relatively short time...
and I don't think you will like it...or the way the court will treat your "arguments".
I think CU's may be spared as a fallback...
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#3481 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
by allowing folks who can never procreate marry, you say that does not create a divide?
how delusional and irrational are you, dude?
You wrote: "that separating marriage from procreation is damaging to society is damn near self evident..."

I wrote: Except that nobody.... NOBODY is trying to separate marriage from procreation."

You wrote: "by allowing folks who can never procreate marry, you say that does not create a divide?"

Allowing folks who can never procreate to marry is NOT separating marriage from procreation. Procreation enthusiasts are still able to marry and still able to procreate. It doesn't affect them AT ALL.

How irrational are you?

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3482 Mar 7, 2013
DNF wrote:
Like ignoring the U.S. Constitution so you don't feel guilty being a bigot.
There are no gender equality rights or couples rights either. The Constitution gives freedom of association, not the right to rewrite marriage law for everybody.

Note the use of arguments built on insult; when rationality fails that's all they've got left, that and mob action.

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 Greens against gay marriage plebiscite The Gree... 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 5
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 16
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr JODECKO 15,945
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 1 hr JODECKO 65
News Navy names ship after gay rights advocate Harve... 2 hr JODECKO 203
News Why culture war issues like same-sex marriage a... 3 hr Fa-Foxy 1
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? 3 hr Fa-Foxy 474
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 hr Nigel 38,779
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 12 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,966
More from around the web