Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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

#3584 Mar 8, 2013
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>my side?
i'll be sure and get a blood test if i ever decide to become one sided.
i tend to be a bit more rotund. a point tends to be pointless
don't you have something to drink?
Makes sense

Evansville, IN

#3585 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
psst, I am talking about constitutional law, you are talking about nonsense jerry springer style...
Oh really, which section of the Constitution are you citing or are you looking at the cliffnotes for Atlas Shrugged?
Makes sense

Evansville, IN

#3586 Mar 8, 2013
nature lover wrote:
<quoted text>Why do queers expect straight people to carry the load for them? The gay lifestyle does not allow for reproduction because it goes against nature. If they want children they should leave their perverted lifestyle and marry someone of the opposite sex and have them.
Maybe you should ask your parents or your preacher. Um, many gays are parents. They procreated or adopted. Ironically, closeted gays are more likely to be parents.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3587 Mar 8, 2013
Makes sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really, which section of the Constitution are you citing or are you looking at the cliffnotes for Atlas Shrugged?
ha ha....
have you pouted enough? are we done here?
Makes sense

Evansville, IN

#3588 Mar 8, 2013
nature lover wrote:
<quoted text>Why do queers expect straight people to carry the load for them? The gay lifestyle does not allow for reproduction because it goes against nature. If they want children they should leave their perverted lifestyle and marry someone of the opposite sex and have them.
Why do straight people expect queers to carry the load for them? It's probably just what happens in a democracy.
nature lover

Nicholasville, KY

#3589 Mar 8, 2013
Makes sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should ask your parents or your preacher. Um, many gays are parents. They procreated or adopted. Ironically, closeted gays are more likely to be parents.
How do you know that if they are in the closet?
harpocrates

Middlesboro, KY

#3590 Mar 8, 2013
nature lover wrote:
<quoted text>Why do queers expect straight people to carry the load for them? The gay lifestyle does not allow for reproduction because it goes against nature. If they want children they should leave their perverted lifestyle and marry someone of the opposite sex and have them.
you live in a republic, sheesh

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3591 Mar 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It was created many many moons ago, across time and place, and people with same sex attraction, and/or who engaged in same sex sexual behavior, married, someone of the opposite sex. "Exclusive club"? No, both sexes included.
<quoted text>
Sooooooo......this is new? They've always been allowed in the club, since the advent of marriage.
Exclusive country clubs were created long ago, too. Too bad for them, times have changed.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3592 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
see how you read it but didn't accept that they said it was a SYMPTOM and a cause...
so they did address it...you must have sand in your ears...
So, Doctor, your prescription is to treat the alleged symptom instead of the disease? Even if the symptom itself has not been shown to be harmful?
Makes sense

Evansville, IN

#3593 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
ha ha....
have you pouted enough? are we done here?
You can't cite the Constitution when you claim you are arguing Constitutional Law? Your surrender is accepted.
Makes sense

Evansville, IN

#3594 Mar 8, 2013
nature lover wrote:
<quoted text>How do you know that if they are in the closet?
Ask Rev. Ted Haggard and all the other married gays with children.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3595 Mar 8, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
But it seems to be human nature, at least among the generally less educated people, to paint every member of a group with the actions of the few. And since that *IS* human nature, and you know that it will be done, shouldn't those of you that profess a certain faith that disagree with the hate-based actions of the few speak out against them, lest you be painted with that brush?
I'm not saying it's right that you be saddled with that responsibility, just that you are if you don't want to be considered part of that crowd by default.
How many times does the ENTIRE freaking gay community get tarnished and labeled with public indecency by 4-second video clips on the news of buff go-go boys dancing in g-strings on parade floats in a pride parade?? Isn't that pretty much the same issue??
I can assure you, I am about as far from a buff go-go boy dancing in a g-string as a person can get, but I still suffer from the ignorant assumptions made by idiots that ALL gay people do that. Seriously?? Yeah, they do. And they also figure that we all must be having sex in public every chance we get, too.
And I absolutely do shut people down every time they I hear them saying such ridiculous things. But most of the Christians I know that ARE supportive of equal rights and *don't* seek to force their religion onto everyone else, just sit back and let the hate-mongers talk for them. So they shouldn't be surprised with they all get painted with that same brush of ignorance and hate.
Good points.

Today I posted a story of the Religion forum about the convictions of the group of Amish who attacked "unfaithful members" by cutting their beards or hair.

Do we judge all Amish based on the actions of these few? Do we judge all conservative religious groups based on what these dozen people did?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3596 Mar 8, 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?
Here's some of the problems with your "legal reasoning".

Article VI
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
(What does any law to the contrary notwithstanding mean? It means that whatever decision or ruling is being referred to, it shall stand, regardless of what any other law or legal ruling to the contrary may say)

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The "issue" is not SSM. It is not "States Rights". It is not polygamy. It IS CLOSER to the issue of inter-racial marriages but the issue is can the Federal Government deny equal protection under the law.

Everyone has been through this with you before.
Marriage is 1+1 not 2+4.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3597 Mar 8, 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 House Republicans have decided the U.S. Taxpayers should pay $3 Million to a lawyer who will tell the U.S. Supreme Court SSM should not be allowed because gays and lesbians don't risk "accidental pregnancies".

You are now saying that a man with a vasectomy should also be denied marriage.

Here's the basics for the issue (again). Equal protection under the law by the State and Federal Governments. With DOMA that can't exist. If the government recognizes the marriage of two people it must recognize the marriage of every other couple. COUPLE not group.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3598 Mar 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Amendment 9. No one is asking for marriage laws to be changed except the polygamist crowd.
Equal protection under the law Brian. Not favoritism.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3599 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
so are single people...
its not enough...
you need to be more like couples who provide both a mom AND dad...
<quoted text>
Says you. They have specifically said for heterosexuals and NOT gays ...
what you miss is the CHOICE not to reproduce is as much a right as reproducing is, and that this speaks in no way to your specific INABILITY to have kids by the laws of nature as opposed to a natural defect like infertility...
its a rational distinction that people are free to use in a free society...
so people who don't produce children should not be legally married according to you.

So my Dad and step mom's marriage should be revoked. The marriage of any man or woman who has been surgically sterilized should also be illegal in your system.

Look I'm fine if you want to portray your Mom as nothing more than a breeding bitch at a puppy farm, but please don't insult the rest of our mothers by making the same claim.

Now about denying a child a mother and father. How is that biologically possible? Children of unwed parents still have a Mom and Dad, just like children of gays and lesbians do.

I'll agree that claim strikes an emotional cord. But it defies rational analysis.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3600 Mar 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It was created many many moons ago, across time and place, and people with same sex attraction, and/or who engaged in same sex sexual behavior, married, someone of the opposite sex. "Exclusive club"? No, both sexes included.
<quoted text>
Sooooooo......this is new? They've always been allowed in the club, since the advent of marriage.
If that were true there would have been no reason to change the laws so the law says man+woman= marriage.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3601 Mar 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think you've found the golden "aha" SSM argument? Seriously? That somehow since the founding of the republic....it probably goes back farther than that....procreation had to be required in order to marry? I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that....I could be wrong....sex between men and women makes babies. I'm thinking in the history of human societies that had a major role in the development of marriage.
Abraham and Sarah.

Married all those years with no children. The Abe gets a slave pregnant without being married to her.

Care to explain how this fits your theory? Of course I think you'll probably respond with some convoluted rationalization that since Sarah eventually did become pregnant, your claim is valid. So before you try, let me point out we are discussing childless marriages, which Abraham and Sarah had for many years.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3602 Mar 8, 2013
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
The "basis" marriage does have in history that is not "bizarre" is that it is a union between a man and a woman, between male and female, between a husband and a wife.
"Throughout most of history, marriage has been about consolidating and preserving family fortunes and protecting inheritance rights" that accrue between man and woman and their progeny.
Family throughout history naturally and normally is born of male and female.
Thank you for pointing out that the claim that SSM denies a child a father and mother is silly and biologically impossible.

Now in a society where two consenting adults can marry, and where a government claims to enforce the law equally to all people, how that government deny marriage to two people of the same sex and not be violating it's own rules/

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3603 Mar 8, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Good points.
Today I posted a story of the Religion forum about the convictions of the group of Amish who attacked "unfaithful members" by cutting their beards or hair.
Do we judge all Amish based on the actions of these few? Do we judge all conservative religious groups based on what these dozen people did?
Would hope that *WE* wouldn't make such sweeping judgments, but people that actually think about their opinions before forming them are a far smaller group than the ones that love the excitement of jumping to an immediate conclusion and then sticking to it, no matter what.

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 min Tre H 17,354
News Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 34 min Francisco Salvato... 830
News New Trump office would protect conscience right... 38 min Ray of Hope 4
News Reading series teaches students about inclusion 1 hr NOM s Waffle House 20
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 1 hr NOM s Waffle House 568
News New Trump office would protect conscience right... 1 hr NOM s Waffle House 3
News '5 Lesbians Eating a Quiche' onstage at Pride C... 1 hr NOM s Waffle House 1
News UKIP councillor links drug and anti-social beha... 1 hr NOM s Waffle House 7
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 20 hr GodSmacked 27,290
More from around the web