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

#4106 May 9, 2013
Well, with screeds like the above, I don't think the Republicans need to worry about being overrun with black voters any time soon.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4107 May 10, 2013
If you like integration and diversity, keep marriage male female and reject gender apartheid marriage. We don't want our marriage laws tarnished by segregation.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4108 May 10, 2013
It still sucks to be Brian.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4109 May 10, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they do, if they are straight.
Thanks Wastey.
Tikk

Bismarck, ND

#4111 May 10, 2013
Liberals have already convinced most black Christians to abandon their principles in regards to gay marriage, abortion, drug-use (marijuana), and religious freedom all for the sake of “racial-PRIDE”.

I wonder if Obama and the Demoncrats are worth the price they’ll have to pay one day.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#4112 May 10, 2013
Tikk wrote:
Liberals have already convinced most black Christians to abandon their principles in regards to gay marriage, abortion, drug-use (marijuana), and religious freedom all for the sake of “racial-PRIDE”.
I wonder if Obama and the Demoncrats are worth the price they’ll have to pay one day.
Why couldn't conservatives counter-convince them to KEEP these "principles"?

“sly as a fox”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#4113 May 10, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Why couldn't conservatives counter-convince them to KEEP these "principles"?
because conservatives are hypocrites and everyone with any intelligence knows that

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4114 May 10, 2013
iamcuriousnow wrote:
<quoted text>
because conservatives are hypocrites and everyone with any intelligence knows that
Are you implying, then, that blacks are less likely to be fooled than whites? Let's hope you're right!

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4115 May 11, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
It still sucks to be Brian.
^^^Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies, I prefer reason.

Keeping marriage male/female maintains marriage's diversity and integration standards.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#4116 May 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies, I prefer reason.
Keeping marriage male/female maintains marriage's diversity and integration standards.
Allowing same-sex couples to obtain civil marriages will not prevent male/female couples from doing so.

Your dropping code-words like "diversity" and "integration" doesn't magically make you an admirable and tolerant liberal. Everyone can see through your fraud.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4117 May 11, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing same-sex couples to obtain civil marriages will not prevent male/female couples from doing so.
Your dropping code-words like "diversity" and "integration" doesn't magically make you an admirable and tolerant liberal. Everyone can see through your fraud.
Let's continue that line of reasoning. "Allowing plural marriage practioners to obtain civil marriages will not prevent male/female couples, female/female couples, or male/male couples, from doing so". Why stop at couples?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#4118 May 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's continue that line of reasoning. "Allowing plural marriage practioners to obtain civil marriages will not prevent male/female couples, female/female couples, or male/male couples, from doing so". Why stop at couples?
So then you approve of civil marriage for same-sex couples?

Or is your approval contingent upon approval for polygamous marriages?

Or isn't it true that polygamy is simply your red herring, since you have long ago demonstrated that your arguments against civil marriage for same-sex couples is hopelessly illogical and irrational?

What's true is that you are an anti-gay opponent of civil marriage for same-sex couples.

You will do ANYTHING to try to argue against it, even using completely illogical arguments (red herrings, strawmen, and circular arguments).

And still you lose.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#4122 May 11, 2013
LawandOrder_ wrote:
<quoted text>What makes you think that you are in effect? SO, you are admitting that you are for adult incest marriages and incest marriages, since they have a more relevant position than yours.
Do you think that gays should be allowed to marry their same sex dog pet? The issue of consent is out, unless you get consent to neuter your dog.
Actually, we do not have to argue against anything, you are the one who wishes a causation for change.
SINCE MOST GAYS WILL LIE, THE BELOW IS AN AUDIO FROM AN APA PRESIDENT.
The APA SAYS YOU HAVE NO CAUSE:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-presi...
Former president of APA says organization controlled by ‘gay rights’ movement
You've thrown logic and reason right out the window. You and Pietro should be very happy together.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4123 May 11, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
So then you approve of civil marriage for same-sex couples?
Or is your approval contingent upon approval for polygamous marriages?
I approve of the mongamous standard of husband and wife be maintained as the exclusive legal definition of marriage. I beleive a civil union relationship structure should be allowed for SSCs. Why is there a need to call an apple and orange?
Or isn't it true that polygamy is simply your red herring, since you have long ago demonstrated that your arguments against civil marriage for same-sex couples is hopelessly illogical and irrational?
This the part that I find baffling. SSMers want to break the legal marital standard of one man and one woman as husband and wife, for themselves, but for no one else. I would think you would welcome alternative intimate consenting adult relationships into the fold. Once that standard is discarded, as it has been in several states, why does it matter, that it's changed again? Why does polygamy scare you that much?
What's true is that you are an anti-gay opponent of civil marriage for same-sex couples.
No, I'm a pro conjugal marriage advocate. If a gay opposite sex couple, or a mixed orientation opposite sex couple wish to marry, I fully support that.
You will do ANYTHING to try to argue against it, even using completely illogical arguments (red herrings, strawmen, and circular arguments).
And still you lose.
Jerald

We discussed this issue from various perspectives and angles, I disagree, obviously, but I respect your desire to argue for what you beleive in. All jokes, "homophobe" and "anti-gay" allegations, smart aleck, etc., responses aside. Please answer this question. If marriage, as defined in law, is no longer an exclusive mongamous union of husband and wife, why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#4124 May 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I approve of the mongamous standard of husband and wife be maintained as the exclusive legal definition of marriage. I beleive a civil union relationship structure should be allowed for SSCs. Why is there a need to call an apple and orange?
What rational basis exists to create a "separate but equal" legal construct for establishing kinship between unrelated adults when a perfectly suitable one already exists: civil marriage?

The answer: none.
Pietro Armando wrote:
This the part that I find baffling....
What... that no one buys your red herring?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why does polygamy scare you that much?
It doesn't. Admit it, you're the one who's scared by it. It scares you.

Changing the number of people that one can marry isn't my issue. I'm not arguing for it or against it. I don't care. If pro-polygamy people want to argue for it and make their case, let them.

Apparently, you believe that the two arguments -- marriage limitations based on sex and limitations based on number -- are the same.

But you're wrong. Logically, one is not contingent or dependent on the other. Number and sex are not the same.

That's your problem, not mine.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If marriage, as defined in law, is no longer an exclusive mongamous union of husband and wife, why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?
You clearly believe that some limitations on civil marriage are reasonable. So do I. I just haven't heard one good rational, logical argument in favor of the limitation based solely on the sex of the partners.

Your arguments are illogical, in that they are endlessly circular. Your conclusions are inevitably contained in your premises.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4125 May 12, 2013
Jerald wrote:
Allowing same-sex couples to obtain civil marriages will not prevent male/female couples from doing so. Your dropping code-words like "diversity" and "integration" doesn't magically make you an admirable and tolerant liberal. Everyone can see through your fraud.
I never claimed licensing gender segregation marriage will "prevent male/female couples from doing so." Those are Jerald's words, not mine. I claimed same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender segregation with marriage gender apartheid.

If you don't like the words "segregation" don't advocate same sex marriage; problem solved.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4126 May 12, 2013
[QUOTEmk ar who="Jerald"]<quo ted text>
What rational basis exists to create a "separate but equal" legal construct for establishing kinship between unrelated adults when a perfectly suitable one already exists: civil marriage?
The answer: none.
[/QUOTE]

First, marriage exists to join a man and a woman together as husband and wife, hence the pronouncement by the marriage officiating agent, "I now pronounce you husband and wife".

Second, SSM is a graft on to the preexisting structure marital union husband and wife, but without use of those terms, and the corresponding language referencing their sexual relationship. Language such as "consummation", which in some states, failure to do so, is grounds for a annulment, "marital relations", etc. Even the concept of "presumption of paternity", is contains an implied sexual reference. So yes, SSM is seperate and "unequal" as in not the same.

Lastly, first cousins can marry in several states so your "unrelated adults" claim is false.
What... that no one buys your red herring?
However it is delicious over pasta. Nice dodge.
It doesn't. Admit it, you're the one who's scared by it. It scares you.
You're the one who dodged the question.
Changing the number of people that one can marry isn't my issue. I'm not arguing for it or against it. I don't care. If pro-polygamy people want to argue for it and make their case, let them.
Why not answer the question?
Apparently, you believe that the two arguments -- marriage limitations based on sex and limitations based on number -- are the same.
Apparently you are dodging the question and this a same sex pair is the same as an opposite sex relationship, monogamous or polygamous.
But you're wrong. Logically, one is not contingent or dependent on the other. Number and sex are not the same.
That's your problem, not mine.
Exactly, two of a kind does not trump king AND queen.
You clearly believe that some limitations on civil marriage are reasonable. So do I. I just haven't heard one good rational, logical argument in favor of the limitation based solely on the sex of the partners
Marriage is a union of both sexes, remove one, and you no longer have marriage, something else has been created.
Your arguments are illogical, in that they are endlessly circular. Your conclusions are inevitably contained in your premises.
Dodger

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4127 May 12, 2013
LawandOrder_ wrote:
<quoted text>What makes you think that you are in effect? SO, you are admitting that you are for adult incest marriages and incest marriages, since they have a more relevant position than yours.
Do you think that gays should be allowed to marry their same sex dog pet? The issue of consent is out, unless you get consent to neuter your dog.
Actually, we do not have to argue against anything, you are the one who wishes a causation for change.
SINCE MOST GAYS WILL LIE, THE BELOW IS AN AUDIO FROM AN APA PRESIDENT.
The APA SAYS YOU HAVE NO CAUSE:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-presi...
Former president of APA says organization controlled by ‘gay rights’ movement
You are too funny! Do you also wet your pants when you read articles from the Onion, Free Wood Post, and the Daily Currant?

The respected group to which nearly every practicing psychologist in America belongs is the American Psychiatric Association. The American Psychological Association to which your quote is attributed is a group of homophobic psychiatrists trying to impart legitimacy on their reparative theory practices. They deliberately try to conflate themselves with the APA.

So the article quotes the former head of the APA (American Psychological Association) denouncing the APA (American Psychiatric Association) as if here were condemning the organization that he, himself, once headed.

The APA in question is just a few dozen charlatans trying to give themselves legitimacy when their views have been thoroughly rejected by vast majority of legitimate practitioners.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#4128 May 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage is a union of both sexes, remove one, and you no longer have marriage, something else has been created.
This is precisely why your argument is illogical. Your premise is contained in your conclusion.

Essentially, your claim is that the reason that civil marriage should be restricted on the basis of the sex of the partners is because it is restricted on the basis of the sex of the partners.

Begging the question. Circular argument. Fail Logic 1.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Polygamy...
I don't care about polygamy. It's not my argument. The topic is civil marriage for same-sex couples. Why can't you stay on topic?(I know that answer to that -- you've lost this topic long ago.)

Since you can't provide a rational basis for limiting civil marriage on the basis of sex, you choose to argue about limitations based on number.

Red herring. Fail Logic 2.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#4129 May 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I never claimed licensing gender segregation marriage will "prevent male/female couples from doing so." Those are Jerald's words, not mine. I claimed same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender segregation with marriage gender apartheid.
If you don't like the words "segregation" don't advocate same sex marriage; problem solved.
Word games don't suit you, Brian. When all your arguments have failed, I suppose it's kind of cute to play word games. But now "apartheid"? That's too funny.

Recognizing the right of same-sex couples to obtain civil marriages doesn't make same-sex coupling the "standard" in civil marriage. It removes the limitation based on sex. That's all. Opposite-sex couples can still marry, so they don't have to abide by your fake "standard."

In recognizing civil marriage for same-sex couples, no one is segregated. Individuals now have MORE options, not fewer. No one is denied freedoms or liberty. Those who wish to marry a partner of the same sex may do so. Those who wish to marry a partner of the opposite sex may do so.

Limiting civil marriage on the basis of sex limits freedom and liberty.

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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Brian_G 15,987
News Man charged after lubricant dispenser filled wi... 1 hr Fa-Foxy 1
News Gay Sex Ed: A Guide to Fun and Worry-Free Anal Sex (Nov '15) 2 hr Craig 4
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 72
News Gay Republican Iowa Senate Hopeful: I'm Not the... 4 hr Skippy 4
News After gay couple's home is egged, a community r... 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 22
News Why culture war issues like same-sex marriage a... 5 hr Skippy 10
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 5 hr Skippy 23
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 5 hr June VanDerMark 11,314
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 hr lake bay boy 38,791
More from around the web