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.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5804 Jul 16, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
I think you meant to type WEEEEE!
Why yes, yes I did.:)

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5805 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh like the word "gay".... Which also means "happy", and at one time, referred to various hedonistic heterosexual practices/people. A "gay man" was a womanizer. Ironic isn't it.
Uh, no? I have no idea what point you're making here. Like I said, definitions change over time, depending on usage.

The word gay can mean a man or a woman. It can even still mean "happy" if you want to use it that way. We might "Don we now our gay apparel" or The Flintstones could have a "Gay old time". No big deal. No one is trying to LEGISLATE who can use the word, or that one group may define it while another group must abide. Dictionaries aren't law books.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5806 Jul 16, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Always question claims of authority dear. If the facts are wrong, the validity of the opinion based upon it, dubious at best.
Sound advice, grazie.
I don't know of anyone actually opposed to what you call "conjugal marriage",
Others have used the term as well to refer to the union of husband and wife. It's not a new term.
just folk who know that just isn't the conjugation for them.
Understood
If somebody were to require you to marry someone of the same sex in order to qualify for the right of marriage, I would oppose that as strenuously as I do the silly opposite sex only requirement. It would serve you right, but no, too far over the line.
No one is required to marry, but if one chooses to legall marry, s/he must marry in accordance with how marriage is legall defined. The opposite sex rule, is not silly, it's the definitional foundation. One could argue, one wife/husband at a time is silly, or no siblings is silly too. At what point do the rules stop being "silly"?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5807 Jul 16, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Many assumptions. Sounds like your head is in your pants again.
Again with the "head in your pants", you seem fascinated by this phrase.
Legal consummation can be as simple as cohabitation.
Or it can mean legally, what it means, the first act of sexual intercourse by husband and wife. In some states failure to consummate is grounds for an annulment.
People get married and have open relationships as well.
That they do.
Why do you believe people should function only as you see fit? I say live and let live. To each his own. What's wrong with that?
Live and let live, agreed, but if we're going to discuss marriage, it's meaning, function, and purpose, then that's part of the discussion.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5808 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, no? I have no idea what point you're making here. Like I said, definitions change over time, depending on usage.
The word gay can mean a man or a woman. It can even still mean "happy" if you want to use it that way. We might "Don we now our gay apparel" or The Flintstones could have a "Gay old time". No big deal. No one is trying to LEGISLATE who can use the word, or that one group may define it while another group must abide. Dictionaries aren't law books.
Don't forget Dino singing a ".....a gay tarantella..."!:)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5809 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, no? I have no idea what point you're making here. Like I said, definitions change over time, depending on usage.
Yes they do.
The word gay can mean a man or a woman. It can even still mean "happy" if you want to use it that way. We might "Don we now our gay apparel" or The Flintstones could have a "Gay old time". No big deal.
Agreed....no big deal.
No one is trying to LEGISLATE who can use the word, or that one group may define it while another group must abide. Dictionaries aren't law books.
Really? Anybody can used the word marriage, a man and an woman, two men, two women, one man and to women, etc. However there has to be a legal definition if marriage is licensed by the state. U want it to exclude references to gender, and include same sex couples....that leaves the polygamists out....so excluding that group if rom the definition is okay?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5810 Jul 16, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
congratulations on your marriage!
i hope that my partner and i can be legally married sometime soon, too. we're certainly planning the event.
...and the childbearing thing? totally irrelavent (and i know you know this, too...LOL) since no state, no municipality, no law no statute anywhere in these united states require a couple to either procreate or to agree to adopt children. furthermore, there's no law that requires a pregnant woman to marry anyone. children a commonly born out of wedlock. some folks cringe at that thought, but it does not negate the hard reality that children are born out of wedlock and have since the beginnings of time. the marriage status does not matter when it comes to birthing a child.
Hopefully by August is what I hear a vote may take place........and we will continue to fight this fight until every Gay and Lesbian is able to exercise that right!!!

Peace my friend:-)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5811 Jul 16, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
the difficulty for many is the separation of the legalities from everything else.
they expect their definition of marriage to be applicable to everyone that wishes to enter into a marriage contract - and that's just not possible. personal feelings don't enter into secular laws.
i see they continue to attempt to include the idea of polygamy (or some form thereof) into the discussion, when clearly, it's a completely different topic, as the court did not rule on either prop 8 or doma as inclusive of poly-marriage situations. it's their perogative to file a suit in court regarding polygamy and pursue that form of marriage using the proper channels. those proper channels were followed by a handful of same sex couples, and they won their cases, eventually, if the polygamy crowd has arguments that have merit before the court, let them be heard and considered, based upon laws. that's not for us, or them, to decide the legality of polygamy.
I agree. Polygamy is a separate issue.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5812 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with the "head in your pants", you seem fascinated by this phrase.
<quoted text>
Or it can mean legally, what it means, the first act of sexual intercourse by husband and wife. In some states failure to consummate is grounds for an annulment.
<quoted text>
That they do.
<quoted text>
Live and let live, agreed, but if we're going to discuss marriage, it's meaning, function, and purpose, then that's part of the discussion.
No, I'm fascinated that you always bring relationships back to heterosexual sex acts. What's up with that? Marriage is many different things to many different people. As I already stated, according to Black's Law dictionary, cohabitation legally consummates a marriage. No sex is required unless it was agreed upon as a condition prior to entering into the marriage contract.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5813 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
No one is required to marry, but if one chooses to legall marry, s/he must marry in accordance with how marriage is legall defined. The opposite sex rule, is not silly, it's the definitional foundation. One could argue, one wife/husband at a time is silly, or no siblings is silly too. At what point do the rules stop being "silly"?
Again, the same argument used to defend the constitutionality of the prohibition of interracial marriage. Everybody has the equal right to marry, as long as they marry within the restriction, even though the restriction serves no interest of the state.
Day Yum

Justice, IL

#5814 Jul 16, 2013
Per head of CDC:

Homo-sexuals, at 2% of the population, are 61% of AIDS victims.

She had to respond to why their blood is unwanted.

Day-yum.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5815 Jul 16, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Polygamy is a separate issue.
Ohhhhhh....but of course u do. We can't have those pesky poly people trying to hop on board the "marriage equality" train..... Why they might get the impression that their marriages are worthy of "equality", says our hero as he smirks and rolls his eyes....oh sure..."it's a 'seperate' issue"! That's right my friend u keeping repeating the rainbow party line, "Only we can redefine marriage not them.....only we can redefine marriage not them......"

To put the issue in simplest terms for u, H&L, Edmond, Nor Cal, Jeff, and the rest of Team Rainbow, it's how we as a society, at least legally define marriage. The conjugal advocates say "husband and wife" only, Team Rainbow says, "spouses for life" regardless of gender, the poly people say, "We want in too", anyone else?

That's all folks.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5816 Jul 16, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Again, the same argument used to defend the constitutionality of the prohibition of interracial marriage. Everybody has the equal right to marry, as long as they marry within the restriction, even though the restriction serves no interest of the state.
Not the same. Race and gender are seperate characteristics. A mixed race opposite sex couple can still marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. The essential definition of marriage is not altered. The question was not whrther a mixed race coulple could marry, but whether thry should be legally allowed to do so. SSM is a new concept, and not everyone agrees it constitutes "marrisge". Besides interracial marriages happened in mid 19th century NYC, black men married white Irish and Scottish women. So interracial marriage wasn't new. Husband and wife, united for life.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5817 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not the same...
Sweetie, the only one you are convincing here is yourself, because no matter how much you dissemble, your argument is nothing more than a retread of the state of Virginia's.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#5818 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not the same. Race and gender are seperate characteristics. A mixed race opposite sex couple can still marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. The essential definition of marriage is not altered. The question was not whrther a mixed race coulple could marry, but whether thry should be legally allowed to do so. SSM is a new concept, and not everyone agrees it constitutes "marrisge". Besides interracial marriages happened in mid 19th century NYC, black men married white Irish and Scottish women. So interracial marriage wasn't new. Husband and wife, united for life.
Too bad for you. SCOTUS in its DOMA ruling recognized all of the LEGALLY married same-sex couples as EQUAL to all of the legally married opposite-sex couples by the federal government. So SCOTUS believes they constitute 'marriage'. And Scalia himself predicts that the DOMA ruling spells the eventual death to all of the state bans.

And FYI: same-sex marriages have been around from the earliest times and is nothing new. Google it. John Boswell's, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995) is also a good source of information.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5819 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Anybody can used the word marriage, a man and an woman, two men, two women, one man and to women, etc. However there has to be a legal definition if marriage is licensed by the state. U want it to exclude references to gender, and include same sex couples....that leaves the polygamists out....so excluding that group if rom the definition is okay?
The structure of marriage excludes those who don't want to forsake all others.

Marriage in this country is a contract between two people, one of whom choses only one other to be their legal representative, to share all property and possessions equally, to love and honor and defend, and the other person chooses only the first for all the same. It works for two and only two people, and it works the same regardless of their genders. Marriage, as it's currently arranged, CAN'T be applied to multiple parties. If polygamists want in, they have 1,138 problems to solve first.

Also, polygamy doesn't merit the same kind of historical scrutiny that homosexuality does. Polygamists haven't been barred from military service until 2 years ago. No one has tried to ban them from being parents or teachers, or from mailing publications about their community, or from having sex in their own homes. You don't read about polygamy-bashings daily. There have been a lot of questions answered about the poor treatment of homosexuals in this country over the last couple decades, and marriage is a fair part of that conversation. Polygamy just doesn't call for the same inquiry.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5820 Jul 16, 2013
Here is the definition of conjugal:
Adjective
Of or relating to marriage or the relationship between husband and wife: "conjugal loyalty".

Definition by Merriam-Webster:
Definition of CONJUGAL:
of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations

The words that Pete seems to have ignored or overlook are the "OR".....Of OR relating to marriage OR the relationship between husband and wife: "conjugal loyalty"......it doesn't say JUST between a husband and a wife!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5821 Jul 17, 2013
Still wasting effort talking to Pietro? You know his stick by now. Everything is about polygamy (though he'll never explains how laws should be modified to support plural relationships), incest, and pedophilia. Oh, and penises and vaginas, although he uses "conjugal" euphemistically. What ever you point out, he will pretend not to understand. He'll pretend that some selection of the above somehow refutes whatever you said. you: " Studies show that children raised by same-sex couples thrive I. All respects at least as well, on average, as children of opposite-sex parents."
Pietro: " making children requires a penis and a vagina."

His stick is old. There is nothing new you can say to him. And it's been perfectly clear for months that he is only here to repeat his mantra about polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and penises and vaginas.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5822 Jul 17, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, the only one you are convincing here is yourself, because no matter how much you dissemble, your argument is nothing more than a retread of the state of Virginia's.
Schnookums, its ironic that u would use a case in which the court ruled racial segregation within marriage was unacceptable to advocate for gender segregation within marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5823 Jul 17, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Still wasting effort talking to Pietro? You know his stick by now. Everything is about polygamy (though he'll never explains how laws should be modified to support plural relationships), incest, and pedophilia. Oh, and penises and vaginas, although he uses "conjugal" euphemistically. What ever you point out, he will pretend not to understand. He'll pretend that some selection of the above somehow refutes whatever you said. you: " Studies show that children raised by same-sex couples thrive I. All respects at least as well, on average, as children of opposite-sex parents."
Pietro: " making children requires a penis and a vagina."
His stick is old. There is nothing new you can say to him. And it's been perfectly clear for months that he is only here to repeat his mantra about polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and penises and vaginas.
Its "shtick'....not "stick".

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
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 23 min June VanDerMark 9,686
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 27 min Frankie Rizzo 34,184
News Many 'Straight' Men Have Gay Sex (Sep '06) 1 hr big dick 4,396
News North Carolina's rush to bigotry 1 hr Three Days 1,560
News Mental health risks aren't equal among all gay,... 2 hr RalphB 2
News Republican John Boehner calls Ted Cruz 'Lucifer... 2 hr RalphB 7
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 hr Ray 10,667
More from around the web