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.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6725 Jul 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex couples are barren; those are the facts of life.
Can barren opposite sex couples marry?

Your assertion is fallacious. Being barren does not have any relevance to the legal protections of marriage. Only a fool would state otherwise.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#6726 Jul 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You misunderstand, I've never claimed fertility is a condition for marriage. Just that marriage gives benefits to our society, like mothers and fathers raising their own children.
So same sex couples cant raise good healthy children?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6727 Jul 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
"If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?"
...
"It says they should not be marginalised because of this but that they must be integrated into society."
But he condemned what he described as lobbying by gay people.
"The problem is not having this orientation," he said. "We must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem."
Pope Francis
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-234897...
Lobbying for equal protection of the law, which all people are constitutionally guaranteed, is not wrong.

It is sick that you are citing the pope, you are one of the most hateful and bigoted people I have ever encountered.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6728 Jul 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
You misunderstand, I've never claimed fertility is a condition for marriage. Just that marriage gives benefits to our society, like mothers and fathers raising their own children.
Just when I think you couldn't say anything any dumber, you come out with a gem like this.

Earth to Brian, fertility has no bearing whatsoever on civil marriage. Infertile couples, or even those with no intention of procreating, are regularly allowed to marry. What is more, legal marriage is a series of legal rights and protections for the individuals who enter into the marriage, there is no requirement that the marriage serve society. A married couples has no obligation to have or raise children.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6729 Jul 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you know what, it is different. more that 50% of those marriages that are about "love and commitment" end in divorce.
Yes they do, and Christians, primarily Baptists make up the largest portions of those divorces.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
ours are about loving God and doing the will of God and serving him with our lives. that does seem to last a lot longer than your "love and commitment".
Ours? You'll need to clarify which group you think you are talking for. Straight people or fundamentalists? In either case, 50% of your marriages will end in divorce. Being straight and/or being a fundamentalist whack job doesn't make you special. Some marriages last, some don't. But those that "serve god with their lives" aren't guaranteed any leg up in the success of their marriages. Fundamentalist Christians account for the largest number of divorces. You know, since the majority of them are hypocrites.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.ht...

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6730 Jul 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>weren't you complaining about Christian organizations being tax exempt?
No, I wasn't. But don't let that get in the way of you pretending I was.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
well it was denied that lgbt organizations were tax exempt but apparently that is not the case.
No, the stupid statement that was made was that LGBT people have tax exempt status. But as always, your comprehensive skills didn't kick in and you decided to insert yourself into that discussion and present an LGBT organization. People and organizations aren't the same thing. But don't let that get in the way of you continuing to beat your dead horse.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
besides you knew exactly what was being said.
Yes, I did. Too bad you didn't.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6731 Jul 29, 2013
lides wrote:
Can barren opposite sex couples marry? Your assertion is fallacious. Being barren does not have any relevance to the legal protections of marriage. Only a fool would state otherwise.
I've never claimed procreation is a prerequisite for marriage, that's lides' line, not mine. I've just observed, mothers and fathers raising their own children together is a benefit from marriage, not a requirement of marriage.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6732 Jul 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you don't know many florists either. just about all would consider themselves to be artists.
I see. I'm a gay man and I don't know many florists!! Not nearly apparently as many as you know. You have a big florist, oops, excuse me, a big artist social circle do you barry?

Artists don't have special statuses to break the law. So it's completely irrelevant.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6733 Jul 29, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes gay people are banned from marriage in many states and until few years ago banned from open service in military. Now point is the act of gay sex Christians say is a sin...But so is being a gluton and being greedy which both are mentioned in bible more. So why no bans on rich and fat slobs from Christians?
Gay people are not banned from marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. Gay people, can, and have, married, entered into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6734 Jul 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've never claimed procreation is a prerequisite for marriage, that's lides' line, not mine. I've just observed, mothers and fathers raising their own children together is a benefit from marriage, not a requirement of marriage.
Yet you want to make it a reason not to allow gays to marry. Either it's a requirement or it's not. You can't make up different requirements for different groups of people. That's called discrimination.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6735 Jul 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I've never claimed procreation is a prerequisite for marriage, that's lides' line, not mine. I've just observed, mothers and fathers raising their own children together is a benefit from marriage, not a requirement of marriage.
"Same sex couples are barren; those are the facts of life."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TP39MT577...

So, you merely said this as an utterly irrelevant point of information?

Brian, you can't have it both ways. You regularly assert that same sex couples cannot procreate, and point to the supposed benefits of a child being raised by opposite sex parents, but the reality remains that you cannot prove that opposite sex parents produce better outcomes.

I love it when you argue that procreation is relevant to the debate, as you tacitly did in post #6712, only to turn on heel and claim you didn't make that argument. You look like the dullard you are when you do so.

Do you have a big boy argument?

Can you indicate a compelling state interest served by denying individuals of the same sex the right to marry one another that would render such a restriction constitutional?
Huh

Faribault, MN

#6736 Jul 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people are not banned from marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. Gay people, can, and have, married, entered into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
So they can only marry who the state says....SO MUCH FOR FREEDOM...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6737 Jul 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>funny how you conveniently skipped the first two definitions of marriage from your source.
They weren't relevant to the semantical rant you were harping on about as to how marriage is an event.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
"1. The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband
and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. A similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage"
Um, these aren't from my source. Here's the full definition from my source.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marria...

mar┬Ěriage
[mar-ij] Show IPA

noun
1.a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond: Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every society, past and present.

2. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender, as in gay marriage; same-sex marriage .

3. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: They have a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness.

4. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.

5. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
apparently there is "Gay Marriage" which is different then marriage between a man an a women.
Well then, you won't mind finding some legal documentation that addresses this different institution. Or better yet, present us with an application for a "gay marriage".

Let us know when you can do that. Until then, you've got nothing. You never have.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
a "similar [but different] institution"
"but different" was not included in your definition. If your cause is so just, why do you have to be so intentionally deceptive?

Just fyi, "different" is the antonym of similar, not a synonym. But don't let facts get in the way of your fundie inspired bullshyt.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
how convenient of you.
How convenient of me? LOL!!
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so marriage is an institution and perhaps an event but a wedding is an event.
Damn, you've been spinning your semantics for so long, you don't even know what you are saying anymore.

Marriage IS an institution. It is also an event. I've proven that already, there is not "perhaps" about it.

And yes, a wedding is an event. It's an event that when straight people enter into it, your florist will work for them. But when gay people enter into that event, she won't work for them. Because she likes to illegally discriminate.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6738 Jul 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You were asked a specific question, and you reply with this circuitous BS that fails to remotely address the question. I never stated, or even implied, that there was a right to equal protection for couples. I said that there is no reason to deny two people of the same sex equal protection of the law to marry.
As INDIVIDUALS they can marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid nationwide. That is how the equal protection is applied. Not by forming a relationship, and arguing for protection based on that. It has to a relationship recognized by the state.
I then asked you if you could offer a compelling state interest served by denying same sex individuals equal protection of the law to marry one another.
They cannot marry each other. Marriage is defined, in 30 plus states as a male female union.
You look like a fool when you don't address this simple question directly. What state interest is served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between opposite sex couples?
What compelling state interest is served by designating a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship as "marriage"?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6739 Jul 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, she never knowingly took part in a ss wedding in the past. never had any part of one. no discrimination there.
she had serviced weddings in the past. She refused to service this wedding because the participants were a same sex couple. That most certainly is discrimination.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so yes she discriminated against this couple
Yes, we know.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
but the discrimination was unbiased based only on the event as she had been doing business with them in the past.
The event was the exact same event she had serviced in the past. She refused to service this one because of the participants.

Oh, and just fyi, only a FOOL would try and establish an argument on the concept that discrimination can be unbiased.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
they were not a problem. the event however changed everything.
The event was still the same event she had serviced in the past. Only the participants were different. The participants were the source of the discrimination, not the event. The event was a wedding. The event was a marriage. Your bigot florist had serviced weddings and marriages in the past.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6740 Jul 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Gay people are not banned from marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. Gay people, can, and have, married, entered into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Pietro, can you indicate any state interest served by denying two individuals of the same sex equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional?

It is a simple and straightforward question that has been put before your numerous times. One wonders why you cannot offer a similarly simple and straightforward answer?
Huh

Faribault, MN

#6741 Jul 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As INDIVIDUALS they can marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid nationwide. That is how the equal protection is applied. Not by forming a relationship, and arguing for protection based on that. It has to a relationship recognized by the state.
<quoted text>
They cannot marry each other. Marriage is defined, in 30 plus states as a male female union.
<quoted text>
What compelling state interest is served by designating a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship as "marriage"?
What state interest is hurt by allowing same sex marriage?

This should be good...LOL

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6742 Jul 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
As INDIVIDUALS they can marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid nationwide. That is how the equal protection is applied. Not by forming a relationship, and arguing for protection based on that. It has to a relationship recognized by the state.
Can you indicate a compelling state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between a husband and wife, which would render such a restriction constitutional, yes or no?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6743 Jul 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex couples are barren; those are the facts of life.
See, this is what is wrong with your line of thinking......Same-Sex Couples may not be able to naturally procreate between them, that is not the same as being barren though........and did you know that opposite-sex couples have that same issue......can not naturally procreate between themselves because of infertility or being sterile......yet, you're not advocating that they not be allowed to marry.......this makes your whole argument flawed and hypocritical!!!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6744 Jul 29, 2013
I decided to split up my response, because you clearly aren't able to respond to multiple points in a single post.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They cannot marry each other. Marriage is defined, in 30 plus states as a male female union.
Can you offer a compelling state interest served by such a limitation that would render it constitutional?
Pietro Armando wrote:
What compelling state interest is served by designating a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship as "marriage"?
This has been explained to you before. A compelling state interest is necessary to deny, not to grant, a legal right.

It is part of the form of judicial review of Strict Scrutiny.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...

Before you attempt to employ legal concepts, it's a good idea to make sure you understand them.

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) 4 min positronium 14,206
News This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for being born gay 8 min Rose_NoHo 41
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 36 min lado 57,976
News Gay teacher fired by South Coast Baptist Colleg... 2 hr Wondering 6
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 2 hr Sammi 206
News Roy Moore accuser says she was not paid to tell... 3 hr Trump is a joke 28
News Congressman Under Fire For 'Outlaw Divorce' Rem... (Jul '06) 3 hr Rubic Pubes 119
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 112
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 26,529
More from around the web