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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7192 Aug 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>in fact, they are two very similar forms of discrimination and bigotry.
our constitution is a valid argument for ssm.
Not even close.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7193 Aug 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As does a same sex union, it seeks extraordinary protection as well.
<quoted text>
I see that basic anatomy, biology, and/or conjugality, still eludes you.
<quoted text>
Those who argue for SSM, some at least, are unwilling, or unable to admit that both SSM and polygamy represent fundamental alterations in the American concept of marriage as a monogamous conjugal union of husband and wife. SSM seeks to change the nature, but retain monogamy, whereas polygamy seeks the reverse. A significant social change, as SSM represents, does not occur in a vacuum. It can, and will have far reaching, unintended perhaps, consequences. Why is it difficult to comprehend that SSM opens the door to polygamy? Why argue against it?
"It's one hundred percent likely that these polygamist cases will come, but they will no longer turn on whether a relationship is immoral," Goldfeder says. "The court will look at whether these relationships cause third party harm."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/201...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7194 Aug 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>in fact, they are two very similar forms of discrimination and bigotry.
our constitution is a valid argument for ssm.
Well if prohibition of SSM is a for of bigotry, what restrictions on marriage are not? Ban on plural marriage....can't have that, it's bigotry....prohibition against siblings marrying....can't have, it's bigotry. So what's left?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7195 Aug 4, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even close.
in fact, they are almost exactly the same. discrimination of people that are different.

in what ways do you think discriminating against homosexuals is different from discriminating against another race?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7196 Aug 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if prohibition of SSM is a for of bigotry, what restrictions on marriage are not? Ban on plural marriage....can't have that, it's bigotry....prohibition against siblings marrying....can't have, it's bigotry. So what's left?
being a polygamist is not a normal part of the human species like homosexuality is. people aren't naturally predicated to being attracted to many women or men or their siblings. homosexuals are naturally attracted to their same gender.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7197 Aug 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>who cares if it opens the door to polygamy? that is TRULY traditional marriage, so you should be happy when it happens...
As should you, and every other SSM supporter, so why not embrace it? Why not incorporate plural marriage into the "marriage equality" movement, as some have suggested?

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/double...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-23494...

However, now it is not only opponents of polygamy who have raised the possibility of its legalisation, but supporters too.
'I was very glad,' polygamist Anne Wilde told Buzzfeed in the aftermath of the rulings.'The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore.'
She added that many people in polygamous relationships were not in fact seeking the right to marry, but wanted to ensure that they were safe from prosecution.

Joe Darger, a man from Utah who has three wives, said the court 'has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that's certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us'.
Anita Wagner Illig, a leading polygamy activist as head of the group Practical Polyamory, told U.S. News & World Report that gay-rights campaigners had set a welcome precedent.
'We polyamorists are grateful to our brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,' she said.
'I would absolutely want to seek multi-partner marriage - it would eliminate a common challenge polyamorists face when two [people] are legally married and others in their group relationships aren't part of that marriage.'

http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/polya...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#7198 Aug 4, 2013
lides wrote:
Same sex marriage means the law is blind, and treats all under it's umbrella equally. Making arguments like the one you present here, means that you are a hateful, bigoted, and not terribly intelligent person, who is ignorant of the law, intolerant of fellow citizens, and wishes to hold some citizens as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law. Brian, how would you like it is you were deemed to be mentally deficient, and as such it was decided that your right to free speech, right to keep and bear, etc were forfeit? Would that be fair? I doubt you would be happy if someone were attacking your rights.
We aren't all equal, if a man and a women go to a doctor and get themselves an abortion; the law would treat those doctors differently. Men and women aren't the same; law holds a framework that understands and justly deals with sexual differentiation. Our law reflects natural law.

Our civilization works because we encourage women and children to the lifeboats first. Same sex marriage is bad because it's closer to anarchy than civilization.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7199 Aug 4, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's one hundred percent likely that these polygamist cases will come, but they will no longer turn on whether a relationship is immoral," Goldfeder says. "The court will look at whether these relationships cause third party harm."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/201...
It's not in reasonable to see that. I think what we are witnessing, albeit, slowly, is the delegalization of marriage. If the monogamous union of husband and wife is no longer the sole legal definitional standard of marriage, and its considered "bigotry" by some to maintain such a standard, why then does it matter if polygamy is legalized, or even sibling marriage? As long as consenting adults are involved, does it really matter, once monogamous conjugality is expended, or rejected?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7200 Aug 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As should you, and every other SSM supporter, so why not embrace it? Why not incorporate plural marriage into the "marriage equality" movement, as some have suggested?
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/double...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-23494...
However, now it is not only opponents of polygamy who have raised the possibility of its legalisation, but supporters too.
'I was very glad,' polygamist Anne Wilde told Buzzfeed in the aftermath of the rulings.'The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore.'
She added that many people in polygamous relationships were not in fact seeking the right to marry, but wanted to ensure that they were safe from prosecution.
Joe Darger, a man from Utah who has three wives, said the court 'has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that's certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us'.
Anita Wagner Illig, a leading polygamy activist as head of the group Practical Polyamory, told U.S. News & World Report that gay-rights campaigners had set a welcome precedent.
'We polyamorists are grateful to our brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,' she said.
'I would absolutely want to seek multi-partner marriage - it would eliminate a common challenge polyamorists face when two [people] are legally married and others in their group relationships aren't part of that marriage.'
http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/polya...
as i have stated many times, i couldn't care less if polygamists marry, as long as that marriage is equal, legally, to other marriages. this would require many changes in laws that are not needed to include SSM into our current legal definition of marriage.

as yet, no state or country with SSM has seen a serious push for legalization of polygamist marriage.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7201 Aug 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not in reasonable to see that. I think what we are witnessing, albeit, slowly, is the delegalization of marriage. If the monogamous union of husband and wife is no longer the sole legal definitional standard of marriage, and its considered "bigotry" by some to maintain such a standard, why then does it matter if polygamy is legalized, or even sibling marriage? As long as consenting adults are involved, does it really matter, once monogamous conjugality is expended, or rejected?
'delagalizationof marriage'?!?

please explain how a legal, binding contract can be delegalized?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7202 Aug 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not in reasonable to see that. I think what we are witnessing, albeit, slowly, is the delegalization of marriage. If the monogamous union of husband and wife is no longer the sole legal definitional standard of marriage, and its considered "bigotry" by some to maintain such a standard, why then does it matter if polygamy is legalized, or even sibling marriage? As long as consenting adults are involved, does it really matter, once monogamous conjugality is expended, or rejected?
when and where has monogomous conjugality been expended or rejected? SSM supports that.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7203 Aug 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>being a polygamist is not a normal part of the human species like homosexuality is.
[QUOTE]

A few points.

1.) The use of "homosexual" on a somewhat common usage scale, to refer to same sex sexual activity, is relative new. The concept of a "gay" political sexual identity, is even newer, not more than a few decades old.

2.) Polygamy, polygyny specifically, is far more common than you think.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human...

Plural marriage is surprisingly common, and popular, elsewhere. In poorer countries about a sixth of women share their husbands with 55 percent doing so in Benin (1). In developed countries, serial polygamy is common where a man divorces his first wife and marries another.(Serial polyandry is less common). Contemporary fascination with polygamy of the "odious" type spawned a successful soap opera, Big Love.
Polygamy for man and beast

Some level of polygamy is observed in virtually every society even if covertly. Polygamy is accepted throughout a wide swath of the inhabited globe - the green band in the map. Why does this form of marriage persists around the equator while it has been largely abandoned, or rejected, elsewhere? Fortunately, we have much to learn from other species whose breeding systems vary from monogamy in some environments to polygyny (one male several females) in others.

[QUOTE]
. people aren't naturally predicated to being attracted to many women or men or their siblings.
Sure we are.....perhaps more so with men, than women.. As to siblings.....I would hazard a guess...a minute minority.
homosexuals are naturally attracted to their same gender.
Yet as we've seen with women, whose sexuality tends to be more fluid, that is not set in stone. Some women have "come out" after decades of marriage, while other women have, after years of identifying as a lesbian, have married, conjugality speaking, and given birth to children with their husbands.

There's even been cases of men who profess a same sex attraction, who are married, some say happily, to thier wives, and have fathered children, the old fashioned way, with her.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scien...

Extramarital affairs are another means of polygynous mating, and married men are more likely to engage in affairs than married women. When a monogamously married man has two unmarried mistresses or girlfriends, the consequence is essentially the same; he is depriving two other men of their mating opportunities. So any man who’s ever divorced and remarried, any woman who’s ever married a divorced man, any married man who’s ever had long-term affairs, or any woman who’s ever had affairs with married men, are all practicing polygyny at some level, with the same consequences as simultaneous polygyny of Henrickson and Jeff's.

Whether simultaneous or serial, polygyny is common because humans are naturally polygynous. Scientists agree that anthropological and archeological evidence shows conclusively that humans have been mildly polygynous throughout evolutionary history.(But remember the danger of the naturalistic fallacy -- deriving moral implications from scientific facts.“Natural” means neither “good” nor “desirable.” Nor does it mean “inevitable.”) Humans are not as polygynous as gorillas, whose silverback males keep a harem of several females, but not strictly monogamous like gibbons, whose male and female mate for life.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7204 Aug 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>when and where has monogomous conjugality been expended or rejected? SSM supports that.
Quite simply, in order for SSM to be legal, conjugality, husband and wife, as a essential component of legal marriage, and the sole legal standard, must be jettisoned. Monogamy is retained, but not conjugality, as in husband and wife.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7205 Aug 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>'delagalizationof marriage'?!?
please explain how a legal, binding contract can be delegalized?
Really Woody.....think about it. SSM is now legal in a few states, it's possible it might expand nationwide. Some form of legal plural marriage is also possible. So what's next after that? How many more changes will occur before it becomes pointless? How many different versions of marriage will the the state recognize?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7206 Aug 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite simply, in order for SSM to be legal, conjugality, husband and wife, as a essential component of legal marriage, and the sole legal standard, must be jettisoned. Monogamy is retained, but not conjugality, as in husband and wife.
but not conjugality. husband and husband can be conjugal, as can wife and wife.

your theory of conjugality being jettisoned is based on a faulty premise.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7207 Aug 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Really Woody.....think about it. SSM is now legal in a few states, it's possible it might expand nationwide. Some form of legal plural marriage is also possible. So what's next after that? How many more changes will occur before it becomes pointless? How many different versions of marriage will the the state recognize?
again, this hasn't happened in those states and countries with SSM.

again, this would still not be de-legalization, as marriage is a legal, binding contract. it would just be adding more groups into this legal definition.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7208 Aug 4, 2013
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conjugal

note the latin root of the word...

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#7209 Aug 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Quite simply, in order for SSM to be legal, conjugality, husband and wife, as a essential component of legal marriage, and the sole legal standard, must be jettisoned. Monogamy is retained, but not conjugality, as in husband and wife.
Please provide any citation to any state law that has "conjugality as a essential component of legal marriage, and the sole legal standard".

We'll wait.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#7210 Aug 4, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide any citation to any state law that has "conjugality as a essential component of legal marriage, and the sole legal standard".
We'll wait.
==========
Well, denial of conjugal rights is a grounds for divorce.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7211 Aug 4, 2013
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Well, denial of conjugal rights is a grounds for divorce.
yes, at least it was in states that required a reason for divorce. in no way does that mean it is a requirement for marriage.

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 Kim Davis challenger: Man whose marriage licens... 18 min Wisdom 20
News The Latest: Gay man loses bid to challenge Ky. ... 20 min Troy 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 44 min Respect71 61,686
Jade NE 1 hr Boss Hog 13
News Lyft driver in Indianapolis orders gay couple o... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 39
News New Castle students plan silent show of support... (Apr '07) 1 hr Sinner 7
News Gay Kentucky man loses bid to challenge GOP cle... 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 11