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

#7387 Aug 6, 2013
lides wrote:
Oh, I forgot, it's Brian_G, who never provides proof of anything, they merely issue imperial statements as though their word were gospel.
That sounds more like you.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#7388 Aug 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You already possess that fundament right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid nationwide. It is not my "personal requirements", but those of the state. Thirty plus states constitutionally define marriage as a union of husband and wife, a definition that is as old, if not older, as the Republic.
<quoted text>
Yet the Court was unwilling to nationalize SSM. Odd, if that is what five justices thought.
We already posses the fundamental right to marry. That includes the same sex partner of our choice as well as an opposite sex partner, and that marriage is now recognized by the federal government. Some states have tried to prevent us from exercising that right, without demonstrating any compelling governmental reason for doing so. Again tradition is not a valid excuse, and it is all you have.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#7389 Aug 6, 2013
The state has a compelling interest in providing protections to families, both conventional and unconventional. Biology is not the only way families are created and shouldn't be treated as if it were. No one is taking away the right of heterosexual destiny by allowing folk who are not heterosexually destined anyways to follow their homosexual destiny to marry one another. So it serves the compelling interest of the state to protect families, including the biological ones, by denying equal protection to these homosexually composed families how exactly? Just wondering.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7390 Aug 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I disagree,
Which means diddly squat since your a complete idiot.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
mothers and fathers both bring different abilities and resources to socializing children.
So do same gender couples. Abilities and resources aren't derived by gender you moron.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is bad because every child raised by a same sex couple is raised without either a mother or father.
And yet absolutely no peer reviewed research agrees with you that same gender parents are bad for children. Want to know who else disagrees with you?

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
American Psychoanalytic Association
National Association of Social Workers
Child Welfare League of America
North American Council on Adoptable Children
Canadian Psychological Association

Now, let's see. When it comes to the well being of children, should I take the advice of these professionals or the Village Idiot?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#7391 Aug 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
I agree most want to be loved and belong, but the desire to be loved, and belong to, their biological mother and father is a strong instinct. Why wouldn't be? Is it not part of the human experience to know one's biological family, where they came from, cultures, physical characteristics, ethnicity, etc?
Again, you are trying to make it all about biologically and IT'S NOT that simple........I'd truly have to disagree with you simply because a child in an orphanage who doesn't know their biological parents........but is adopted and raised by good loving parents will probably not have that same desire or instinct to search for what they have NEVER known........and again, you keep making every post about biology, conjugal, children when this whole discussion is about marriage.......and marriage TRULY has NOTHING to do with child rearing!!!

The rest of your post is irrelevant to me, so, I will not respond!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#7392 Aug 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Biological families are more stable and less likely to be a burden on the state and its taxpayers.
Provide some credible evidence to back up this claim seeing as we all KNOW that the divorce rate is roughly 50% for 1st marriages with that number increasing for second, third and fourth marriages!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7393 Aug 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Provide some credible evidence to back up this claim seeing as we all KNOW that the divorce rate is roughly 50% for 1st marriages with that number increasing for second, third and fourth marriages!!!
Wondering wrote:
Biological families are more stable and less likely to be a burden on the state and its taxpayers.
I believe the point Wondering was making is that biological families, assuming it means married mother and father and their children, are more stable that other family structures. The comparison would have to be made between the biological nuclear familia structure and other family structures.

The divorce rate stat doesn't apply to unmarried couples w/children who cohabitate.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7394 Aug 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, the question is desired, by whom?
The state and society at large.
I am not celebrating out of wedlock birth, merely noting their existance, and pointing out that the state does not intervene.
Actually the state does intervene by means of providing benefits, ADC, WIC, etc.
You seem to forget that what we are talking about is a civil law, and the guarantee of equal protection. You keep trying to conflate childbirth/child rearing with the issue of marriage, but the reality remains that the state does not take a stance on procreative ability, procreation, or child rearing relative to legal marriage.
“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)

“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978

“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.

“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33
I don't hate married parents raising their children. I also don't hate adopted parents, single parents, relative raising children for loved ones, gay parents, etc.
Very good, ai was getting a bit worried there.
The reality remains, you keep on returning to irrelevant arguments, and attempting to put words in my mouth (and doing a pretty bad job of it, at that).
As it pertains to marriage, the issues I've raised are relevant.
Feel free to get back to attempting to find a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. I don't think you are up to the task.
Why do you keep implying a right to plural marriage? If a same sex couple has the right to marry, to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, it stand to reason, then there is a third person, of the opposite sex, part of the marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7395 Aug 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll return to posting with you when you stop being a jerk......frankly, you're not here to debate......just to repeat yourself over and over again.
NorCal, with all do respect, aren't we all, to a degree, repeating ourselves?
Don't like me being married......that's to damn bad and it's your problem.......we are celebrating our 5th WEDDING anniversary this month:-)
Congratulations! Boil the water, I'll bring the sauce, pasta, and vino.
Oh and if your opposite-sex intimate relationship can be considered a marriage......guess what.....SO IS MINE!!!
Actually it's the "opposite sex intimate relationship" that is the marriage definitional standard. l

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7396 Aug 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
Which means diddly squat since your a complete idiot.
I think you're giving him too much credit.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#7397 Aug 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
...I believe the point Wondering was making...
You do remember that you both are the same person, I hope.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7398 Aug 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The state and society at large.
I hadn't realized that you had become the authorized spokesman for the republic. Do you realize that a majority of people in real life, as opposed to the fantasy land in your head, support marriage equality?
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/n...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_conten...

Darn those facts, they keep on getting in the way of your rhetoric.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Actually the state does intervene by means of providing benefits, ADC, WIC, etc.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted BS>
You can keep trying to make that dog hunt, but the reality remains that one need not be able to procreate in order to marry. That fact sends your rationalization packing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Very good, ai was getting a bit worried there.
Perhaps if you quit trying to put words in other people's mouth, you wouldn't worry yourself so much?
Pietro Armando wrote:
As it pertains to marriage, the issues I've raised are relevant.
I wish you would actually grow up and answer my question about what compelling governmental interest is served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry. Sadly, I don't think you will ever do so. Ultimately, most of the arguments you make are utterly irrelevant.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why do you keep implying a right to plural marriage?
I don't. In fact, I keep explaining the it seeks greater, not equal protection of the law. Why do people who advance this argument a) not realize that it is a completely separate issue, and b) lack the ability to count.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If a same sex couple has the right to marry, to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, it stand to reason, then there is a third person, of the opposite sex, part of the marriage.
I suppose it would stand to reason if one had poor reasoning skills, and couldn't count.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7399 Aug 6, 2013
lides wrote:
I suppose it would stand to reason if one had poor reasoning skills, and couldn't count.
LOL!!!!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7400 Aug 6, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
my 3 kids are having a normal childhood.
Not if they have same sex parents.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7401 Aug 6, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming, for the sake of this argument, that there is merit to your assertion, it is still irrelevant to either the discussion of same-sex partners marrying or raising children.
It is entirely relevant. In order to determine who may marry, we must first establish what marriage is. How is it defined, it's commonly associated characteristics, structure, basic requirements, etc.
How's that you say?(I know. You're purposefully obtuse.whan presented with clear facts and logic.).
First, marriage is NOT child rearing. People rear children without marrying: there are more children born with no second parent in sight than are being raised by same-sex couples. There are more unmarried opposite-sex couples raising children than there will ever be same-sex couples. There are more children abandoned by one of their heterosexual parents than there will ever be same-sex parents. There are more infertile opposite-sex couples than there are same-sex couples. One needn't be married to be a parent, and one needn't be a parent to be married.
All very true.
That is the first definitive breach of logic in your statement.
The second definitive breach of logic is the idea that the children of same-sex couples had an opportunity to grow up in a household with their biological parents.
First we must clarify what "children of same sex couples" means. Obviously only one party to a SSC can be the bio parent. Second, there are children who have been raised for a significant part of their childhood, who, after one parent came out, divided their time between the bio parents, and the bio parents new partners, which would include a ss partner of the outed parent.
Where did these children raised by same-sex parents (or grandparents or aunts or uncles) come from? Evidently, they were born to biological parents who gave them up for one reason or another.
Agreed.
The same-sex household was determined to offer the best home for the child. Or they were born to the same-sex couple through some version of surrogacy. In that case, you would have to argue that the children were better off never having been born than growing up in a same-sex household.
Not necessarily. A few points. A SSC headed home offers a child, adoptive parents, or a bio/adoptive combination, in the event the bio parents can OT or will not care for the child. The surrogacy use, raises an ethical issue. Is it ethical to create children in such a way as to in essence sever the link between then and their biological parents? For example a gay male couple who hire a surrogate, utilize an egg from another woman, and. Is their sperms so as not to know who the bio Dad. Are children treated as products to be bought and sold? Should egg/sperm donation be allowed?(And yes I know most who use such are heterosexuals). Should it be regulated better? Donor children have access to records of donors?
No matter how you analyze it, your assertion is merely an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. And the pig is your irrational prejudice against same-sex couples.
I cannot believe,(smiling, shaking head) you used that analogy. Really Jeff? I give credit where credit is due, and you do offer an intelligent perspective, not that I agree with everything you post, but it is food for thought. Anyway, that phrase could easily be turned around. You can put feathers on a pig to make it look like a duck, but it can't quack or lay an egg. It's still a pig. That pig is your irrational assertion that a same sex union is the same as an opposite sex union., and thus both should be designated "marriage". They're two different animals.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7402 Aug 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Provide some credible evidence to back up this claim seeing as we all KNOW that the divorce rate is roughly 50% for 1st marriages with that number increasing for second, third and fourth marriages!!!
Did you read his post? You clearly didn't understand it.
Did you read my reply? You clearly didn't understand it.

Divorce is just another laughable 'reason' that does nothing to detract from a state's interest in biological families.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7403 Aug 6, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You do remember that you both are the same person, I hope.
You do remember that you and Dorothy are both from Kansas,....the little dog too!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7404 Aug 6, 2013
lides wrote:
In fact, I keep explaining the it seeks greater, not equal protection of the law. Why do people who advance this argument a) not realize that it is a completely separate issue, and b) lack the ability to count.
I suppose it would stand to reason if one had poor reasoning skills, and couldn't count.
It's as separate as gay marriage and racism. Will you ever learn that your 'greater protection' argument is bogus?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7405 Aug 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
It is entirely relevant. In order to determine who may marry, we must first establish what marriage is. How is it defined, it's commonly associated characteristics, structure, basic requirements, etc.
Great. Can you offer a compelling governmental interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to opposites sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional?
Pietro Armando wrote:
First we must clarify what "children of same sex couples" means.
Why, it's irrelevant to the topic to begin with, and why would it matter if a gay couple adopted, used a surrogate, was artificially inseminated, etc.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not necessarily. A few points. A SSC headed home offers a child, adoptive parents, or a bio/adoptive combination, in the event the bio parents can OT or will not care for the child. The surrogacy use, raises an ethical issue.
Psst. You're off topic again.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I cannot believe,(smiling, shaking head) you used that analogy. Really Jeff? I give credit where credit is due, and you do offer an intelligent perspective, not that I agree with everything you post, but it is food for thought.
You have not offered anything approaching food for thought. You have posted a number of irrelevant arguments, none of which is directly applicable to the topic at hand.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#7406 Aug 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read his post? You clearly didn't understand it.
Did you read my reply? You clearly didn't understand it.
Divorce is just another laughable 'reason' that does nothing to detract from a state's interest in biological families.
You haven't changed much since the last time I opted to respond to you and your nonsense......you make claims that your issue is about what is being taught in the school system, even though you have no school aged children anymore........now, you are harping on this biological family connection when in reality it is also irrelevant......divorce happens and so do extended families......that includes Gay and Lesbian couples and their families as well!!!

You may not remember who I am......but I do know who you are and you haven't changed in 5 years!!!

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 Imagine Dragons singer Dan Reynolds' talks abou... 11 min Melvin 2
News Kim Davis challenger: Man whose marriage licens... 14 min Wisdom 144
News Billie Jean King to be grand marshal of NYC pri... 19 min Melvin 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Wondering 63,287
News US top court rules for baker in gay wedding cak... 7 hr EdmondWA 819
News Gay Pride parades used to mean protests. Now th... 8 hr EdmondWA 15
News As We Celebrate Pride, Trump Packs the Courts W... 8 hr Reporting War 23
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 8 hr Reporting War 28,187