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.

Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#9637 Sep 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice moniker....think up that one all by yourself? Anyway, it didn't answer my question. The more things change, the more they stay the same. What evidence is there to indicate SSM is here to stay? It never really took root in the past.
Nothing stays the same. What makes you think marriage is here to stay. Many people don't participate in it any more.

What makes you think computers are here to stay? They never really took root in the past.

The past

the past

the past

Afraid of change and stuck in the past. You do realize that an appeal to the past is a logical fallacy, don't you?

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1.X is old or traditional
2.Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

This sort of "reasoning" is appealing for a variety of reasons. First, people often prefer to stick with what is older or traditional. This is a fairly common psychological characteristic of people which may stem from the fact that people feel more comfortable about what has been around longer. Second, sticking with things that are older or traditional is often easier than testing new things. Hence, people often prefer older and traditional things out of laziness. Hence, Appeal to Tradition is a somewhat common fallacy.

One final issue that must be considered is the "test of time." In some cases people might be assuming that because something has lasted as a tradition or has been around a long time that it is true because it has "passed the test of time." If a person assumes that something must be correct or true simply because it has persisted a long time, then he has committed an Appeal to Tradition. After all, as history has shown people can persist in accepting false claims for centuries.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9638 Sep 9, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
It was also used among gay people as a secret code at a time when being gay could get you arrested, tortured, imprisoned, and ostracized by society. Secret codes take a long time to become part of the popular culture. Words have many meanings across time and place. Gay is one of those words with many meanings across time, place, and culture.
Uhhhhh.....huh.....please cite a link as I already did. Considering it sexual references didn't appear until the late 19th century, early 20th century, it appears your statement lacks an historical basis
That does not alter the fact gay people have always existed across time and place. In some times and places they have been accepted and even celebrated, while scorned, punished, and murdered in others, as continues today.
People how have engaged in same sex sexual behavior have existed thorough time and place, adopting a gay/homosexual, at least in the west appears to be relatively new.
. This has included marriage, as well.
Scattered historical examples do exist of recognized same sex relationship.
While our words and conceptualizations may vary, every mainstream medical and mental health organization in the country understand being gay is a natural expressions of human love and bonding for a minority of the population.
Why does it require a "gay" or "homosexual" identity, which again, appears to be a modern invention.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9639 Sep 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you think prison rape is bad, wait for forced prison same sex marriage:
Calif.
How are prison inmates being "FORCED" to marry someone of the Same-Sex?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#9640 Sep 9, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
False on two counts.
1. The vote was 5 - 4.
2. Gay couples can't produce children. Until you can, you can't be equal.
1. and yet, the vote was a majority for ssm.
2. merely your personal opinion, which carries no weight. see number 1 above in this posting.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#9641 Sep 9, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>there you go. quote the washington law that protects services or events. you can't. in fact article one of the washinghton constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and "liberty of conscience" neither of which are to be molested.
tell ya what barry, try your tactic in a business transaction in washington. go ahead.

we'll wait & watch the outcome. you'll go out of business and broke trying to defend yourself in court using your "logic".

maybe you should just stick to doing business in a state that's more in line with your way of thinking. alabama's a great place for you, for now.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#9642 Sep 9, 2013
barry wrote:
you all keep bringing up interracial marriages as if there is a comparison.
The situations aren't IDENTICAL, but comparisons exist. They both represent opposition to a person's most basic and personal needs, based on the shallowest of standards.
barry wrote:
first of all the laws against interracial marriage were in and of themselves discriminatory and arbitrary. usually there was no problem say if an asian was to marry a white person.
the problem really was that a black person could look white and a white person could be perceived as black and on the basis of perception alone the law was enforced.
No, the problem really was that such laws existed AT ALL. The fact that they were applied so poorly only shows the potential for abuse in such laws.
barry wrote:
now apparently it is not illegal in washington for homosexuals to have a ssm. no one is stopping them. it also no longer is illegal for interracials to get married. no one is stopping them. segregation used to be the law, it is not anymore. no one is stopping anyone else from participating in or celebrating a ssm or an interracial marriage. but what has now happened is that homosexual activists are bullying people through the use of law to celebrate their lifestyle choices and actually condone what they are doing.
I know that people on your side of this issue always seem to think that, but this isn't true. You are free to not celebrate or not condone whatever you want. No one can ever change that.

The florist is not trying to stop the marriage, and that is not the law that she has broken. No one is accusing her of that. But Washington anti-discrimination laws existed BEFORE the state recognized SSM's. THOSE pre-existing laws are the ones she is accused of breaking.

Suppose she didn't "celebrate or condone" interracial marriages. Could she still refuse to provide services for them? If the law demanded that she must, is she FORCED to suddenly celebrate or condone ANYTHING?
barry wrote:
now to answer your question, i may or may not think that interracial marriage is a good thing but personally i can't find any moral reason to be opposed to it.
I suppose you think there's a "moral reason" to oppose a gay couple's wedding.
barry wrote:
that doesn't mean that i must embrace it as always being a good idea and i personally think that one should be free to abstain from any activity or even being associated with what they personally feel is morally wrong.
Following state laws to provide equal service to all customers does not mean that someone "embraces" a practice. It means they embrace the law. Conducting business according to existing laws, and providing equal service to all customers, does not amount to "associating" with a customer.

And I wish I could hear a coherent reason why being gay, or forming a committment to the person you love and wish to spend your life with, should be considered "immoral". This baseless SLANDER is behind most of the conflict here. These laws wouldn't be necessary if some people didn't have such a poor understanding of morals to begin with. There's nothing "moral" about condemning your fellow citizen for living their lives.
barry wrote:
freedom of religion has a cost. the free market will dictate who stays in business.
That's a naive point of view. The majority in some places will happily disenfranchise the minority, with no repercussions. That's WHY we have these laws. Laws prevent people from doing whatever crazy thing they want. "Religion" is not a WAIVER from those laws.
barry wrote:
by insisting that everyone honor, respect and celebrate your personal diversity, you have yourself become anti-diversity.
Again, this is a mischaracterization of the issue. Honor, respect and celebrate whatever you want. But make sure that local business laws are included on that list.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#9643 Sep 9, 2013
barry wrote:
i am right. you are wishfully stretching and hoping that something is there that just isn't.
No, it's there. And I think you know it, because you're changing your argument.
barry wrote:
the commerce clause pertains only to being "free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists". it says nothing about free individual choice. she is not participating in any boycott or blacklist. that alone seems to imply that each individual on their own may be free to sell or not to sell their services to whomever they wish for whatever reason.
you see i have visited the washington law web site.
Your argument WAS "there's nothing in the law about selling". I've shown you that "engage in commerce" is the same as "selling". NOW your argument has changed to "she isn't boycotting or blacklisting". Why the change? Why have you abandoned your first argument and changed to a different one? If you still don't think that "engage in commerce" is the same as "selling", then there would be no need to move on to a second argument.

What will you change when I insist she IS blacklisting? She's decided that gay couples are not fit for her wedding services. That's what a blacklist is. She is not innocent of blacklisting, simply because she allows gay people inside her business to buy other things. She does not get to make some special list of services that are off limits to gays customers.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9644 Sep 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Slavery has existed throughout human history, even today, in some parts of the world. What does that have to do with SSM? Why hasn't SSM, despite scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions, taken root, and sustained itself over time. If it wasn't a big seller in the past, what make you think it's here to stay? It could be just another passing phase.
Again, majorities historically usurp the equal rights of minority groups.

Gay people are a minority which has been easily mistreated at various times and places. It has not remained a popular idea because it has no appeal to the straight majority.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9645 Sep 9, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, majorities historically usurp the equal rights of minority groups.
Gay people are a minority which has been easily mistreated at various times and places. It has not remained a popular idea because it has no appeal to the straight majority.
I'm straight and the concept of equality and achieving the founding goals our nation was set up to a attain appeals to me. and obviously a majority of the straight people in our nation now agree. it took a while, but it is real now.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9647 Sep 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhh.....huh.....please cite a link as I already did. Considering it sexual references didn't appear until the late 19th century, early 20th century, it appears your statement lacks an historical basis
<quoted text>
People how have engaged in same sex sexual behavior have existed thorough time and place, adopting a gay/homosexual, at least in the west appears to be relatively new.
<quoted text>
Scattered historical examples do exist of recognized same sex relationship.
<quoted text>


Why does it require a "gay" or "homosexual" identity, which again, appears to be a modern invention.
Your semantic debate has nothing to do with equal treatment under the law for all fundamental rights.

As you admit, same sex couples have been getting married at various times and places throughout history. While the words "gay" and "homosexual" among others may be relatively new words to describe same sex bonding, the bonds as documented in marriage ceremonies at various times and places demonstrate these were the same bonds we now describe as "gay", etc.

Again, secret codes take a while to stop being a secret and become common knowledge. But "gay" was used as a secret code among those in on the secret, long before Gertrude Stein published the secret. It was an umbrella term which included GLBT. Clearly, you are not a friend of Dorothy.

Quentin Crisp makes the claim of "gay" as secret code in the 1800's, and Gertrude Stein uses it to refer to the romantic love between two women.

But semantics fail to change the fact fundamental rights come from being human, not from the government, and belong to all persons, no matter how you choose to label them.

There is no basis for fundamental rights beyond being human. We hold these truths to be self evident!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9648 Sep 9, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm straight and the concept of equality and achieving the founding goals our nation was set up to a attain appeals to me. and obviously a majority of the straight people in our nation now agree. it took a while, but it is real now.
The problem remains that in some states, the majority of those who actually turn out to vote, remains motivated by anti-gay prejudice, and prejudice is heavily funded by tax free church dollars, despite the fact the majority of the population now supports liberty and justice for all.

But your support is still greatly appreciated.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#9649 Sep 9, 2013
Huh wrote:
20+ time in the bible it says greed and gluttony are vile and evil sins....HOW COME THERE IS NO CHURCH ATTACKS ON FAT AND RICH PEOPLE????????? WHY DONT CHURCHES BAN FAT AND RICH PEOPLE FROM GETTING MARRIED???????
That would be like killing the goose who craps the gravy train.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#9650 Sep 9, 2013
Huh wrote:
20+ time in the bible it says greed and gluttony are vile and evil sins....HOW COME THERE IS NO CHURCH ATTACKS ON FAT AND RICH PEOPLE????????? WHY DONT CHURCHES BAN FAT AND RICH PEOPLE FROM GETTING MARRIED???????
Because they aren't stupid, just mean-spirited. Who would fill their collection plates if fatty was turned away at the door?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9652 Sep 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you think prison rape is bad, wait for forced prison same sex marriage:
Calif. Clears Same-Sex Weddings For Prison Inmates
September 3, 2013 4:38 PM
SACRAMENTO (AP)— California prison officials have confirmed that inmates can get married to someone of the same sex under certain conditions.
Michael Stainer, director of the adult institutions division for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, issued a memo on Friday stating that the U.S. Supreme Court decision that made same-sex marriages legal again in the state in June also applies to prisoners....
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/09/03/cal...
Prison inmates aren't being "forced" to marry, Brian. And SCOTUS has previously ruled the state can't infringe a person's fundamental right to marriage because of their status as a convicted felon.

Why do you lie, Brian?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9653 Sep 9, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm straight and the concept of equality and achieving the founding goals our nation was set up to a attain appeals to me. and obviously a majority of the straight people in our nation now agree. it took a while, but it is real now.
"I'm straight...."? Really.....are all these sexual identity labels really that important....necessary even?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9654 Sep 9, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing stays the same. What makes you think marriage is here to stay. Many people don't participate in it any more.
True....marriage rates have been declining, possibly one of the reasons SSM has become legal in some states and countries.
What makes you think computers are here to stay? They never really took root in the past.
The past
the past
the past
Gee what makes you think the wheel is here to stay? Just as silly as your question.
Afraid of change and stuck in the past. You do realize that an appeal to the past is a logical fallacy, don't you?
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1.X is old or traditional
2.Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.
Does sex between men and women still make babies? Gee that "tradition" hasn't changed.
This sort of "reasoning" is appealing for a variety of reasons. First, people often prefer to stick with what is older or traditional. This is a fairly common psychological characteristic of people which may stem from the fact that people feel more comfortable about what has been around longer. Second, sticking with things that are older or traditional is often easier than testing new things. Hence, people often prefer older and traditional things out of laziness. Hence, Appeal to Tradition is a somewhat common fallacy.
You assume it's an appeal to "tradition". It's quite possible that SSM never took hold in the past, and sustained itself, because its lacks a foundation other than the emotions of the individuals involved. A same sex relationship produces nothing, whereas the union of a man and a woman produces offspring.
One final issue that must be considered is the "test of time." In some cases people might be assuming that because something has lasted as a tradition or has been around a long time that it is true because it has "passed the test of time." If a person assumes that something must be correct or true simply because it has persisted a long time, then he has committed an Appeal to Tradition. After all, as history has shown people can persist in accepting false claims for centuries.
Again you assume it's an appeal to "tradition". Why haven't human societies throughout history organized themselves around the principle that marriage is simply a union of "two people, regardless of gender composition, who love and support each other"? Marriage is recognized, and privileged because of simply biology. Sex between men and women makes babies. If not for that, would it even exist?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9655 Sep 9, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your semantic debate has nothing to do with equal treatment under the law for all fundamental rights.
It's not a "semantic debate". You are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that modern sexual identity labels, are just that modern. Marriage as a fundamental right, only exists if the state recognizes marriage in the first place.
As you admit, same sex couples have been getting married at various times and places throughout history.
I pointed out there are scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions. Not all of them were considered "marriage" by the society in which they existed.
While the words "gay" and "homosexual" among others may be relatively new words to describe same sex bonding, the bonds as documented in marriage ceremonies at various times and places demonstrate these were the same bonds we now describe as "gay", etc.
Not necessarily. In some cases a male would adopt the role of the wife with another male, a female would adopt the role of a husband with another female.
Again, secret codes take a while to stop being a secret and become common knowledge. But "gay" was used as a secret code among those in on the secret, long before Gertrude Stein published the secret. It was an umbrella term which included GLBT.
A "gay man" was also a man who slept with a lot of women too. I've provided a link, and an excerpt from that link illustrating the history behind the word "gay", to back up my claim. Please do the same. Thank you.
Clearly, you are not a friend of Dorothy.
I love Dorothy, and her little dog too, Toto.
Quentin Crisp makes the claim of "gay" as secret code in the 1800's, and Gertrude Stein uses it to refer to the romantic love between two women.
Link please.
But semantics fail to change the fact fundamental rights come from being human, not from the government, and belong to all persons, no matter how you choose to label them.
Uhhhhh.....huh. The state is under no obligation to legally recognize marriage. If they don't recognize it, does it still exist as a fundamental right?
There is no basis for fundamental rights beyond being human. We hold these truths to be self evident!
Without state recognition, it does matter if its a "fundamental right".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9656 Sep 9, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, majorities historically usurp the equal rights of minority groups.
Gay people are a minority which has been easily mistreated at various times and places. It has not remained a popular idea because it has no appeal to the straight majority.
Assuming of course that "minority groups" existed, as they are understood today, in the past. Again with the modern political sexual identity label. Why not refer to "gay people" as happy people, or those that engage in various,(opposite sex) "immoral sexual activities" as "gay people"? Both would be correct.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9657 Sep 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"I'm straight...."? Really.....are all these sexual identity labels really that important....necessary even?
at times, yes, it is nice to understand ones sexual identity. why do you ask?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9659 Sep 10, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
How are prison inmates being "FORCED" to marry someone of the Same-Sex?
How are prison inmates being forced to have homosexual sex with prison rape? If rape exists in our prisons, how far of a leap is that from forced same sex prison 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 Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 17 min pamela landy 2,156
News Portland to introduce travel ban due to discrim... 32 min TerriB1 5
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 33 min June VanDerMark 10,367
News Lawmakers forming committee to study LGBT rights 37 min Imprtnrd 28
News 'Gay sex causes earthquakes' says conservative ... 46 min Imprtnrd 22
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr GayleWood 36,300
News Meet the Gay Libertarian Running for Vice Presi... 1 hr Only Gays Can Do It 2
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Big C 11,961
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 4 hr woodtick57 1,070
More from around the web