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

#10609 Sep 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Its part of the same sex marriage Orwellian orthodoxy. SSM is good, and any who opposes it is a "bigot", other consenting adult relationships are bad and its okay to be a "bigot" and oppose them.
Sorry charlie, why don't we dispense with the kindergarten logic and speak about the topic like adults. The law requires that in order for the government to infringe upon rights, like constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the laws, the state must have a compelling interest served by the restrictions proposed.

Can you articulate any such interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry?

I don't think you can, and your regular return to arguments of what is "good" or "bad" clearly illustrates that you can't offer a rational, factually supported, adult argument.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10610 Sep 29, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
Consensual polygamy and adult incest is no more "harmful" to society that two "men" but-plugging each other in the privacy of THEIR home is,....dopey.
Oh yes it is. Perhaps you are incapable of thinking it through. Perhaps you are ignorant of history. Perhaps you just like to argue without any facts to back up your idiocy.

The issue of same-sex marriage is not at all in the same category as polygamous marriage. First, same-sex marriage is still a partnership and relationship of two people, most often with the objective of starting a family. Second, nonheterosexuality is a biological state, not a choice. In contrast, nobody is born a polygamist. Thus, polygamy is not a rights situation in the same sense that nonheterosexual marriage recognition is a rights situation. Third, same-sex marriage does not affect anyone except the two people involved; whereas polygamous marriage affects all of society because of its impact on women's status.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10611 Sep 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There are consenting adults who CHOOSE to enter into such arrangements in this country. Men who with more than one wife, and those wives choosing to share a husband. At least one of those families have their own reality show, "Sister Wives". Apparently they didn't get the memo from the Canadians.
Apparently YOU don't realize that they are NOT legally married.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10612 Sep 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly... If they're consenting adults.....why the objection? Isn't "consenting adults" the new standard by which to judge the legality of a relationship?
No, it isn't. What ever made you think it is?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10613 Sep 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Its part of the same sex marriage Orwellian orthodoxy. SSM is good, and any who opposes it is a "bigot", other consenting adult relationships are bad and its okay to be a "bigot" and oppose them.
If it harms society, opposing it is NOT bigotry. Thinking that polygamy has no effect of society is ignorant.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#10614 Sep 29, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
Knock off the temper tantrum, dopey. You're gonna blow a gasket,
....or something.
<quoted text>
August 10, 2011|12:46 pm
<quoted text>
http://www.christianpost.com/news/obesity-chu...
<quoted text>
"In direct opposition to the prosperity preachers stands Francis, the first pope to take the name of Francis of Assisi, the 13th-century nobleman who was something of a radical in the Middle Ages, embracing poverty while the Church wallowed in its own crapulence. St. Francis, legend has it, was inspired to devote himself to a life of poverty upon hearing the gospel of Matthew in which Christ tells his disciples to go forth and proclaim that the Kingdom of Heaven is near. They should take no money with them, nor even a walking stick or shoes for the road. Apparently, the name Francis has been taboo in the Vatican until now, but if one hopes to stem the tide of the prosperity gospel in your homeland, the symbolism is irresistible."
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/16/pray...
Now hush,....FOOL.
Yea but why then on sunday when I watch people leave church is like 8-% of them fat and get into 50k+ cars......rich and fat..

Are Christians trying to pass laws to stop fatness and greed????? IF SO WHY VOTE GOP WHO LOVES FAT AND GREED.
Sick of haters

AOL

#10615 Sep 29, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you still fail to illustrate even one compelling state interest in denying consenting adult groups and relatives "finding mutual love, attraction and a willingness to commit to a legally binding union".
It's obvious you only support unions you agree with, and are bigoted and hateful against the ones you don't.
Maybe you have latent incestuous tendancies,....hmmm?
The bigot calling others bigots!

Really? Can't see the difference between incest and the restriction on number?

Hopeless.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#10616 Sep 29, 2013
Last post I meant 80% o church goers are fat rich slobs....ATLEAST IN MY REGION. Maybe different in other regions. But see these fat super rich slobs at stop the gay tye rallies..HERE IS FAT RIC PEOPEL BREAKING TWO MAIN SIN AND HEY HAVE NERVE TO YELL ABOUTOTHER SIN.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10617 Sep 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry charlie, why don't we dispense with the kindergarten logic and speak about the topic like adults. The law requires that in order for the government to infringe upon rights, like constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the laws, the state must have a compelling interest served by the restrictions proposed.
Can you articulate any such interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry?
I don't think you can, and your regular return to arguments of what is "good" or "bad" clearly illustrates that you can't offer a rational, factually supported, adult argument.
How many times have we gone over this? Some people just do not have the intellect to understand, and they never will. They go through life not realizing they are ignorant and incorrigible. They do not even grasp the distinction between FACT and opinion. The biggest indicator of their stupidity is that they try to conflate polygamy with SSM. Apples and oranges, yet they REFUSE to believe that their logic is severely flawed. That's why they are so surprised when they lose in Court. They are completely unaware of their profound lack of knowledge on the subject.

But I say LET THEM WHINE. It shows the general population just how stupid some people can be.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10618 Sep 29, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
Consensual polygamy and adult incest is no more "harmful" to society that two "men" but-plugging each other in the privacy of THEIR home is,....dopey.
So, when you think of marriage, your mind darts to men having anal sex? And you really support polygamy and incest?

How about coming up with a rational reason to deny legal marriage based on gender alone.

Good luck with that.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10619 Sep 29, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
If it harms society, opposing it is NOT bigotry. Thinking that polygamy has no effect of society is ignorant.
He makes the polygamy argument for two reasons. One is that he has no logical governmental reason to deny gay people the right to marry each other, and he knows it. The other is that he feels he wins when he can turn the discussion away from two adults marrying, and on to a straw-man.

It's all he really has. There is no other way for him to "win".

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10621 Sep 29, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>Only until it doesn't cater to the gay agenda. Then it's illegal and "should" stay that way...
Liberalism/"progerssiveis m" IS:
"everyone is entitled,
....to MY opinion".
(and a mental disorder)
Silly stuff.

So, you believe that NO ONE is entitled to equal protection under the law, unless they follow your opinions? That's the definition of "convervative"?

Sorry.

Opinion is irrelevant. Unless you can come up with a valid and rational governmental interest in denying the right to marry to gay couples, you have lost the argument.

Just prove that same sex couples marrying harms society. Prove it's not good for the gay couples involved, and definitely not good for their kids.

Go on. PROVE IT.

Maybe you will be the first to do it!
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10623 Sep 29, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
He makes the polygamy argument for two reasons. One is that he has no logical governmental reason to deny gay people the right to marry each other, and he knows it. The other is that he feels he wins when he can turn the discussion away from two adults marrying, and on to a straw-man.
It's all he really has. There is no other way for him to "win".
He hasn't 'won' anything.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10624 Sep 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly... If they're consenting adults.....why the objection? Isn't "consenting adults" the new standard by which to judge the legality of a relationship?
So now you are arguing that same sex couples should legally marry?
Good. You seem to be learning.

But the standards haven't changed that much. It's still two adult, unrelated consenting individuals.

If you want more than that, all you need is to make your case with the public, and fight in the courts, proving that there is no harm and only benefit in other proposed marital situations.

We already know the benefits of married unrelated adult consenting couples, gay or straight. You just need to prove that there is no harm in the forms of marriage that you seem to value.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#10625 Sep 29, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>You sound jealous, like you're always hungry and driving a 72 ford future, or something. You asked if the CHURCH took those stands, dopey,....not the parishioners. I can only surmise that your emotional little temper tantrum is how your fragile psyche handles getting embarrassed and proven to be a complete moron like that,
....hmmm?
So why is it then that most Christians are fat tubs of crap and many are rich....Oh and why don't we hear on Fox news how the GOP wants fat foods banned and greed stopped....OH WAIT BECAUSE THE RELIGOUS FAR RIGHT LOVES FAT FOODS AND GREED..

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10626 Sep 29, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>Because it's illegal, just like polygamy and incest are, dopey.
How many more times will you need this explained to you before it sinks in to that bowling ball you call a "skull"?
Hi, welcome to 2004. It's not illegal. Grow up.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10627 Sep 29, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>You sound jealous, like you're always hungry and driving a 72 ford future, or something. You asked if the CHURCH took those stands, dopey,....not the parishioners. I can only surmise that your emotional little temper tantrum is how your fragile psyche handles getting embarrassed and proven to be a complete moron like that,
....hmmm?
The only one who should be embarrassed is YOU, but you don't have the intellect to realize how illogical your posts read.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10628 Sep 29, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>Because it's illegal, just like polygamy and incest are, dopey.
How many more times will you need this explained to you before it sinks in to that bowling ball you call a "skull"?
It is NOT illegal, dopey. How many more times will you need this explained to you before it sinks in?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10631 Sep 29, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
And again you wont answer because it shows you only attack gays because of hate and bigotry.
No, it shows you're an idiot who likes to scream "hate and bigotry" because someone disagrees with him.
Ignorance is not a sin or you would be in hell already
Good one Potts.
Being lazy is a sin so why you so lazy and wont answer my question.
Gee.....I guess I'm sinning.
DO CHURCHES TAKE STANDS AGAINST FAT PEOPLE.......
Only if they're not gay, the fat gay people get a free pass.
DO CHURCHES TAKES STANDS AGAINST GREEDY RICH PEOPLE.........
That could effect some gay Hollywood types......be careful.
Try to be an adult don't twist or turn answer my question..I answered yours...
Now, that's funny!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10633 Sep 29, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
No, dopey,...I believe in equal protection,
...under the law....AS WRITTEN, not amended to accommodate a fringe minority's sexual persuasions....
....even people gays disagree with.
As written, the law is:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 14th Amendment, Section 1
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amend...

Are you asserting that homosexuals are not people, or that marriage is not a protection of the law? The reality is that you do not support the law as written, or you are a hypocrite.

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
Jade Archives volume B 9 min J Aidster 4
News California AG bans state travel to Texas, 3 oth... 18 min Aurora Borealis 123
News Gay bar opens near Macon Road, drawing visitors... 20 min General Zod 130
News Arizona Supreme Court to rule on same-sex paren... 29 min Moral Truth 26
News Supreme Court to decide whether a Colorado bake... 45 min Rick Santpornum 83
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 52 min Ted 51,585
News Should businesses be able to refuse service on ... 1 hr American 13
News Nikki Haley and her son heckled during NYC gay ... 1 hr Rick Santpornum 45
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr crotch gazer 6,927
More from around the web