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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10725 Oct 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage conjugality doesn't exist?!!!!
When are you going to get your head out of your pants?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10726 Oct 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the procreation argument has failed in just about every RECENT court case.......and according to SCOTUS marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT......NOT a privilege.....and if it is a privilege, then why shouldn't Same-Sex Couples be allowed to participate in it?
Perhaps more importantly, those recent court cases have shown why previous conclusions supporting restrictions based on procreation were wrong, and based on prejudice rather than logic, reason, and the equal protection requirements of the constitution. They have shown os couples neither lose or gain anything by treating ss couples equally under all of the same laws, while ss couples are harmed by denial of equality.

The Supreme Court cases that make it clear marriage remains a fundamental right even when procreation and even ability to have sex are clearly impossible, also make it clear the procreation argument is irrelevant and irrational.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10727 Oct 1, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
When are you going to get your head out of your pants?
Conjugal as in "husband AND wife". Seriously Wastey, you need to get your mind out of the gutter my friend.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865578537/...

We wrote two weeks ago about the “four strikes” against traditional marriage — divorce, cohabitation, chosen singleness and same-sex marriage. Today, let us make an additional point and clarification:

There are two basic alternative ways in which to view marriage, and the two are essentially at war in today’s world.

1. Marriage can be viewed, as it has since history began, as an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman, which forms a physical and an emotional and a spiritual bond distinguished by its comprehensiveness and its fidelity. This is often called the conjugal view, or traditional marriage.

2. Marriage can be viewed simply as a loving emotional bond distinguished by its intensity — a bond in which fidelity is subject to one’s own desires — a bond which one leaves when emotional fulfillment is no longer found. This is often called the revisionist view.

While the second view includes same-sex marriage, it is a much broader category, which also includes revisionist heterosexual marriage..

http://bridgesandtangents.wordpress.com/2012/...

In defence of conjugality: the common-good case against same-sex marriage
March 17, 2012 by Fr Stephen Wang

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350026/...

In What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense and in various follow-up pieces, we have argued for several ideas: Reducing marriage to the more general category of sexual domestic partnership is a deep mistake. Marriage — the human good that marriage law should foster — is rather a union of persons at every level (mind, heart, and body) and for the whole of life, inherently oriented to family life. Properly understood, such comprehensive union requires a man and a woman. The common good depends on enshrining this “conjugal view” of marriage in law; the argument for redefining marriage contradicts itself, and embracing it would harm the common good in definable ways. And the state’s reasons for recognizing marriage as a male-female union are based not on some obscure ideology or private interest, but on the human good, which reason and experience lay bare.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10728 Oct 1, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, the number restriction and the incest restriction have nothing to do with the gender restriction.
Restrictions must provide a compelling interest. Gender fails that test. The other restrictions have passed that test.
That is where you are clearly WRONG. Each of those other prohibitions, including SSM, in some states, if changed, would represent a significant, fundamental, change in the long standing view of marriage in this country as a union of one man and one woman, not closely related by blood, as husband and wife. Polygamy, changes the number, non monogamy, SSM, changes the nature, non conjugal, and incest changes the not too closely related by blood. Why is it acceptable to reject, one of those three prohibitions, but not the others, if they all involve consenting adults. It's is hypocritical for same sex marriage advocates to argue against other alternative forms of marriage while advocating for their own. Although they are not necessarily obligated to actively promote such other alternative forms of marriage, they is essence are, by advocating a fundamental change in American marital jurisprudence.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10729 Oct 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the procreation argument has failed in just about every RECENT court case.......and according to SCOTUS marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT....
Yes a fundamental right of every man and woman, to marry, as marriage is understood to be, a legally recognized union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, legally valid in all fifty states. NOT a fundamental right based on one's personal definition of marriage.
..NOT a privilege.....and if it is a privilege, then why shouldn't Same-Sex Couples be allowed to participate in it?
That's a contradiction. How can a same sex couple participate in marriage, the union of husband and wife? What you are a skinning is that same sex relationships be designated "marriage" by the state. There's a difference.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10730 Oct 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is being ELIMINATED.......opposite-sex couples AREN'T being denied the right to marry......marriage is just now being more INCLUSIVE.......why is that so difficult for you to grasp?
What's difficult to grasp is the Orwellian newspeak. How can marriage be more "inclusive", by EXCLUDING the wife or the husband? If the objective is, by including same sex couples, to make marriage more "inclusive", then why not expand that inclusivity even further by including polygamy?
My marriage is not truly ANY different than my aunt and uncle's marriage of 38 years.......and they are not affected by my marriage, nor do they see it different than theirs.......I mean yes, their marriage is an opposite-sex marriage and mine is a Same-Sex marriage........neither of us have children from our marriages, nor do we want children at our ages......but why my wife and I got married is pretty much the same reason my aunt and uncle got married.......oh, there is one small difference......this is my first marriage and for them, it is their second marriage!!!
Why one chooses to marry is not the same as why marriage exists in the first place, nor why it is privileged by the state. Motivations to marry can be similar among OSCs, and SSCs, and both can share some emotional similarities. But they still differ in function and form.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10731 Oct 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What "spin".....unless you're arguing in favor of easy divorce laws.
<quoted text>
You're confusing polygamy in which women have little or no say, and its practiced on a large scale, at least larger than it is in this country, and those men and women, who CHOOSE to enter into such arrangements.
<quoted text>
Yes start small, because that's how it's practiced, small, as in on a small scale. If women CHOOSE to be a second or third wife, that is her choice. She could just as easily be a mistress, or a "baby's mama". Besides not all women, will want to be a second, or third.
<quoted text>
What do they do now? There seems to be no shortage of women who will have sex with single men, or even married men for that matter.
<quoted text>
So legalize it, and regulate it.
<quoted text>
So let me see if I understand this, Mrs. Blowme's little boy Neil. A man can sleep with as many women as he can, and are willing to, father numerous children out of wedlock,.....and that's okay. But if a man, and several women choose to join together as husband wife, wife, and wife, complete with children and have their unions legally recognized,......you think that's bad? Please clarify....correct me if my assessment is off.
<quoted text>
So if one opposes legally redefining marriage, because one thinks its bad public policy, and can have possible long term negative consequences, then one is not a "bigot"? Yes?
<quoted text>
What do we do with them now?
<quoted text>
Actually....the number of young men who desire to marry, and actually do has declined over the past several decades. Among young black men, in some communities, marriage is an alien concept, the wife has been replaced by "baby's mama".
<quoted text>
No....not really. SSM has changed the rules....others, namely polygamists, want "marriage equality" too. Social political movement often travel in directions the original "movers" never intended.
I see that you are incapable of comprehending what you read. Instead you choose to wrap yourself in righteous indignation and continue to whine.

I said: The problem with polygamy is it results in large numbers of men with no wives. That leads to increased violence and crime.
NOBODY thinks increased violence and crime are a good thing. That's why polygamy will remain illegal.

You must have been a REAL challenge for your teachers in school.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10732 Oct 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What's difficult to grasp is the Orwellian newspeak. How can marriage be more "inclusive", by EXCLUDING the wife or the husband? If the objective is, by including same sex couples, to make marriage more "inclusive", then why not expand that inclusivity even further by including polygamy?
If that's what you want, then petition the government for redress of your grievances. They are going to tell you the same thing I did. Polygamy causes an increase in violence and crime, and that is NOT in the best interests of the State.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10733 Oct 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Conjugal as in "husband AND wife". Seriously Wastey, you need to get your mind out of the gutter my friend.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865578537/...
We wrote two weeks ago about the “four strikes” against traditional marriage — divorce, cohabitation, chosen singleness and same-sex marriage. Today, let us make an additional point and clarification:
There are two basic alternative ways in which to view marriage, and the two are essentially at war in today’s world.
1. Marriage can be viewed, as it has since history began, as an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman, which forms a physical and an emotional and a spiritual bond distinguished by its comprehensiveness and its fidelity. This is often called the conjugal view, or traditional marriage.
2. Marriage can be viewed simply as a loving emotional bond distinguished by its intensity — a bond in which fidelity is subject to one’s own desires — a bond which one leaves when emotional fulfillment is no longer found. This is often called the revisionist view.
While the second view includes same-sex marriage, it is a much broader category, which also includes revisionist heterosexual marriage..
http://bridgesandtangents.wordpress.com/2012/...
In defence of conjugality: the common-good case against same-sex marriage
March 17, 2012 by Fr Stephen Wang
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350026/...
In What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense and in various follow-up pieces, we have argued for several ideas: Reducing marriage to the more general category of sexual domestic partnership is a deep mistake. Marriage — the human good that marriage law should foster — is rather a union of persons at every level (mind, heart, and body) and for the whole of life, inherently oriented to family life. Properly understood, such comprehensive union requires a man and a woman. The common good depends on enshrining this “conjugal view” of marriage in law; the argument for redefining marriage contradicts itself, and embracing it would harm the common good in definable ways. And the state’s reasons for recognizing marriage as a male-female union are based not on some obscure ideology or private interest, but on the human good, which reason and experience lay bare.
Conjugal is sex.

1. Marriage can be viewed as a committed relationship between two people which may or may not include sex.

2. Marriage between same sex couples will not impact marriage between opposite sex couples in any way.

The conjugal argument is both fallacious and a straw man.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10734 Oct 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What "spin".....unless you're arguing in favor of easy divorce laws.
The spin is YOUR statement that States are revisiting no-fault divorce. What is true is that wacko wing-nut religious freaks are whining about no fault divorce. NO STATE IS SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING A CHANGE.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10735 Oct 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What's difficult to grasp is the Orwellian newspeak. How can marriage be more "inclusive", by EXCLUDING the wife or the husband? If the objective is, by including same sex couples, to make marriage more "inclusive", then why not expand that inclusivity even further by including polygamy?
<quoted text>
Why one chooses to marry is not the same as why marriage exists in the first place, nor why it is privileged by the state. Motivations to marry can be similar among OSCs, and SSCs, and both can share some emotional similarities. But they still differ in function and form.
Irrelevant

But do keep whining.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#10736 Oct 1, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Love is not a sin.
That depends. If a man loves to have sex with little boys, is that a sin?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10737 Oct 1, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Conjugal is sex.
1. Marriage can be viewed as a committed relationship between two people which may or may not include sex.
2. Marriage between same sex couples will not impact marriage between opposite sex couples in any way.
The conjugal argument is both fallacious and a straw man.
I guess Pete doesn't think two men (or two women) are capable of having conjugal sex. Of course he is wrong, but that doesn't stop him from whining.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10738 Oct 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That depends. If a man loves to have sex with little boys, is that a sin?
You have a very warped definition of love.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10739 Oct 1, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess Pete doesn't think two men (or two women) are capable of having conjugal sex. Of course he is wrong, but that doesn't stop him from whining.
He is Catholic. He most likely believes the procreative sex is the only valid form of sex. If he actually studied the Gospels, he would know that Jesus spoke about people's thoughts of sex. He would also realize that sex is used many ways, especially to sell stuff to other people. Why would a person who is attracted to the same sex have thoughts of sex with the opposite sex? Love is far greater than sex. Anyone can procreate but it is much harder to love another person.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#10740 Oct 1, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess Pete doesn't think two men (or two women) are capable of having conjugal sex. Of course he is wrong, but that doesn't stop him from whining.
What ever type of sex two men or two women have, it's serves no purpose other than, for lack of a better word, pleasure.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10741 Oct 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
What ever type of sex two men or two women have, it's serves no purpose other than, for lack of a better word, pleasure.
...and intimacy, and love, and expression of commitment.

The same is true for opposite-sex sterile couples, and elderly couples.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10742 Oct 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Conjugal as in "husband AND wife". Seriously Wastey, you need to get your mind out of the gutter my friend.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865578537/...
We wrote two weeks ago about the “four strikes” against traditional marriage — divorce, cohabitation, chosen singleness and same-sex marriage. Today, let us make an additional point and clarification:
There are two basic alternative ways in which to view marriage, and the two are essentially at war in today’s world.
1. Marriage can be viewed, as it has since history began, as an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman, which forms a physical and an emotional and a spiritual bond distinguished by its comprehensiveness and its fidelity. This is often called the conjugal view, or traditional marriage.
2. Marriage can be viewed simply as a loving emotional bond distinguished by its intensity — a bond in which fidelity is subject to one’s own desires — a bond which one leaves when emotional fulfillment is no longer found. This is often called the revisionist view.
While the second view includes same-sex marriage, it is a much broader category, which also includes revisionist heterosexual marriage..
http://bridgesandtangents.wordpress.com/2012/...
In defence of conjugality: the common-good case against same-sex marriage
March 17, 2012 by Fr Stephen Wang
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350026/...
In What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense and in various follow-up pieces, we have argued for several ideas: Reducing marriage to the more general category of sexual domestic partnership is a deep mistake. Marriage — the human good that marriage law should foster — is rather a union of persons at every level (mind, heart, and body) and for the whole of life, inherently oriented to family life. Properly understood, such comprehensive union requires a man and a woman. The common good depends on enshrining this “conjugal view” of marriage in law; the argument for redefining marriage contradicts itself, and embracing it would harm the common good in definable ways. And the state’s reasons for recognizing marriage as a male-female union are based not on some obscure ideology or private interest, but on the human good, which reason and experience lay bare.
This religious opinion falsely states marriage has always been one man and one woman. This ignores same sex couples have also been getting married, and marriage has often been one man and as many women as he can afford.

It also relies on your circular definition that conjugal means one man and one woman, again ignoring there is no legitimate governmental interest in doing so, and conjugal is not a legal requirement, but a religious one for some but not all religious groups.

While I agree marriage "is rather a union of persons at every level (mind, heart, and body) and for the whole of life,", because marriage is a fundamental right, it need not provide benefits to society. The only restrictions that can be justified are ones that prevent harm, and a procreation requirement fails that test. This shows no way that os marriages are harmed by treating ss couples equally under all of the same laws. It is an appeal to emotion, not logic or fact.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10743 Oct 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
What ever type of sex two men or two women have, it's serves no purpose other than, for lack of a better word, pleasure.
If a person is gay, what pleasure is there in trying to have an intimate relationship with the opposite sex? Conversely, what pleasure would a straight person have in attempting an intimate relationship with a gay person?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10744 Oct 1, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
...and intimacy, and love, and expression of commitment.
The same is true for opposite-sex sterile couples, and elderly couples.
And also true for those who use birth control or employ non vaginal methods of sexual expression.

In short, most sexual behavior for most people, and all sexual behavior for many, is not intended to result in procreation. Fortunately for them, procreation is not a legal 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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 13 min Just Think 14,678
News Junk food-loving fathers raise their future dau... 2 hr Here is what I 2
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Joyce 38,425
News Boy Scouts faring well a year after easing ban ... 4 hr Carlton 19
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 6 hr Fa-Foxy 118
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,793
News NBA Moves All-Star Game Out of North Carolina O... 8 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 44
More from around the web