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: Jun 11

AOL

#10745 Oct 1, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a very warped definition of love.
Many continue to be confused about the difference between adult relationships based on mutual love and respect, and rape, child abuse, and animal abuse. For most, this is willful ignorance rather than mere stupidity.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10746 Oct 1, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Many continue to be confused about the difference between adult relationships based on mutual love and respect, and rape, child abuse, and animal abuse. For most, this is willful ignorance rather than mere stupidity.
I'm not so sure. I'll bet that many are swayed by emotional ignorance because they don't actually know anyone who is openly other than heterosexual. Does the old adage "birds of a feather," come to mind?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10747 Oct 1, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The official Catholic teaching opposes birth control measures other than the feckless rhythm method. Of course, most Catholics totally disregard such nonsense. Most Catholics are disobedient to religious authority. Of course they always have primacy of conscience to fall back on. The Pope says as much.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10748 Oct 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And once again, you can provide no law that removes any protections for os marriages were ss marriages are treated equally.

Any change in what marriage means, is a personal one, not a legal one. Os couples lose or gain nothing by treating ss couples equally under all of the more than 1,138 laws that legally determine what marriage means.

As others have pointed out, conjugal can include same sex couples, despite your circular definition which excludes them, as well as the fact that word is not a legal requirement no matter how you choose to define it.

Same with monogamy. Same sex couples can practice monogamy just as os couples can, but it too is not a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right of the individual.

It is disingenuous to claim failure to argue for removal of other, non related restrictions is hypocritical. Gender has nothing to do with the other restrictions. Again, removing the gender restriction does not remove any of the protections for couples. It is not an "alternative form" of marriage, but the same marriage under the same laws. Polygamy is an alternative form, because it is entirely different legally and socially.

There is no need to remove the incest, age, informed consent, or number restrictions. Removing those restrictions would change the laws that determine what marriage means for all couples, while treating ss couples equally under the laws currently in effect for os couples does not legally change marriage for os couples. Misuse of the pejorative "hypocritical" does not change that fact.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10749 Oct 1, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The official Catholic teaching opposes birth control measures other than the feckless rhythm method. Of course, most Catholics totally disregard such nonsense. Most Catholics are disobedient to religious authority. Of course they always have primacy of conscience to fall back on. The Pope says as much.
I keep forgetting marriage is only for Catholics and those who agree with them. Wait....What? Pagans are also allowed to get married?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10750 Oct 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
See, Pete.....this is what you DON'T get......my wife and I view our marriage as very much a traditional marriage.......except there is NO MAN involved!!!!

You NOR anyone else GETS to define our marriage, nor do you get to define ANYONE else's marriage either and again, that's what you want to do!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10751 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.
Marriage is NOT excluding a husband or a wife, it's including couples who are NOT interested in the opposite-sex as is the right of the couple!!!

You can scream, kick, hold your breath until you turn blue and guess what???? I will still be as married as you are, just like the hundred of thousands of other legally married Same-Sex Couples are.....all having conjugal relations with their legal spouses!!!

And some of those opposite-sex couples who may have more of a revisionist type marriages, like swingers and adulterers......but the marriage and how it is defined is by THE COUPLE not BY PETE!!!

The State has the legal right to define marriage......again, NOT PETE!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10752 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.
Guess what........whatever type of sex a man and a woman have who either one is infertile or sterile, also serves no purpose and is strictly for pleasure and it's NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!!!

Why do folks like you have to be concern with the intimate sexual activity between a couple?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10753 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.
The Orwellian newspeak is that removing a restriction, restricts anyone from having a husband or wife. Removing the gender restriction does not exclude a husband or wife. It simply allows the individual to mutually choose according to what works best for them.

While ss couples are included under all of the same laws in effect for os couples, removing the number restriction is not inclusion under the laws currently in effect for couples, but rather a legal change to all of the laws that affect couples, as well as a change in the structure of society.

Legally, os and ss marriage are the same form and function. All of the more than 1,138 laws remain in effect for all couples equally. Your claim of a different form and function is not supported by any law.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#10754 Oct 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess what........whatever type of sex a man and a woman have who either one is infertile or sterile, also serves no purpose and is strictly for pleasure
But it's normal. You can't say the same without lying.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10755 Oct 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
But it's normal. You can't say the same without lying.
Gay people really are normal. Everyone has a sexual orientation. All that you're trying to say is that homosexual orientation is not the MAINSTREAM. That's a different word from "normal". EVERYONE has something about them which is not common, or not mainstream.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10756 Oct 1, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep forgetting marriage is only for Catholics and those who agree with them. Wait....What? Pagans are also allowed to get married?
Yea. Other marriages are not recognized. Talk about insulting so many of the pew warmers. I guess Catholics are masochists. Many thrive on abuse.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#10757 Oct 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That depends. If a man loves to have sex with little boys, is that a sin?
Well then confine your venom to the relative few pedophiles, and leave these gay people alone (unless of course you are "stimulated" by them).

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10758 Oct 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
But it's normal. You can't say the same without lying.
Every mainstream medical and mental health organization in the country disagrees with you:

"lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder." (APA)

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10761 Oct 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
But it's normal. You can't say the same without lying.
Yes, I can say without lying that what 2 men share or 2 women share is also "NORMAL" for them as well as for myself and my wife:-)

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10766 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
It's also "normal" to pedophiles,
.... to attack children.
Your attempt at "logic" fails.
Comparing constitutionally protected private sexual conduct between consenting adults to illegal sexual contact with underage children who are unable to give legal consent isn't a demonstration of logic but rather its absence.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10767 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>You ignore reality. The "kid" was 16 when he shot the cop and got sentenced to life. Now the Supine Court wants to bow to "progressives" and set him free because he was a minor when he committed murder.
Why are you still babbling about killing a three year old?
And I DID "cite my reference".
Here it is again, since my post number 10590 was DELETED.
"Nicholas Lindsey was 16 when he shot Officer David S. Crawford five times on Feb. 21, 2011. He was sentenced to life in prison after his trial last year.
After the sentencing, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that automatic life-without-parole sentences for juveniles are not constitutional."
http://thepolicenews.net/default.aspx/act/new...
You're either not paying attention, or not equipped to comprehend the subject matter.
I didn't see your deleted post, just your claim the Supreme Court ruling was irrelevant because they let a cop killer go free.

Again, do you object to drawing a line based on age?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10768 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a one of your favorite lies you tell over and over and over again.
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T1IQ7796B...
They don't "agree", they just ordered their employees not to DISCRIMINATE against gays.
LOOK at this clown:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T1IQ7796B...
Literally babbling the exact same rhetoric, for YEARS....
When you posts rely on insults and pejoratives, there is nothing rational to debate. There are only so many ways one can point this out. You present nothing to back up your demeaning, dehumanizing insults. Bullying does not present a rational argument.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10769 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
And by the way, a three year old ACCIDENTALLY shooting his father is not in any way shape or form "similar" to a 16 year old shooting a cop.
Only an idiot would even SUGGEST such stupidity.
(*Now whine about "insults and perjoratives" again you pathetic parrot.....)
Polarizing pejoratives poorly present personal positions.

Do you support drawing a line on age?

Are age, mental condition and ability, valid considerations?

Again, the court did not set him free.

They returned him to the lower court to re-sentencing.
They did not say he could not be sentenced to life, but rather not automatically sentenced to life without considering a mitigating defense.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10771 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
It's also "normal" to pedophiles,
.... to attack children.
No, they know it's wrong. They know it's a criminal act. They know they must keep it hidden, and tell no one.

If they really believed it were normal, we would see a push for parades and t-shirts and guest spots on Glee. Instead, they hide from the law, and from parents. They cry when they're caught, and beg for help. They run away from Chris Hansen, and get tackled by men in swamp camo.

And, regardless of what they felt about their behavior, the word "attack" takes it out of their hands. NO ONE gets to call attacking others "normal", and then proceed to attack them based on that justification. The other person gets a say in whether they're attacked or not.

And children do not have the right, or the capacity, to condone or consent to such sexual attacks. That's why we have an age of consent. So that BOTH parties can make a mutual, informed decision of what will be allowed between them.

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) 4 hr Brian_G 15,987
News Man charged after lubricant dispenser filled wi... 4 hr Fa-Foxy 1
News Gay Sex Ed: A Guide to Fun and Worry-Free Anal Sex (Nov '15) 5 hr Craig 4
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 72
News Gay Republican Iowa Senate Hopeful: I'm Not the... 7 hr Skippy 4
News After gay couple's home is egged, a community r... 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 22
News Why culture war issues like same-sex marriage a... 8 hr Skippy 10
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 8 hr Skippy 23
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 8 hr June VanDerMark 11,314
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 11 hr lake bay boy 38,791
More from around the web