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.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10776 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>How the hell do YOU "know" what anyone else "knows"?
The very DEFINITION of liberalism:
"Everyone is entitled,
.....to MY opinion."
Oh, and before Princess Pitiful mistakes that for me "knowing" what liberals "know",
...I don't.
I'm just telling you what I see them DO.
Those of us in social science know child sex offenders feel guilt and shame about their abuse of children, even though they often attempt to rationalize it. Many are arrested and treatment is mandated if release is a consideration. The body of information on sex offenders tells us they know on some level at least, that their behavior is wrong because it harms unwitting victims.

Cookie_Parker

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#10777 Oct 1, 2013
snyper wrote:
And the proper LEGAL backlash at their illicit involvement in Civil Politics is ... wait for it ... loss of their Tax Exempt status.
Just hear them SQUEEEEEL !!
The radical religious right wing nut fundamentalists are nothing more than the AlQaeda of Saudi Arabia on American soil. They push to destroy our government, middle class opportunities for Americans, affordable health care for all while depleting our budget with wars that just feed the rich in mega profits.

We don't need the born again evangelicals in this nation anymore than the world needs fundamentalist Muslim. Let's ship the two groups for an island and let them pray...who lives an who dies depends on whose god is stronger.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10781 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
It's also "normal" to pedophiles,
.... to attack children.
Your attempt at "logic" fails.
Sorry, but nope my logic DOESN'T fail......it is unfortunate that yes, pedophiles are attracted to children under the age of puberty.......but NOT all will actually act on that attraction.....and you are confusing Pedophiles with CHILD MOLESTERS who are different and harm children because they can!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10783 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
Is EDMUND in "social science"?
Don't remember, but he demonstrates an understanding of it. Your point?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10784 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I see.
So, demeaning pejorative IS a "valid debate skill",
as long as it doesn't offend YOU, personally?
lol!
Again I say, liberalism IS
"everyone is entitled,
....to MY opinion".
(and should be deemed treason)
Some writers choose to use arguments that rely on facts and use insults for emphasis. Pejoratives and/or insults alone, fail as valid debate or discussion on the merits. You rely heavily and sometimes exclusively on insults and pejoratives.

We have been presenting facts of law, science, as well as reason and logic. You rely on personal attacks, demonstrating you have no argument on the merits.

Do you support drawing a line on age?
Are mental condition and ability valid considerations?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10785 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>But it's still NATURAL to them to DO it, Professor Puffs A lot but never Quite Hits the Mark.....
I didn't say they don't "feel guilty" about it, all I said was it's as "natural" to them as being gay is to homosexuals.
Being gay causes gays plenty of emotional and psychological discord. Even your precious APA says so:
"Although many lesbians and gay men learn to cope with the social stigma against homosexuality, this pattern of prejudice can have serious negative effects on health and well-being.
...The widespread prejudice, discrimination, and violence to which lesbians and gay men are often subjected are significant mental health concerns. "
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientat...
But you still contend it's "natural".
Yes, being gay is natural, while being a child molester is a compulsive behavior the molester realizes is not normal and not acceptable as it harms innocent victims.

If you look again at that quote, it explains it is the prejudice you promote that is harmful, not the realization of same sex emotional, romantic, and physical attraction.

"The widespread prejudice, discrimination, and violence to which lesbians and gay men are often subjected are significant mental health concerns."

Most of us learn to cope quite well once we realize we don't have to live our lives to appease your prejudice. Unfortunately, some of us don't learn that lesson soon enough, and self destruct in a variety of ways, including high risk sex, and suicide.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10786 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>What?
Are you seriously sitting their trying to argue that CHILD molestors,
....are NOT "pedophiles".
Really?
....AND....you started off with "my logic does NOT fail"...???...
.....REALLY>>>???...
gtfoh....you're an imbecile.
I'm stating a FACT.......a pedophile MAY be a Child Molester.......but a CHILD MOLESTER is NOT always a Pedophile.......you might do well to educate yourself on the difference between the two!!!

From an article done by UC Davis Psychology Department:
Child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.

Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.

Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/fa...

This issue REALLY needs for folks to use proper terminology to understand why so many make harsh judgments against some without actually knowing things!!!

Don't even begin to attack me or accuse me of protecting Pedophiles or Child Molesters.......but at least I know the difference and can see this issue with facts and truths instead of fear and BS!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10787 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
you're an imbecile.
The real imbecile is YOU.......why? Because you REFUSE to educate yourself on this topic........and believe that this topic and issue is simply explainable basically as a black and white issue and it ISN'T!!!

There are many good articles that will help idiots like yourself get educate on this issue and hopefully one day......people will understand that there is a HUGE difference between being a Pedophile and being a Child Molester.......but it is obvious that today is not that day for you!!!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10788 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't compare the two acts,
...I illustrated the fact that ones own behavior is "normal" to oneself.
Then why didn't you take Wondering to task since he characterized homosexuality as abnormal?
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
I supposed you believe yourself to be "intimidatingly intelligent" or something
...you're just another dunce.
No more so than you believe yourself to be.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#10789 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
How the hell do YOU "know" what anyone else "knows"?
Thanks for quoting a small fraction of what I said. I'll just have to hope you read any further than that. Like the part immediately after, where I explained why I felt justified in saying that. They run. They cry. They beg. These are not the actions of people who feel they're being wrongly persecuted. The guys who Chris Hansen interviews on that show make excuse after excuse, they tell lies upon lies. "She said she was 18!" when the video clearly shows he understood she was 13. "I was just coming over to tell her how bad it is to have strange older men come over!" This is not the behavior of people who have pride in themselves.

Like Not Yet Equal said:
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Those of us in social science know child sex offenders feel guilt and shame about their abuse of children, even though they often attempt to rationalize it.
And no, I'm not in social sciences.
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
The very DEFINITION of liberalism:
"Everyone is entitled,
.....to MY opinion."
I would've gone with something more like: a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual.

I'll try not to ascribe your hyperbole to all conservatives.
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
Oh, and before Princess Pitiful mistakes that for me "knowing" what liberals "know",
...I don't.
I'm just telling you what I see them DO.
Which is?

And, if you already knew how to infer beliefs from actions, then why didn't that help answer your FIRST question?

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#10790 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
I didn't say they don't "feel guilty" about it, all I said was it's as "natural" to them as being gay is to homosexuals.
Being gay causes gays plenty of emotional and psychological discord. Even your precious APA says so:
"Although many lesbians and gay men learn to cope with the social stigma against homosexuality, this pattern of prejudice can have serious negative effects on health and well-being.
...The widespread prejudice, discrimination, and violence to which lesbians and gay men are often subjected are significant mental health concerns. "
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientat...
But you still contend it's "natural".
Holy cow, did you even read your OWN post? Being gay doesn't cause SQUAT, and it SAYS SO in what YOU posted.

It says we COPE with the social stigma AGAINST homosexuality. It's the PATTERN OF PREJUDICE which causes the serious negative effects on health and well-being.

It says almost EXACTLY that. In YOUR post. I mean.. what the?

This is caused by OTHER PEOPLE, do you understand that? People who CAUSE the prejudice, discrimination, and violence. It is not caused by any individual's own homosexuality. It is caused by other people who decide they are going to have a problem with what other consenting adults do.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10791 Oct 2, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!!
Huh? As is the right of the couple? Oh so as long as its the right of the couple, then said couple could included a third person.
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!!!
".....still be as married as...."? Uhhhh...huh. So then all the aspects of marital jurisprudence apply to you, or any other same sex couple? What particular "conjugal relations" are same sex couples having? After all, if its all the same....
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!!!
So the state does, often times with the input of the people, as in 30 plus states.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10792 Oct 2, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The Orwellian newspeak is that removing a restriction, restricts anyone from having a husband or wife.
No restriction was in place to begin with. No man is restricted from having a wife, nor woman a husband, provided they meet all the other requirements set by the state.
Removing the gender restriction does not exclude a husband or wife.
No need to remove it, both genders are included, and form the foundation of the marital relationship.
It simply allows the individual to mutually choose according to what works best for them.
Hmmmmm....yet you advocate maintaining other "restrictions" thus discriminating against those who want what works for them.
While ss couples are included under all of the same laws in effect for os couples,
The laws in effect were changed, not do they incorporate every aspect of marital jurisprudence.
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.
A very poor attempt at justifying removal of the conjugal requirement, but maintaining monogamy. How does changing monogamy not change marriage for everybody, but removing the number does?
Legally, os and ss marriage are the same form and function.
Not true. OSM serve to join a man and woman together as husband and wife, and provide the necessary components for procreation, which as many a court as ruled over the past,100 plus years, is a primary function of marriage.
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.
Please clarify these "1,138 laws in effect". If your argument is they can be applied regard less of gender, then they can also be applies regardless of pre existing relationship. Thus two, at least same sex siblings, could be eligible.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10793 Oct 2, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Please explain what "increased violence and crime", other than the anti cohabitation laws, the Brown family, or the Dargers, or any other consenting plural marriage family, have engaged in?
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.
You assume it would automatically result in "increased violence and crime", with out explaining why consenting adult cannot be allowed to form their families as they see fit, with government recognition, the very objective you seek for same sex unions.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10794 Oct 2, 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?
Not at all marriage is available for men and women with no religious beliefs what so ever. Nice try though.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10795 Oct 2, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
So you need to mount a recruiting drive to find polygamists that actually want multiple civil marriages?
So if there are, you'll support legalized polygamy?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10796 Oct 2, 2013
If you have no argument, just keep repeating your mantra. If you believe with all your heart, perhaps someone else will too. Keep repeating in the misplaced belief that someday someone will.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10797 Oct 2, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yet there have been other court cases, affirming those rulings which date back over a hundred years long before "gay" became a reference for same sex sexual attraction/behavior. Actually it's sexual references referred to opposite sex sexual practices first.
They have shown os couples neither lose or gain anything by treating ss couples equally under all of the same laws.
The laws were changed. So how can they be treated under the same laws, if the laws were changed? You've contradicted yourself Nye.
, while ss couples are harmed by denial of equality.
They are not "equal", differ in form and function.
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.
The Supreme Court has made clear marriage, as defined as the legally recognized union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, is a fundamental right. Not once did they say same sex marriage is a fundamental right. If it had, every single state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a monogamous conjugal union would be null and void.

The flaw in your argument is that if you can redefine marriage for your desire/need/want and still argue it is a fundamental right based on YOUR definition, then you cannot deny others the right to do the same.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10798 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No restriction was in place to begin with. No man is restricted from having a wife, nor woman a husband, provided they meet all the other requirements set by the state.
<quoted text>
No need to remove it, both genders are included, and form the foundation of the marital relationship.
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm....yet you advocate maintaining other "restrictions" thus discriminating against those who want what works for them.
<quoted text>
The laws in effect were changed, not do they incorporate every aspect of marital jurisprudence.
<quoted text>
A very poor attempt at justifying removal of the conjugal requirement, but maintaining monogamy. How does changing monogamy not change marriage for everybody, but removing the number does?
<quoted text>
Not true. OSM serve to join a man and woman together as husband and wife, and provide the necessary components for procreation, which as many a court as ruled over the past,100 plus years, is a primary function of marriage.
<quoted text>
Please clarify these "1,138 laws in effect". If your argument is they can be applied regard less of gender, then they can also be applies regardless of pre existing relationship. Thus two, at least same sex siblings, could be eligible.
What? No gender restriction was in place? What about all of those recent laws restricting marriage based on gender? Prop 8? Requiring one of each restricts choice of a partner on the basis of gender. It is an irrational restriction, but still a restriction on gender.

Other restrictions are other restrictions. Gender is not a consideration in those other restrictions. Removing the gender restriction does not affect the other restrictions.

Recognition of same sex marriage does not change the effect of the 1,138 federal laws that define what legal marriage means. Changing the gender terms to neutral terms such as spouse, doe not change the effects of those laws. A spouse can still inherit property from the other spouse, receive social security benefits of the spouse, etc. None of the laws are removed by changing "husband" or "wife" to "spouse."

Again, neither conjugality nor monogamy are removed by removing the gender restriction.(unless you use your personal, restrictive, circular definition). But again, neither is a requirement of law. A church can add those requirements if they wish, but they are not legal requirements.

"A primary function" does not mean a necessary function to remain a fundamental right. Again, recent courts including the Supreme Court have made it clear; procreation is not a necessary function for marriage to remain a fundamental right of all persons. Even ability to have sex is not a requirement. Even 100 years ago, they recognized procreation was not the only function of marriage, and not a requirement. The Windsor decision makes this clear as well.

The 1,138 federal laws that were already in effect for os couples remain in effect for all couples. Many already use the term spouse, as they apply equally regardless of gender. A spouse inherits property from the other spouse, regardless of gender.

Again, incest is an entirely different restriction. They still have plenty of choices, just not a parent or sibling.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10799 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So if there are, you'll support legalized polygamy?
It doesn't affect me personally so I wouldn't advocate against them. However, the reality is, unlike the case with same sex marriage, there will need to be adjustments made in existing laws that presume marriage is comprised of only to people. That's in addition to rescinding existing laws that criminalize bigamy.

As I've stated several times previously, no one is preventing them from exercising their right to petition government to address their grievances except their own reluctance to do so. Even you don't really care about their "plight" since they don't conform to your views of traditional marriage in the US. You merely employ false concern for them as one of your many logical fallacies in arguing against same sex marriage. You create a false dichotomy by asserting if the law is changed to address the concerns of one minority group then it must be changed to address the concerns of all minority groups. This ignores the fact the constitution permits restrictions on fundamental rights but mandates such restrictions must be evaluated on a case by case basis, not an all or nothing basis.

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
Jades Diary 17 min Dillon 12
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 52 min Concerned 14,002
BIG Thanksgiving Party 1 hr Dillon 3
News In Kentucky town, gay-marriage opponent Davis s... 2 hr Wondering 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Complaining 57,903
News Gay bar opens near Macon Road, drawing visitors... 2 hr Will Dockery 673
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 26,317
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 3 hr ThomasA 173
More from around the web