Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 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.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11212 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
New Jersey State University.
Unfortunately for you, that is not on SCOTUS's approved list for justices. Better see if you can get into Harvard or Yale.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11213 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Its based on the male female union.
You have yet to provide any compelling state interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11214 Oct 9, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Unfortunately for you, that is not on SCOTUS's approved list for justices. Better see if you can get into Harvard or Yale.
Are you kidding? They'd have difficulty getting into kindergarten.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11215 Oct 9, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
But you don't need marriage to produce MiniMes
[QUOTE]

No, but it is the desired, preferred setting.

[QUOTE]
and since no particular sex act need be accomplished for marriage
I don't know if that's 100% accurate.
why would any court stipulate that only males and females can legally marry?
Its still the procreational union, and the one nessessary for societal stability.
And let's not forget that the court already recognizes same-sex marriages as legal and valid.
Some same sex marriages.

[QUOTE[
I have the fundamental right to marry.
[/QUOTE]

same as any other man.
John has the fundamental right to marry.
Same as any other man.
Why can John and I not exercise that right together?
Oh a double wedding....maybe a set of twin sisters....both you and John get a bride. What a great idea.
You don't have a very strong foundation to build your argument.
Sure I do, boy girl.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11216 Oct 9, 2013
Fundamental rights are based on being human.

Gender is irrelevant to fundamental rights. Fundamental rights belong to all "persons" regardless of gender.

As neither procreation nor even ability to have sex are requirements of marriage, the gender restriction serves no legitimate governmental purpose.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11217 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if that's 100% accurate.
<quoted text>
Its still the procreational union, and the one nessessary for societal stability.
<quoted text>
Some same sex marriages.
<quoted text>
same as any other man.
<quoted text>
Same as any other man.
<quoted text>
Oh a double wedding....maybe a set of twin sisters....both you and John get a bride. What a great idea.
<quoted text>
Sure I do, boy girl.
Pietro, can infertile heterosexual couples marry?

Can you indicate a state interest served by restricting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman?

Can you formulate a big boy argument?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#11218 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Its still the procreational union, and the one nessessary for societal stability.
Since marriage is available to couples regardless of procreational ability, doesn't marriage offer the SAME stability to same-sex couples? Doesn't their stability contribute to society as much as the stability of a childless, opposite-sex couple? If a same-sex couple were raising a child (raising being more vital than procreating), wouldn't they, and society, benefit from stability?

Is there some reason they should be DENIED stability? Does society benefit from their INstability? Should instability be encouraged for gay couples, and stability discouraged?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh a double wedding....maybe a set of twin sisters....both you and John get a bride. What a great idea.
I'm sure you could be more condescending if you tried a little harder.

People don't run out to find spouses just because they're excited to have a marriage. It's the other way around. They go out and get a marriage, once they've found the spouse who excites them. You seem to think that gay people are simply after the TITLE of "marriage", and that we aren't interested in discerning a suitable mate, as long as we get that title.

You seem to be suggesting--"Get a bride! Every man wants a bride!" And you don't seem to care that SOME men DON'T want brides. Nothing could be LESS apt for these men than a bride, for themselves AND for the bride. Nothing could be a WORSE recipe for a bad marriage, than shoe-horning someone into life choices that don't suit them.

We aren't after marriage simply because we want to wave it like a banner, proclaiming "I got mine!". We seek specific benefits for the person we want as family, benefits which only marriage can provide. A marriage doesn't do anything for the people involved unless they've married the RIGHT person (a decision you're not involved in).

Shallowly suggesting that a gay man find a bride betrays either an ignorance of ALL the issues at hand, or else a deliberate insensitivity to the needs of the people you oppose.

Our marriages would not threaten the marriages of heterosexuals. The stability of our families will contribute to the stability of society. Civil unions do this inadequately, and only intermittently from state to state.

13 states, plus DC, currently recognize same-sex marriages. Another NINETEEN states are considering legislation, or actually have some pending. The Supreme Court recently ruled it unconstitutional for the federal government to refuse to recognize state-sanctioned marriages. Despite this much support, how much longer can you continue to insist that gay people accept a secondary role in society? How much longer will you pretend to be blind to our needs, and make spousal suggestions which suit no one involved (least of all YOU)?

I know, I know. You'll answer ZERO of these questions. Your personal "defense" of your position will be to wonder why polygamous and incestuous marriages are not also supported, even though such groups have nothing to do with the subject. ANYONE can be polygamous or incestuous, if they want to be. These are not "classes" of people who require protections. People who are already family have no need of the familial bonds which marriage provides. Three or more people bring too many families into the mix, confusing the protective purposes of marriage and making them unregulatable. Their needs, if they truly have any, must be heard separately.

How long can you truly oppose this trend in society, and on what grounds?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11219 Oct 9, 2013
lides wrote:
Can you formulate a big boy argument?
Do you like big boys?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11220 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://i.word.com/idictionary/ coitus
Main Entry: co·i·tus
Pronunciation:\&#712;k &#333;-&#601;-t&#6 01;s, k&#333;-&#712;&#27 5;-, &#712;k&#559;i-t&# 601;s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from coire
Date: 1845
: physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements :
Main Entry: coitus in·ter·rup·tus
Pronunciation:\-&#716;in-t &#601;-&#712;r&#60 1;p-t&#601;s\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, interrupted coitus
Date: 1900
: coitus in which the penis is withdrawn prior to ejaculation to prevent the deposit of sperm into the
<quoted text>
Coitus is.
No, it isn't. Ignoring the dictionaries with definitions that prove you a liar doesn't negate their existence.

From dictionary.com :

co·i·tus
noun
sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman

Note the word "especially" is not a synonym for exclusively.

Evolve or die, small Peter.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11221 Oct 9, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Since marriage is available to couples regardless of procreational ability, doesn't marriage offer the SAME stability to same-sex couples? Doesn't their stability contribute to society as much as the stability of a childless, opposite-sex couple? If a same-sex couple were raising a child (raising being more vital than procreating), wouldn't they, and society, benefit from stability?
Is there some reason they should be DENIED stability? Does society benefit from their INstability? Should instability be encouraged for gay couples, and stability discouraged?
<quoted text>
I'm sure you could be more condescending if you tried a little harder.
People don't run out to find spouses just because they're excited to have a marriage. It's the other way around. They go out and get a marriage, once they've found the spouse who excites them. You seem to think that gay people are simply after the TITLE of "marriage", and that we aren't interested in discerning a suitable mate, as long as we get that title.
You seem to be suggesting--"Get a bride! Every man wants a bride!" And you don't seem to care that SOME men DON'T want brides. Nothing could be LESS apt for these men than a bride, for themselves AND for the bride. Nothing could be a WORSE recipe for a bad marriage, than shoe-horning someone into life choices that don't suit them.
We aren't after marriage simply because we want to wave it like a banner, proclaiming "I got mine!". We seek specific benefits for the person we want as family, benefits which only marriage can provide. A marriage doesn't do anything for the people involved unless they've married the RIGHT person (a decision you're not involved in).
Shallowly suggesting that a gay man find a bride betrays either an ignorance of ALL the issues at hand, or else a deliberate insensitivity to the needs of the people you oppose.
Our marriages would not threaten the marriages of heterosexuals. The stability of our families will contribute to the stability of society. Civil unions do this inadequately, and only intermittently from state to state.
13 states, plus DC, currently recognize same-sex marriages. Another NINETEEN states are considering legislation, or actually have some pending. The Supreme Court recently ruled it unconstitutional for the federal government to refuse to recognize state-sanctioned marriages. Despite this much support, how much longer can you continue to insist that gay people accept a secondary role in society? How much longer will you pretend to be blind to our needs, and make spousal suggestions which suit no one involved (least of all YOU)?
I know, I know. You'll answer ZERO of these questions. Your personal "defense" of your position will be to wonder why polygamous and incestuous marriages are not also supported, even though such groups have nothing to do with the subject. ANYONE can be polygamous or incestuous, if they want to be. These are not "classes" of people who require protections. People who are already family have no need of the familial bonds which marriage provides. Three or more people bring too many families into the mix, confusing the protective purposes of marriage and making them unregulatable. Their needs, if they truly have any, must be heard separately.
How long can you truly oppose this trend in society, and on what grounds?
Thank You. Couldn't have put it better.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11222 Oct 9, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Fundamental rights are based on being human.
Gender is irrelevant to fundamental rights.
Both men and women have the fundamental right to marry.
Fundamental rights belong to all "persons" regardless of gender.
Yes, all men, and all women, have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
As neither procreation nor even ability to have sex are requirements of marriage,


Nor is "love", or cohabitation.
the gender restriction serves no legitimate governmental purpose.
No gender is restricted from marriage, both are included.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11223 Oct 9, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it isn't. Ignoring the dictionaries with definitions that prove you a liar doesn't negate their existence.
From dictionary.com :
co·i·tus
noun
sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman
Note the word "especially" is not a synonym for exclusively.
Evolve or die, small Peter.
"Coitus" is a specific form of sexual intercourse, one requiring both male and female genitals. Sorry but "same sex", can't do this one. Thanks for playing.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11224 Oct 9, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, can infertile heterosexual couples marry?
Men and women can marry, regardless of ability, or intent to, procreate.
Can you indicate a state interest served by restricting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman?
Yes
Can you formulate a big boy argument?
Yes

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11225 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Coitus" is a specific form of sexual intercourse, one requiring both male and female genitals. Sorry but "same sex", can't do this one. Thanks for playing.
The dictionary says you're a liar. Of course, the rest of us already know that.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11226 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Men and women can marry, regardless of ability, or intent to, procreate.
Of course, at issue is whether there is a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.

Clearly, you still aren't smart enough to offer such an interest, or directly respond as to why same sex couples should be denied the right to legally marry.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11227 Oct 9, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Since marriage is available to couples regardless of procreational ability, doesn't marriage offer the SAME stability to same-sex couples?
You make marriage sound like a service or product the local marriage store sells. Marriage is available to men and women, regardless of procreation all ability, or intent.
Doesn't their stability contribute to society as much as the stability of a childless, opposite-sex couple?
How? Why does it matter that men marry men, or women marry women? If they don't what will happen? Has society ever been dependent on such unions?
If a same-sex couple were raising a child (raising being more vital than procreating), wouldn't they, and society, benefit from stability?
Sure, as would any child. But we don't automatically designate the relationship between adults raising the child,
"Marriage".
Is there some reason they should be DENIED stability?
How are they being denied "stability"?
Does society benefit from their INstability? Should instability be encouraged for gay couples, and stability discouraged?
By that reasoning, all sorts of relationships could be designated "marriage", including, that's right!.....polygamous ones.
I'm sure you could be more condescending if you tried a little harder.
Ya think? Maybe if I tried real hard. Dave asked a question, I provided an answer.
People don't run out to find spouses just because they're excited to have a marriage. It's the other way around. They go out and get a marriage, once they've found the spouse who excites them.
Does the state care if one's spouse "excites" them?
You seem to think that gay people are simply after the TITLE of "marriage", and that we aren't interested in discerning a suitable mate, as long as we get that title.
Actually I do.....if its marriage that you seek, and not to have your relationship designated "marriage", why not marry as the state, and society at large, defines marriage?
You seem to be suggesting--"Get a bride! Every man wants a bride!" And you don't seem to care that SOME men DON'T want brides. Nothing could be LESS apt for these men than a bride, for themselves AND for the bride. Nothing could be a WORSE recipe for a bad marriage, than shoe-horning someone into life choices that don't suit them.
I agree, not every man, regardless of self professed sexual orientation/attraction, wants a bride.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11228 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
You make marriage sound like a service or product the local marriage store sells. Marriage is available to men and women, regardless of procreation all ability, or intent.
Very good Pietro. Now, can you offer any reason to exclude same sex couples from marriage?

You are very good at making utterly irrelevant points.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11229 Oct 9, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
We aren't after marriage simply because we want to wave it like a banner, proclaiming "I got mine!". We seek specific benefits for the person we want as family, benefits which only marriage can provide.
If marriage is simply a benefits package people seek, there's no reason to deny any adult the benefits package for whom they choose, provided its another consenting adult.
A marriage doesn't do anything for the people involved unless they've married the RIGHT person (a decision you're not involved in).
The RIGHT person could be any number of persons.
Shallowly suggesting that a gay man find a bride betrays either an ignorance of ALL the issues at hand, or else a deliberate insensitivity to the needs of the people you oppose.
Dave asked why the individual right to marry possessed, each posed by two men, could not be combined. If that the case, then he's just argued for polygamy, and polyamory.
Our marriages would not threaten the marriages of heterosexuals.
Such a statement suggests any personal intimate adult relationship in which the participants self designate it "marriage" would not threaten the marriages of OPPOSITE SEX couples, regardless of self professed sexual attraction/orientation. So why is yours the only "harmless" alternative marriage?
The stability of our families will contribute to the stability of society. Civil unions do this inadequately, and only intermittently from state to state.
So, for the sake of discussion, if a civil union legal structure existed, a virtual duplicate of "marriage" but with no references to "husband and wife", and their union, and it was recognized in every state, would you argue that would not contribute to the stability of your families?
13 states, plus DC, currently recognize same-sex marriages. Another NINETEEN states are considering legislation, or actually have some pending. The Supreme Court recently ruled it unconstitutional for the federal government to refuse to recognize state-sanctioned marriages. Despite this much support, how much longer can you continue to insist that gay people accept a secondary role in society? How much longer will you pretend to be blind to our needs, and make spousal suggestions which suit no one involved (least of all YOU)?
Who said anything about accepting a "secondary role" in society? Because same sex unions aren't designated "marriage" in every state? I never realized marriage was a self esteem program. Sounds like anyone who marriage isn't recognized, is accepting a "secondary role".
I know, I know. You'll answer ZERO of these questions. Your personal "defense" of your position will be to wonder why polygamous and incestuous marriages are not also supported, even though such groups have nothing to do with the subject.
Uhhhhhh....yes they do! The issue boils down to how, we as a society, at least legally, define marriage. I don't know if its naïveté, arrogance, or a bit of both, that denies this. "Oh just fundamentally alter the understanding of marriage for us, and no one else.....after all we have parades, flags, bumper stickers, and a 'marriage equality' clubhouse.
. ANYONE can be polygamous or incestuous, if they want to be.
Even gay people?
These are not "classes" of people who require protections.
They may not "require" it, but desire it.
People who are already family have no need of the familial bonds which marriage provides.
First cousins are family too, but they can marry. Besides two siblings can be, for all practical purposes, "spouses" to each other. So why should the state designate them as such?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11230 Oct 9, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>. Three or more people bring too many families into the mix, confusing the protective purposes of marriage and making them unregulable.
"The protective purposes of marriage"? I never realized it as such, and that only some people are worthy of "protection".
Their needs, if they truly have any, must be heard separately.
I see....as long as marriage is redefined for the nice gay folks, the rest are on their own. Is that it?
How long can you truly oppose this trend in society, and on what grounds?
Good question. How long can YOU ignore this redefinition trend? It all depends on how ya look at the issue.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11231 Oct 9, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good Pietro. Now, can you offer any reason to exclude same sex couples from marriage?
You are very good at making utterly irrelevant points.
Now can you offer any reason to redefine marriage, for same sex couples and not one else, or anybody else?

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 Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 1 hr guest 505
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 1 hr UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 1,986
first time having gay sex? (men) 2 hr bottomislife 1
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr Troll Trace Online 22,358
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Troll Trace Online 42,798
News Barney Frank speaking at launch of LGBT justice... 4 hr Christsharian Col... 7
News Walmart agrees to $7.5 million settlement in di... 5 hr Christsharian Col... 6
More from around the web