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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11291 Oct 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
perfect example of what happens when you let religious cults like islam and christianity rule... well,same cult, different sects...
This is where we differ; American Christians don't promote killing gays while many Islamic countries, Jamaica and Russia punish homosexuals. I believe we should all work together to save lives instead of fighting against each other over radical changes to marriage laws for everyone. Same sex marriage is bad because it forces the left to ignore the danger to Russian and Muslim gays. Reason 3 for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11292 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>....... Same sex marriage is bad because it forces the left to ignore the danger to Russian and Muslim gays. Reason 3 for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival.
You have got to be kidding. Legal marriage leads to persecution and genocide?

You have finally lost whatever sanity you might have had.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#11293 Oct 12, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You have got to be kidding. Legal marriage leads to persecution and genocide?
You have finally lost whatever sanity you might have had.
If you've read his posts, you realize he never had any sanity to begin with.

According to Brian's 'logic' we should close all the doughnut shops because some people are on a diet.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11294 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>This is where we differ; American Christians don't promote killing gays while many Islamic countries, Jamaica and Russia punish homosexuals.
That's not entirely true, Brian. Not too long ago a Christian pastor said gays and lesbians should be rounded up and imprisoned behind fences until hey died. Because the pastor stupidly thinks that gays "recruit" rather than being the product of heterosexual procreation.
Brian_G wrote:
I believe we should all work together to save lives instead of fighting against each other over radical changes to marriage laws for everyone.
Feel free to go save lives in Russia and take a break from advocating discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of US citizens. You won't be missed.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is bad because it forces the left to ignore the danger to Russian and Muslim gays.
The left is preoccupied with the danger from conservatives to gays in our own country. If you and your ilk would stop discriminating against a class of your fellow citizens simply because they're different from you, perhaps people would have more time to address the problems in other countries.
Brian_G wrote:
Reason 3 for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival.
Nothing is stopping YOU from ending your campaign of discrimination against gays in the US to go save the lives of gays in other countries. Except your own prejudice, that is.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11295 Oct 12, 2013
Church leaders will do what?

Who cares?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11296 Oct 12, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
Yes, technically first cousins are already related by blood so establishing legal kinship is redundant in that respect. However, some states still permit such marriages because the consequences of conflicting relationships is not as not as pronounced as they are for sibling or parent child marriages.
Plus the risk of sexually procreative genetic defects is low. A risk non existent in same sex siblings.
Adoption in the US only establishes parent-child relationships; one can not adopt another as a spouse.
Adult adoption is allowed in some states. Adults can establish legal kinship without marriage.
True. But then again, you don't really care about the "plight" of polygamists except to the extent you can fake concern and use them to argue against same sex marriage. Your views make clear you don't want either type of relationship recognized as marriage in the US.
I am concerned about the definition of marriage and the consequences of legally redefining it. Both polygamy, and SSM represent a fundamental change in the understanding of marriage as a union off one man and one woman as husband and wife.
Just more of your usual circular reasoning. Marriage is comprised of a male and female because only a males and female have historically been allowed to marry.
Because of the obvious, there are two sexes, and human reproduction is sexual. There's not a great deal of cross time, cross cultural necessity for SSM. If same sex union produced something, there would be a need to recognize it.
Two errors in one short clause: 1) conjugality is a result of marriage, not a requirement for it, and 2) same sex couples can be conjugal too (recall the English language is evolving even if you refuse to do so).
1.) Conjugal as in husband and wife. Thus marriage conjugal marriage states, define marriage soley as union of husband and wife.
2.) Same sex couples cannot, by composition be conjugal, as the word is most commonly understood, historically, cultural, nationwide, and still legally, in thirty plus states.
Given polygamy existed historically and continues to exist in current times, the answer for the US is polygamy is prohibited for cultural and/or religious reasons. That doesn't mean the laws prohibiting bigamy can't be legally challenged of someone i willing to do so.
That they can be, the first step is decriminalization.
Sex has already been ruled a quasi-suspect class for equal protection constitutional law and subject to intermediate scrutiny. So to enact laws that discriminate on the basis of sex, the state must assert an important government interest and the law must be substantially related to that asserted interest.
States, that have chosen to maintain the monogamous conjugal definition of marriage, assert its continuance as an important governent interest.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11297 Oct 12, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, procreation, the ability to procreate, and child rearing is utterly irrelevant to legal marriage. It must be embarrassing to present yourself in a public forum as someone so unintelligent.
Spoken like a true SSM advocate, who need not be concerned with such matters. However, as indicated by the various court citations dating back over 150 yrs plus, procreation is indeed a function of marriage. To claim otherwise is either to be willfully ignorant of history, or too stubborn to admit the obvious.
No, they really aren't. Polygamy does not seek equal protection of the law (I am very sorry to see that you haven't learned to count to three, or understand that it is greater than two. That must be embarrassing.),
SSM seeks greater protection of law, not equal. It asks that TWO men, or TWO women, be treated the same as ONE man AND ONE woman.
and there is a compelling governmental interest served by denying incestuous marriage.
Not as it relates to SSM, at least siblings.
Can you indicate such a interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, which would render such a restriction constitutional, and prove that you aren't a mental midget?
Can YOU indicate such an interest served by denying some men, or women, the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife valid in every state, as other men and women, that would render such a denial constitutional?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11298 Oct 12, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
How so? Did you post this while sitting in a classroom of 1st graders?
Only of you cloned yourself enough times to fill a 1st grade classroom?
It obviously did interfere with the ability of some people to marry for decades in parts of the country. It was a restriction placed on marriage that impacted how individuals were able to exercise their fundamental right of marriage. It was applied equally to all men and women within the law's jurisdiction as you keep asserting the gender and number restrictions do. What it also did was interfere with an individual's choice in how they wished to exercise their right. The laws were ruled unconstitutional because their was no compelling state interest served by the restriction as required under strict scrutiny applied to fundamental rights.
It was ruled unconstitutional beeeeeeeeee.....cuz:

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
And I see you still haven't learned the difference between race and ethnicity. Black and white are races; Italian is an ethnicity.
In the 19th century, and into the 20th century, ethnicity, and race, were often used interchangeably.
Being gay is no more a "political identity" than being a woman or black or Italian or a military veteran or Jewish.
"Gay" IS a political sexual identity label, hence the alphabet soup designation, "LGBTQPI"! Being a woman is one's sex. Black or Italian, or both, is Inez's ethnicity/race. Military veteran, one's experience. Jewish, Inez's religious faith and/or ethnicity.
Christians existed in ancient Rome too but the Romans didn't have St. Patrick's day parades and ask each other "WWJD?".
Christians had to hide at times in Ancient Rome. I don't think there was a large Irish population back then, and the would probably ask "WWCMUD" ( What would Cesear make us do). Not a bad comeback though....I see you're starting to use your thinking cap.
Like Catholics do behind the yellow and white papal flag with the triple papal crown and keys of St. Peter?
Remember Terry, the Vatican is a city state, a political entity. Is it any different than Irish marching behind their flag on St Paddy's Day?
And yet a majority of polled adults nationwide now favor legal recognition of same sex marriage, most of whom are heterosexual.
So why then the votes against SSM at the other polls?
If they were all like you, they wouldn't qualify as smart and even if considered handsome or beautiful on the outside, it would only be a facade for the ugly bigotry hiding inside.
"Ugly bigotry hiding inside"?.....such loaded language.....alas not true. My beauty is both inside and out.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11299 Oct 12, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
Plus the risk of sexually procreative genetic defects is low. A risk non existent in same sex siblings.
But married same sex siblings, like married opposite sex siblings, still create the same real legal issues that would result from conflicting blood and kinship relationships.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Adult adoption is allowed in some states. Adults can establish legal kinship without marriage.
You need to read more carefully, small Peter. I never said adults couldn't adopt other adults. The issue is adoption creates a parent-child legal relationship, not a spouse-spouse legal relationship. Therefore adult adoption isn't a substitute for marriage since it doesn't make the adopter and adoptee eligible for the legal benefits and privileges conferred upon marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I am concerned about the definition of marriage and the consequences of legally redefining it. Both polygamy, and SSM represent a fundamental change in the understanding of marriage as a union off one man and one woman as husband and wife.
It's not being redefined; it's having an unconstitutional restriction based on gender removed. Marriage still accomplishes the same thing whether the participants are same sex, opposite sex or various combinations involving more than three people: creating kinship between previously unrelated people. Your definition is defective since it doesn't account for reality as it existed in the past, across cultures or in the present.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Because of the obvious, there are two sexes, and human reproduction is sexual.
People don't have to be married to reproduce. In fact, almost half of children in the US are currently born out of wedlock. Marriage as a fundamental right is not based on procreation. The decision whether to procreate or not is a separate fundamental right protected by the constitutional guarantee of privacy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's not a great deal of cross time, cross cultural necessity for SSM.
Unfortunately, animus and discrimination like yours towards gays have been all too prevalent across time and cultures, creating the dearth of examples you then cite as the reason for why it shouldn't be recognized. So your argument is essentially "we've never allowed gays to marry and because there is no historicity of gay marriage we shouldn't allow it now." Just more of your usual circular reasoning.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11300 Oct 12, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
If same sex union produced something, there would be a need to recognize it.
Same sex marriages create kinship and families so are no different than opposite sex marriages in that respect. Regardless, State recognition of fundamental rights is required by the constitution; it's not something individuals have to prove has "value" to the state in order to receive state recognition.
Pietro Armando wrote:
1.) Conjugal as in husband and wife. Thus marriage conjugal marriage states, define marriage soley as union of husband and wife.
And when the unconstitutional gender restrictions in those states are removed, both same sesx and opposite sex couples will be conjugal.
Pietro Armando wrote:
2.) Same sex couples cannot, by composition be conjugal, as the word is most commonly understood, historically, cultural, nationwide, and still legally, in thirty plus states.
Conjugality is a result of marriage, small Peter, not a requirement for it. NO state requires marriage participants to prove themselves capable of sexual intercourse, much makes them promise to engage in it. Closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet won't stop the English language from evolving or constitutional justice from prevailing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That they can be, the first step is decriminalization.
And yet no polygamist, not even your oft cited Brown family, is actually litigating to have bigamy decriminalized. Again, you need to read the details of the lawsuit rather than just talking out of your ass.
Pietro Armando wrote:
States, that have chosen to maintain the monogamous conjugal definition of marriage, assert its continuance as an important governent interest.
Infringement of a fundamental right like marriage triggers strict scrutiny, not the lesser intermediate scrutiny used for quasi-suspect classes like sex. So the state needs to provide a compelling, not merely an important government interest ti infringe a person's right of marriage. And states can assert whatever they want is a compelling or an important government interest; it's the court that actually decides whether it is or not.

The other aspect of strict scrutiny that doesn't get cited as frequently as the compelling government interest requirement is the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve the asserted interest and implemented using the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. Unfortunately for you, your "we've always discriminated against gays and prohibited same sex marriages" argument doesn't meet any of the requirements of strict or intermediate scrutiny to be deemed a permissible infringement of the right to marry.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11301 Oct 12, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Only of you cloned yourself enough times to fill a 1st grade classroom?
No need; any first grader could construct better and more rational arguments than you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It was ruled unconstitutional beeeeeeeeee.....cuz:
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
What that really means, small Peter, is whether SCOTUS reviewed the issue as an infringement of the fundamental right to marry or as violation of equal protection of the law, strict scrutiny would be the standard of judicial review applied because strict scrutiny is always applied in cases of fundamental rights and suspect classes (which race has been ruled). And they found there was NO legitimate much less compelling government interest/purpose to justify anti-miscegenation laws. They went even further and declared the sole reason for their existence was "invidious racial discrimination" which violates both substantive due process and equal protection.

One interesting aspect of the ruling to which you should pay close attention to is the idea that the fundamental right of marriage also includes "the freedom of choice". If you have the intellectual capability to process that, perhaps you might finally begin to understand why your constant suggestions that gays should just marry people of the opposite sex to comply with unconstitutional laws is insulting and repugnant rather than empathetic as you laughably think it is.
Pietro Armando wrote:
In the 19th century, and into the 20th century, ethnicity, and race, were often used interchangeably.
IS this the 19th or early 20th century? No. No wonder your ideas and arguments are so outdated.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Gay" IS a political sexual identity label, hence the alphabet soup designation, "LGBTQPI"! Being a woman is one's sex. Black or Italian, or both, is Inez's ethnicity/race. Military veteran, one's experience. Jewish, Inez's religious faith and/or ethnicity.
Being gay, straight or bi is one's sexual orientation; it's simply a less formal lay term preferred by people who identify as such because is it sound less clinical than homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual. Just like white is used instead of "caucasian" and black has taken over from "negro" and "colored" as the preferred term by people who identify as such.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11302 Oct 12, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
Christians had to hide at times in Ancient Rome. I don't think there was a large Irish population back then, and the would probably ask "WWCMUD" ( What would Cesear make us do). Not a bad comeback though....I see you're starting to use your thinking cap.
You mean like gays have had to hide for much of human existence? As I recall, Christians weren't exactly happy about being persecuted back then and certainly did not hesitate to employ the same persecution tactics against Jews, Muslims and non-orthodox Christians when they had the power to do so.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Remember Terry, the Vatican is a city state, a political entity. Is it any different than Irish marching behind their flag on St Paddy's Day?
The Irish marching in US St. Patrick's Day parades are overwhelmingly US rather than Irish citizens. They march behind an Irish flag for cultural reasons, which is exactly the same reason gays have the rainbow flag as a symbol. The pink triangle that Hitler made gays wear in Nazi Germany also has a historical cultural significance for gays too. Adopting previous words or symbols of oppression has been a frequent method used by discriminated against minorities to overcome and negate societal imposed stigma.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So why then the votes against SSM at the other polls?
Public opinion has shifted significantly in the past 5 years. Recall, none of the anti-gay ballot measures passed in the last general election in 2012. And it was at least 20 years after anti-miscegantion laws were ruled unconstitutional before a majority of polled adults expressed approval of interracial marriages.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Ugly bigotry hiding inside"?.....such loaded language.....alas not true.
On the contrary, you advocate continued infringement of the fundamental rights of gays and offer little more than irrational arguments riddled with logical fallacies as justification.
Pietro Armando wrote:
My beauty is both inside and out.
So you're a narcissistic bigot. I stand corrected.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11303 Oct 12, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
Perhaps if you could throw off the shackles of your heteronormativity and heterosexual privilege, you'd be able honestly self-assess your own words and behavior toward gays.
"Heteronormativity"? I was wondering when it would rear its ugly head. Oh the humanity! But bounds points for the comeback Potts. Bravo! Good job.
Another good example of how you so frequently whine about the "style" of an assertion as a means of avoiding addressing the actual substance of it.
No, just pointing out the irrelevance of interjecting sexual political identity labels into every aspect of this issue.
But it's not always possible and you denigrate both straight and gay people who adopt children
Agree, and no, quite the contrary, I have praised, on this thread, people who adopt children.
or use medical assistance to form their families
Sounds so coldly clinical. Do you mean medical assistance like when two men buy an egg, rent a womb, and mix their sperm together so as not to know who the biological father is? I wonder what "medical assistance" the children use to know their Mom?
with your incessant and irrelevant linkage of procreation to marriage when it's neither a requirement of marriage nor dependent upon being married.
But it is the primary function, or a least one of the primary functions, of matrimony, as many a court has ruled.
100% of us are here because our biological parents had sex or used medical assistance to facilitate fertility and/or conception.
As I said, the male female union.
. Only slightly more than half of newly born children in the US are born within wedlock. Proving once more that sex and marriage are not synonymous nor does one require the other.
What it proves, is that we, as a society, have devalued marriage, much to the detriment of our children.
You've yet to provide a valid example of a law that didn't apply to both same and opposite sex couples. At least not one that didn't rely ignoring the evolution of the English language.
Still won't concede the "coitus" point I see.
Yes, fundamental rights are intrinsic to human existence. However, the fact non-procreational people can and do form unions recognized as marriage prove the second half of your assertion false.
No, it proves marriage is still a male female union, orientated towards its procreative aspect.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11304 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>This is where we differ; American Christians don't promote killing gays while many Islamic countries, Jamaica and Russia punish homosexuals. I believe we should all work together to save lives instead of fighting against each other over radical changes to marriage laws for everyone. Same sex marriage is bad because it forces the left to ignore the danger to Russian and Muslim gays. Reason 3 for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival.
WTF?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11305 Oct 12, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
But married same sex siblings, like married opposite sex siblings, still create the same real legal issues that would result from conflicting blood and kinship relationships.
Issues that can be addressed. Legally recognizing same sex unions as "marriage" fundamentally alters the understanding of marriage. Once that is done, it is not out of the realm of possibility to legally designate other consenting adult relationships, including, at least same sex siblings, if not opposite sex, "marriage".
You need to read more carefully, small Peter. I never said adults couldn't adopt other adults. The issue is adoption creates a parent-child legal relationship, not a spouse-spouse legal relationship. Therefore adult adoption isn't a substitute for marriage since it doesn't make the adopter and adoptee eligible for the legal benefits and privileges conferred upon marriage.
But it does establish legal kinship. Granted it is not marriage, but legal kinship none the less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/your-money/...
It's not being redefined; it's having an unconstitutional restriction based on gender removed.
Orwellian new speak for, "yes it is being redefined but we won't call it that". Hmmmmm....so we take a pair or shoes, sped ate the left shoe form the right shoe. Pair the left shoe with another left shoe, and the right one with another right shoe. Did we just redefine a "pair of shoes"?
Marriage still accomplishes the same thing whether the participants are same sex, opposite sex or various combinations involving more than three people: creating kinship between previously unrelated people. Your definition is defective since it doesn't account for reality as it existed in the past, across cultures or in the present.
Not quite there sparky. The accomplishment of legal marriage in this country, nationwide prior to 2004, and yet still in over thirty states, is to join one man and one woman together as husband and wife, thus creating kinship between the two.
People don't have to be married to reproduce. In fact, almost half of children in the US are currently born out of wedlock.
Nor do people have to marry to love, have sex, live together, buy a home, or even call each other "husband" and "wife".
Marriage as a fundamental right is not based on procreation. The decision whether to procreate or not is a separate fundamental right protected by the constitutional guarantee of privacy.
No, it's based on the male female union.
Unfortunately, animus and discrimination like yours towards gays have been all too prevalent across time and cultures, creating the dearth of examples you then cite as the reason for why it shouldn't be recognized
Uhhhhhh....huh. You forget even in cultures, such as Ancient Greece, i beleive, where male same sex sexual behavior was tolerated and even celebrated on some level, it wasn't viewed as a substitute for marriage, the opposite sex kind..
So your argument is essentially "we've never allowed gays to marry and because there is no historicity of gay marriage we shouldn't allow it now." Just more of your usual circular reasoning.
Actually "gays", or to be more precise, individuals with self professed same sex attraction/orientation have always been allowed to marry, just like everyone else. It's been only recently that same sex unions have been designated "marriage", at least in the West.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11306 Oct 12, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
What that really means, small Peter, is whether SCOTUS reviewed the issue as an infringement of the fundamental right to marry or as violation of equal protection of the law, strict scrutiny would be the standard of judicial review applied because strict scrutiny is always applied in cases of fundamental rights and suspect classes (which race has been ruled). And they found there was NO legitimate much less compelling government interest/purpose to justify anti-miscegenation laws. They went even further and declared the sole reason for their existence was "invidious racial discrimination" which violates both substantive due process and equal protection.
One interesting aspect of the ruling to which you should pay close attention to is the idea that the fundamental right of marriage also includes "the freedom of choice".
That "freedom of choice" was still within the understanding of marriage as a union of husband and wife,
If you have the intellectual capability to process that, perhaps you might finally begin to understand why your constant suggestions that gays should just marry people of the opposite sex to comply with unconstitutional laws is insulting and repugnant rather than empathetic as you laughably think it is.
Not "should marry" but "could marry". What's insulting is this constant whining that you be treated any differ from any other man as it relates to marriage. Equal treatment is just that. Different situations can be, and should be treated differently. No need to redefine marriage in order to provide a legal structure, including benefits, to same sex couples. Seems odd that you would seek such a hated "heteronormative" institution.
IS this the 19th or early 20th century? No. No wonder your ideas and arguments are so outdated.
Oh wait, wasn't the term "homosexual" coined in the late 19th century, with the invention of "heterosexual" following soon after that?
Being gay, straight or bi is one's sexual orientation; it's simply a less formal lay term preferred by people who identify as such because is it sound less clinical than homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual.
Plus it sounds like a sandwich, like a BLT, and everybody loves sandwiches. I get it though....it just sometimes....such terms are over used....worn on one's sleeve, or car bumper.
Just like white is used instead of "caucasian" and black has taken over from "negro" and "colored" as the preferred term by people who identify as such.
Or Italian in place of......some of those ethnic slurs used by white people towards paisans.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11307 Oct 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
For you Pete:

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11308 Oct 12, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
Same sex marriages create kinship and families so are no different than opposite sex marriages in that respect.
Same sex marriages create......what?......duplica tion of gender? Breaks in the bloodline?
Regardless, State recognition of fundamental rights is required by the constitution; it's not something individuals have to prove has "value" to the state in order to receive state recognition.
In regards to this fundamental right, one must prove one is of the opposite sex of the individual to who one is going to be married to, at least in thirty plus states.
And when the unconstitutional gender restrictions in those states are removed, both same sesx and opposite sex couples will be conjugal.
Both men and women will be lesbians?
Conjugality is a result of marriage, small Peter, not a requirement for it. NO state requires marriage participants to prove themselves capable of sexual intercourse, much makes them promise to engage in it.
Conjugal as in husband AND wife. Not a reference to sexual intercourse.
Closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet won't stop the English language from evolving or constitutional justice from prevailing.
So men can finally be called lesbians too? Yaaaaaaaay....the English language wins!
And yet no polygamist, not even your oft cited Brown family, is actually litigating to have bigamy decriminalized. Again, you need to read the details of the lawsuit rather than just talking out of your ass.
Other polygamists have stated they like to see it decriminalized. They were reported in the media cheering the DOMA ruling.
Infringement of a fundamental right like marriage triggers strict scrutiny, not the lesser intermediate scrutiny used for quasi-suspect classes like sex. So the state needs to provide a compelling, not merely an important government interest ti infringe a person's right of marriage. And states can assert whatever they want is a compelling or an important government interest; it's the court that actually decides whether it is or not.
But the people can ultimately decide through the constitutional amendment process, either at the state or federal level.
The other aspect of strict scrutiny that doesn't get cited as frequently as the compelling government interest requirement is the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve the asserted interest and implemented using the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.
One man and one woman, is the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.
Unfortunately for you, your "we've always discriminated against gays and prohibited same sex marriages" argument doesn't meet any of the requirements of strict or intermediate scrutiny to be deemed a permissible infringement of the right to marry.
That could be said about incest, and polygamy too, which is strange that you object to those "restrictions" being removed. Why? If marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, is no longer the sole legal marital standard, why does it matter what other, besides same sex,consenting adult relationships are designated "marriage"?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11309 Oct 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Heteronormativity"? I was wondering when it would rear its ugly head. Oh the humanity! But bounds points for the comeback Potts. Bravo! Good job.
Your posts have always displayed heteronormativity. It's not something that just reared its ugly head; it's part of your interior ugliness you claim doesn't exist.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, just pointing out the irrelevance of interjecting sexual political identity labels into every aspect of this issue.
It's not a "sexual political identity label". Except perhaps to bigots. It refers to the person's sexual orientation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Agree, and no, quite the contrary, I have praised, on this thread, people who adopt children.
You praise gays who adopt children by advocating continued prohibition of giving them legal recognition of their marriages and the associated legal benefits and privileges conferred by marriage, some of which are child oriented?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sounds so coldly clinical. Do you mean medical assistance like when two men buy an egg, rent a womb, and mix their sperm together so as not to know who the biological father is? I wonder what "medical assistance" the children use to know their Mom?
Probably the same as opposite sex couples use when they employ that type of medical assistance.
Pietro Armando wrote:
But it is the primary function, or a least one of the primary functions, of matrimony, as many a court has ruled.
Procreation within marriage was of more importance in the past when social and cultural stigma as well as legal disabilities were imposed on children born out of wedlock. However, that's really not the case any more, likely due in no small part to SCOTUS ruling legitimacy a quasi-suspect class for equal protection law.

To the extent children have been cited in important recent court rulings, it's been in the context that gay couples have and raise children and those children are harmed relative to those of opposite sex couples due to the lack of legal recognition of same sex marriages and access to legal benefits and privileges that marriage confers.
Pietro Armando wrote:
As I said, the male female union.
Sex isn't marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What it proves, is that we, as a society, have devalued marriage, much to the detriment of our children.
And yet when a segment of society expresses a desire to be included within marriage, you still advocate discrimination against them and thus also harm the children they have. Hypocrite.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Still won't concede the "coitus" point I see.
On the contrary, it's you who ignore the fact the English language has evolved and left you behind. Much like you cling to the 19th century conflation of "race" and "ethnicity".
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, it proves marriage is still a male female union, orientated towards its procreative aspect.
Allowing opposite sex people who can't procreate to marry refutes your assertion.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11310 Oct 12, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
Issues that can be addressed.
Not without rewriting the laws of every state. Which is pretty much the same obstacle faced by those wishing to legalize polygamy. Doable? Yes. Easily?. No.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Legally recognizing same sex unions as "marriage" fundamentally alters the understanding of marriage.
No it doesn't. Kinship is established between unrelated parties for both same sex and opposite sex couples. When eliminating the gender restriction of current marriage laws, no other laws need to be rewritten.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Once that is done, it is not out of the realm of possibility to legally designate other consenting adult relationships, including, at least same sex siblings, if not opposite sex, "marriage".
One can always invoke the slippery slope fallacy against any change. But by all means, name all the countries and states that have given legal recognition to same sex marriages that have also allowed polygamous or incestuous marriages as well. I'll wait.
Pietro Armando wrote:
But it does establish legal kinship. Granted it is not marriage, but legal kinship none the less.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/your-money/...
Then of what relevance is your blathering regarding adult adoption? It's not a viable substitute for marriage nor does it confer the legal benefits and privileges associated with marriage. Only marriage does that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Orwellian new speak for, "yes it is being redefined but we won't call it that". Hmmmmm....so we take a pair or shoes, sped ate the left shoe form the right shoe. Pair the left shoe with another left shoe, and the right one with another right shoe. Did we just redefine a "pair of shoes"?
No. A pair still means "two" so you still have a pair of shoes regardless of their orientation.

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) 6 min WasteWater 13,127
When will Jade apologize two Frankie? 14 min Big Frankie Fan 11
News Churchill: Students could teach these trustees ... 14 min Sam 11
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 16 min Ismail 800
News Orlando Democrat: FDA should end ban on gay men... 38 min Nobert 21
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 41 min WasteWater 969
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Respect71 37,365
More from around the web