Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 20 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: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11326 Oct 13, 2013
No Comment wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but two left shoes is not NORMAL,
....even if it DOES "occur in nature".
(Who's side are you arguing for, anyway?)
Shoes are a human constructs - people are not.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11327 Oct 13, 2013
No Comment wrote:
<quoted text>But straights are whining about "equal protection of law",..
Because they are ALREADY protected by the law.

At least make some sense.

If we were to strip away each and every protection and benefit of legal marriage, you don't think straight married people would scream to high heaven?

Geesh.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11328 Oct 13, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Just ask any straight couple why they get married.... it's all about the financial aspects. Just ask any one of them.
That would be "opposite sex couple", not straight.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11329 Oct 13, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they are ALREADY protected by the law.
At least make some sense.
If we were to strip away each and every protection and benefit of legal marriage, you don't think straight married people would scream to high heaven?
Geesh.
Its opposite sex couple, not straight.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11330 Oct 13, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Shoes are a human constructs - people are not.
Is sexual identity a recent human construct?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11331 Oct 13, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not out of the realm of possibility that you could LEARN a few things about logic, as well. However, it is highly doubtful given your hyperbolic mindset and penchant for emotion-laden arguments.
Impressive....I see Mrs Blowme's little boy Neil has been reading the dictionary again. Bravo!

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11332 Oct 13, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
So does that mean, as a counter, your posts either display a homonormativity, or a homoabnormativity?
No. Why don't you try looking up the meaning of the word so you don't look so stupid?
Pietro Armando wrote:
One man's ugly, is other man's, or woman's beauty.
This really isn't anything beautiful about bigotry and discrimination. BUt keep lying to yourself if it helps you get through the day.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh but it is, hence the various politically associated organizations, and use of a rainbow flag, both the flag itself, and as an identifying symbol
Gay refers to sexual orientation. That groups of people with common concerns or characteristics also create organizations to pursue political, philanthropic or cultural goals is not limited to gays. When I refer to gay people in my comments, I'm referring to their sexual orientation, not the Human Rights Campaign. The rainbow flag is primarily cultural, although nothing stops people from using it politically as well. Or do you think all donkeys are really democrats and all elephants are actually republicans?
Pietro Armando wrote:
I praise anyone who adopts a child, however that doesn't mean marital status is conferred upon the adopting adults.
If you were truly concerned about the welfare of children, you'd advocate allowing the legal privileges and benefits of marriage be made available to all families that included adopted children, not just some of them. Or you'd advocate against current public policy that allows single people (whether gay or straight) or same sex couples from adopting rather than praising "anyone who adopts a child". As it is, your advocacy is incongruent with your stated concerns with the fate of children. A situation not uncommon among bigots.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Both present an ethical concern, with the same sex couple complicating things further by deny the child, one parent, even if the biological offspring of someone else, an opposite sex parent.
But apparently not a sufficient ethical concern to legally prohibit the practice. In which case your ethical concern applies only to yourself.

And same sex couples don't deny children "one parent". You do realize that a "couple" means two, don't you? Perhaps you meant to say a same sex couple denies a child a parent of both sexes. But then so do single adoptive parents and the state doesn't prohibit that nor have I heard you advocate against it since you praise "anyone who adopts". Which again points out the incongruence of your advocacy positions.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So you do admit procreation within the marital relationship was acknowledged by society, and the courts, as the desired setting, and a function, if not the primary, at least one of the primary functions of matrimony. Thank you for that admission.
Yes, it was important IN THE PAST due to the social and legal stigma attached to illegitimacy. But apparently even straight people grew tired of punishing children for the conduct of adults so attitudes and the law changed.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Never the less it is just as important today as in the past, although I agree the stigma attached to out of wedlock births is no longer as strong as it once was. Never the less, procreation within the marital relationship is still the preferred setting, not only for society as a whole, but for the individual children as well.
Preferred by whom? And to be clear, the word "preferred' isn't a synonym for "required". So in the end, it's simply a choice by the individuals involved, a choice that is a constitutionally protected individual right and with which the state can't interfere or mandate.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11333 Oct 13, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
What specific harm do these children experience by the lack of same sex marriage recognition?
From the majority opinion of Windsor v. United States:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

"DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C.§106; Treas. Reg.§1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or re- duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012)(benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf." ;

link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/...
Pietro Armando wrote:
If those children are harmed by such lack, what does that mean for children of plural marriage families?
Such children are still related by blood to their parents and thus not disadvantaged in the way that adopted children are when the state refuses to grant joint adoption to same sex couples from whom they withhold legal marriage recognition.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I was stating an obvious fact, both u and I, as well as everyone else on this thread, are the products of a male female union.
You know for a fact that everyone posting or reading this thread is the product of natural procreation and not in vitro fertilization or some other medically assisted technique? Really? That's quite an impressive power of omniscience; too bad it doesn't routinely manifest in all your posting.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet you wish to fundamentally alter the very object you seek. Strange that your desire to enter into the institution of marriage only if you can do so without by one half of the marital relationship, either the husband or wife.
The gender requirement is merely a restriction on exercising the fundamental right; it's not the fundamental right itself. Gays are fundamentally changing what marriage does, they're removing the unconstitutional restriction that has prevented them from exercising their fundamental right in a manner congruent with their innate sexual orientation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, not at all, Language continues to evolve, some words slower than others or not at all. Some even become the opposite of what they once meant. "Gay" once described various hedonistic, or unconventional opposite sex persons and practices.
Yet you ignore the dictionary citation that proved the meaning of the word "coitus" is also evolving and keep insisting not only does it apply only to opposite sex couples but is a requirement of marriage as well.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Courts have ruled procreation a function of matrimony, knowing the not all married couples (OS) could, or would
bear children
Then it's not a valid reason for withholding legal marriage recognition from same sex couples since they are no differently situated than the exception you make for certain opposite sex couples.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11334 Oct 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Agreed.
Yes it does. Marriage establishes a man and woman as husband and wife.
No, that's simply more of your circular reasoning. Plus it ignores both current and historical reality across time and cultures.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That is the historic, cultural, social, legal, at least in thirty plus states
A reality that included animus and discrimination directed at gays that prevented them from historically participating in the institution of marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
and/or religious understanding of marriage.
Religion is irrelevant to civil marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Creating kinship between two unrelated, first cousins excluded, men, or women, is an alien concept, a recent legal creation within American marital jurisprudence.
What a coincidence; so is the removal of the legal impediments constructed by straight people that have historically discriminated against gays and prevented them from marrying someone congruent with their sexual orientation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
True.
Simply because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't not eliminate its plausible possibility.
That's what makes it the slippery slope fallacy: advocating against a change now because "something" >> might << happen "sometime" in the future. Or not. Which inherently means the change being contemplated can't be a causal effect if the feared future change isn't a certainty.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The UK does recognize polygamous marriages for welfare purposes.
It recognizes such marriages in cases where the marriage was contracted outside the UK and the people involved are now residing in the UK. The UK still doesn't issue multiple marriage licenses to those living in the country that wish to marry multiple partners.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nor did I claim it did. However it does establish legal kinship, and some same sex couples have used I in the past to do just that for financial purpose, as the article from the link had revealed.
It still doesn't address the full gamut of legal benefits and privileges conferred by marriage so it isn't a substitute for marriage and not relevant to a discussion of marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How many pairs of two left, or two right, shoes do you own?
None. But then I don't have two left or two right feet. But for someone whose feet are differently oriented than the norm, a pair consisting of a left and a right shoe wouldn't work. However, you'd just demand they go shoeless.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11335 Oct 13, 2013
No Comment wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but two left shoes is not NORMAL,
If by "normal" you mean not typical, that's true. But being atypical does not make something "abnormal".
No Comment wrote:
....even if it DOES "occur in nature".
If something occurs in nature, it's a natural variant of whatever characteristic is being examined. And it's normal for those possessing that variant of the characteristic.
No Comment wrote:
(Who's side are you arguing for, anyway?)
Too lazy to read my posts? I'm on the side advocating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law for ALL citizens.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#11336 Oct 13, 2013
No Comment wrote:
"Gay" marriage has nothing to do with love or relationships. It's ALL about the financial aspects. It's all about GREED.
Just ask any one of them....
What an ASININE comment........and as a legally married Lesbian......IT'S HARDLY BEEN ABOUT THE BENEFITS.......idiot!!!

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11337 Oct 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is sexual identity a recent human construct?
It's a recent human understanding based on our continued learning about ourselves.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11338 Oct 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Impressive....I see Mrs Blowme's little boy Neil has been reading the dictionary again. Bravo!
If only we could convince you to read a dictionary that wasn't last updated in the 19th century...

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11339 Oct 13, 2013
In my previous post # 11333, I meant to say:

"Gays are NOT fundamentally changing what marriage does, they're removing the unconstitutional restriction that has prevented them from exercising their fundamental right in a manner congruent with their innate sexual orientation."

I inadvertently left out the word "not".
No Comment

New Port Richey, FL

#11340 Oct 13, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Shoes are a human constructs -.
So is marriage.
No Comment

New Port Richey, FL

#11341 Oct 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
In my previous post # 11333, I meant to say:
"Gays are NOT fundamentally changing what marriage does, they're removing the unconstitutional restriction that has prevented them from exercising their fundamental right in a manner congruent with their innate sexual orientation."
I inadvertently left out the word "not".
Me too. I just forgot to throw a hissy fit about it.
No Comment

New Port Richey, FL

#11342 Oct 13, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>

......IT'S HARDLY BEEN ABOUT THE BENEFITS.......!!!
Not one of the 1400 and blah blah blah you were brow-beating last week?

....REALLY?

Then what IS it that makes the gender distressed think they're "equal",...in ANY respect?
No Comment

New Port Richey, FL

#11343 Oct 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If by "normal" you mean not typical, that's true. But being atypical does not make something "abnormal".
<quoted text>
If something occurs in nature, it's a natural variant of whatever characteristic is being examined. And it's normal for those possessing that variant of the characteristic.
<quoted text>
Too lazy to read my posts? I'm on the side advocating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law for ALL citizens.
..except consenting adult relatives and groups...

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#11344 Oct 13, 2013
No Comment wrote:
<quoted text>
Not one of the 1400 and blah blah blah you were brow-beating last week?
....REALLY?
Then what IS it that makes the gender distressed think they're "equal",...in ANY respect?
What the hell are ya whining about now?

All I said was that Gays and Lesbians are NOT just getting married for the benefits when they just STARTED getting federal recognition and federal benefits.......especially since most of these couples have been legally married over 5 years and have been together longer in some cases.....so, YES.....we are getting married for love and for companionship and for the relationship!!!

By the way, my legal marriage is equal to an opposite-sex couple who is legally married whether you like it or not!!!

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11345 Oct 13, 2013
No Comment wrote:
<quoted text>..except consenting adult relatives and groups...
Desiring incestuous or polygamous relationships is driven by individual choice, not an innate characteristic like sexual orientation. The prohibitions against the former have been deemed compelling government interests and thus permissible restrictions on the fundamental right of marriage.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ben Carson joins 2016 race 7 min Wall 11
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 7 min RevKen 32,370
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 9 min Rose_NoHo 2,447
What Brand Enema Does NE Jade Use? 10 min PETA 8
Are the mods fair and balanced? 10 min Frankie Rizzo 829
News 8 Shocking Statements Opponents Of Marriage Equ... 10 min Lawrence Wolf 90
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 14 min WeTheSheeple 527
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 33 min Respect71 20,673
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 46 min Frankie Rizzo 59,583
News Gay marriage foe's argument seems to leave Supr... 59 min Dan 114
More from around the web