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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#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.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#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!!!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#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...

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#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...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#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!!!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11346 Oct 13, 2013
No Comment wrote:
<quoted text>Me too. I just forgot to throw a hissy fit about it.
i didn't "throw a hissy fit"; I merely posted a correction after I realized my oversight. But if it makes you feel better, I'll consider this post of yours as your "hissy fit" since you apparently weren't content to just acknowledge your own oversight.
No Comment

New Port Richey, FL

#11347 Oct 13, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!!
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal accomplishment of marriage is to establish kinship between previously unrelated parties.
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TP39MT577DHK0...
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
The federal government does NOT recognize civil unions. Neither do some businesses, so you can take your "Get a Civil Union" suggestion and shove it.
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TP39MT577DHK0...
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps more importantly,...
The Supreme Court cases that make it clear marriage remains a fundamental right even when ...ability to have sex are clearly impossible,...
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TP39MT577DHK0...

Seems it's all bout the government benefits,
but only until that gets pointed out....
No Comment

New Port Richey, FL

#11348 Oct 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yeah, you keep saying that, but haven't quoted even ONE, yet.

Anyway,...

Desire, huh?

Could you define "homosexuality" again for the class?

Or will that subrogate your discriminatory attitude towards,...."desire" ?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11349 Oct 13, 2013
No Comment wrote:
Seems it's all bout the government benefits,but only until that gets pointed out....
I guess that MUST be the only reason heterosexual couples marry, right? Just for the benefits? Those greedy SOB's.........sorry, but it's really NONE of your concern why ANY couple get's married........I know I married for a lot more reasons than just the benefits:-)

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11351 Oct 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
Sorry Pietro, can infertile heterosexual couples legally marry? If so, then your argument is physically proven to be incorrect.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
Pietro, unless you have managed to find a compelling state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between opposite sex couples, then this argument also is similarly debunked. It appears that you can't remotely defend the arguments that you are advancing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not as it relates to SSM, at least siblings.
Congratulations, you have just made an excellent argument for same sex incest. You have not made a valid argument against same sex marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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?
Uhm, as there is no such denial going on, save for the denial of same sex couples to marry, your point is moot.

Well played, Pietro. You offered four distinct arguments, and none of them have any basis in reality.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11352 Oct 13, 2013
No Comment wrote:
Yeah, you keep saying that, but haven't quoted even ONE, yet.
Anti-bigamy laws: REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).
Anti-incest laws: State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507, 2007-Ohio-606
No Comment wrote:
Anyway,...
Desire, huh?
Could you define "homosexuality" again for the class?
Or will that subrogate your discriminatory attitude towards,...."desire" ?
When you can cite the research that substantiates being attracted to multiple partners or blood relatives is driven by an innate characteristic like sexual orientation, then I will entertain your assertion they are comparable.
fatbacks x

Portland, OR

#11353 Oct 13, 2013
Tax the churchs and everey swing d--- sponging off congregations hoping their preacher doesn't recommend them for hell. What a "fear" bulls--t game they got going!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11354 Oct 13, 2013
Wise_Crack_er wrote:
<quoted text>
No, most people get married to their children aren't considered bastards,....or worse,....science projects.
<quoted text>
Stop blubbering you emotional basket case. All I said was gays aren't in it for love, they're after the financial benefits. You sitting there projecting MY statement to other people,
... serves no purpose other than proving that the hit dog yelps.
What about those couples who have no children? What is their reason for getting married?

And by the way, there are many couples who have children and don't get married and their children AREN'T considered Bastards......we live in the 21st century in 2013......not the 20th century in 1940!!!

and I'm telling you that Gay and Lesbian couples marry for LOVE you idiot.....just like opposite-sex couples marry for love!!!

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 Cake fundraiser supports gay marriage as Suprem... 24 min Prisoner of my Mo... 2
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 42 min River Tam 56,118
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 43 min neighbor 2,420
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 49 min Agents of Corruption 10,111
News Free weddings for all same-sex couples: mayor's... 56 min Rainbow Kid 9
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 1 hr Xstain Spot Remover 65
News Same-sex marriage protesters clash - exchange v... 3 hr Prisoner of my Mo... 4
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 4 hr EdmondWA 105
News Senate hopeful Roy Moore: gay sex is the 'same ... 10 hr EdmondWA 33
More from around the web