Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments
13,941 - 13,960 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15134
Jan 2, 2014
 
Ask Phil Robertson if GLAAD and other same sex marriage supporters didn't impact when they encouraged his employer to lock him out of work during the Christmas holidays. Ask the Christian florists, bakers and photographers who were sued for declining to support same sex marriage if there was any impact. The issue isn't freedom, every state allows same sex religious weddings, travel to jurisdictions that license same sex marriage and same sex habitation.

The issue is the greater social good, every gay was born from the union of one man and one woman. That's why marriage is male/female.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15135
Jan 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barry wrote:
<quoted text>i love your answer. want to join just say so. wnat to be a girl today just claim you are a girl in a man's body. which brings me back to my original statement.
california has now made it legal for a guy to be a lesbian.
What a country! Men can now be lesbians, at least in California. Will an extra letter be addeed to the rainbow alphabet soup marquee, or will the "L" suffice?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15136
Jan 2, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
Ask Phil Robertson if GLAAD and other same sex marriage supporters didn't impact when they encouraged his employer to lock him out of work during the Christmas holidays. Ask the Christian florists, bakers and photographers who were sued for declining to support same sex marriage if there was any impact. The issue isn't freedom, every state allows same sex religious weddings, travel to jurisdictions that license same sex marriage and same sex habitation.
The issue is the greater social good, every gay was born from the union of one man and one woman. That's why marriage is male/female.
You've picked yourself a great mascot there, Brian. You might want to choose a masthead that doesn't include hating women over the age of 16, only liking blacks when they're so happy they sing, believing all Muslims like to fly planes into buildings, etc. etc. The more your poster-boy opens his mouth, the more embarrassed your side is.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15137
Jan 2, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage harms all men and all women.
Let's see your bruises.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15139
Jan 2, 2014
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian, quit being a twit.
Allowing marriage equality has no impact upon anyone who wouldn't enter into such a union, and actually, it is necessary to allow marriage equality if we are serious about following the US Constitution.
Both marriage conjugality, and the constitution can be maintained. Conjugal marriage predates the constitution, which doesn't mention marriage at all, and the advent of political sexual identity labels.
Why do you hate freedom?
Why do you contradict yourself? If you want "freedom", don't seek a state license.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15140
Jan 2, 2014
 
nhjeff wrote:
You've picked yourself a great mascot there, Brian. You might want to choose a masthead that doesn't include hating women over the age of 16, only liking blacks when they're so happy they sing, believing all Muslims like to fly planes into buildings, etc. etc. The more your poster-boy opens his mouth, the more embarrassed your side is.
I don't agree with everything Phil or nhjeff says, but I defend their right to say it. I don't try to shut up political opponents, I like people to hear about the hate they spread.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15141
Jan 2, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't agree with everything Phil or nhjeff says, but I defend their right to say it. I don't try to shut up political opponents, I like people to hear about the hate they spread.
Me too. On the other hand, Free Speech doesn't force a broadcaster to support your speech. If I were on talk shows and the internet bad-mouthing my employer, I wouldn't have a job for long. I would still have the right to bad-mouth them, but I don't have a right to a job when I embarrass them.

Phil Robertson has repeatedly embarrassed his employer.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15142
Jan 2, 2014
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the evidence that genes play a large role in homosexuality has been well-established for decades. Studies of siblings and, especially, twins show statistically significant correlations, independent of the environment in which children are raised. This has been know for at least forty years.
What that exact role is in explaining same sex attraction, is still yet undetermined.
There is no specific gene that determines left-handedness or right-handedness, either. Yet we've stopped discriminating against and demonizing left-handed people.
Ohhhhhhhhhh....Kay....and engaging in same sex sexual behavior is the same as left handed ness?
Most importantly: Why does it make any difference whether it's genetic, gestational, environmental, or simply a choice? Marrying outside your race or religion is definitely a choice.
A choice that does not alter the conjugal understanding of marriage.
There is no more reason to discriminate against those who marry within their sex than those who marry outside their expected social norm.
Significant difference between marrying inter religiously, interracially, or inter economic classes, and marrying, which requires a fundamental redefinition of marriage, someone of the same sex.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15143
Jan 2, 2014
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see your bruises.
Easy there big fella.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15144
Jan 2, 2014
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
Easy there big fella.
The "harm" Brian purports is false.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15145
Jan 2, 2014
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
The "harm" Brian purports is false.
History will be the ultimate judge of whether or not fundamentally redefining marriage will be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15146
Jan 2, 2014
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
The "harm" Brian purports is false.
I lost track of our last exchange, every time I try to go back, I get distracted by another post from someone else. If you remember how far back it was, please, if you'd be so kind, refresh my memory. Grazie.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15147
Jan 2, 2014
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What that exact role is in explaining same sex attraction, is still yet undetermined.
You are so transparently stupid. We don't quite understand gravity, either. We're not sure what dark energy is, but we know that it's causing the universe to accelerate. There are lots of things we know without fully understanding them.

For instance, I can't understand how you can post such stupid garbage ad nauseum. But there it is on the boards for all to see.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15148
Jan 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
Me too. On the other hand, Free Speech doesn't force a broadcaster to support your speech. If I were on talk shows and the internet bad-mouthing my employer, I wouldn't have a job for long. I would still have the right to bad-mouth them, but I don't have a right to a job when I embarrass them. Phil Robertson has repeatedly embarrassed his employer.
If A&E had just said they don't agree with Phil's views, there would be no problem. Instead, they locked him out of his workplace without legal recourse. This proves, same sex marriage is about shutting down free speech in favor of PC speech codes instead of liberty.

If you love freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15150
Jan 3, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
History will be the ultimate judge of whether or not fundamentally redefining marriage will be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral.
Oh, HISTORY will be the judge? Then, you'd agree that Brian_G is being premature and false in simply ASSERTING that same sex marriage is harmful NOW to men and women? He seems to think that we can make that judgment today, WITHOUT waiting for history to weigh in. Do you agree or disagree with him?

Of course, if history is to be the judge, then we must allow these marriages to go forth. Otherwise, we would not be able to collect data on whether they are beneficial or detrimental. We can't make an assessment on the effects of something, if we don't allow that something to happen! Agree or disagree?

But I'm curious how MUCH history you think we need, before we can make these judgments. Some places in the US have been recognizing same-sex marriages for a decade. Is that long enough yet? Some world nations have been going longer than that. When will they begin to show their "harms"? Brian-G has suggested that we must wait 12 generations before we will see these effects. Depending on how one measures a generation, that could be anywhere from 240 to 300 years. Does that sound like a fair amount of time to you? Too little? Too much? RIDICULOUSLY too much?

What "harms" are we looking for, exactly? Can you not give SOME idea what we should be looking for? And why are you not worried about the harms that Civil Unions would cause? If this legal arrangement will provide all the exact same rights, and will lead to same-sex couples taking all the exact same actions in their lives, then why should we fear the changes from same-sex marriages, but not from civil unions? How can you be SURE that civil unions won't ALSO cause harm? Why don't you seem concerned that this is a possibility? Shouldn't we allow time and history to be the judge of civil unions also? Why or why not?
Pietro Armando wrote:
I lost track of our last exchange, every time I try to go back, I get distracted by another post from someone else. If you remember how far back it was, please, if you'd be so kind, refresh my memory. Grazie.
Oh, why don't you at least try to dodge today's questions, before we go looking for questions in the past for you to dodge?

I think you were completely ignoring the fact that people with homosexual desires have been historically killed, locked up and given extreme treatments such as electroshock or chemical castrations, and then you were naively wondering why a cultural identity did not develop and thrive under such oppressive abuse. You may have also been going on about some kind of enforced national registry of sexual orientation being a good idea, so that people must still marry according to your own personal preferences for them. There might also have been some complaint about gay married couples depriving children of their biological parents, while you had no opinion about gay UNmarried couples adopting, thereby depriving children of their biological parents.

You know, the usual types of logical, compassionate and attentive arguments we have come to expect here.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15151
Jan 3, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

We've already seen same sex marriage cause harm on the will of the voters, the legislature and the law in California, Massachusetts, Iowa and now Utah. In Egypt, the military overturns elections and in America its the activist leftist judges.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15152
Jan 3, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
We've already seen same sex marriage cause harm on the will of the voters, the legislature and the law in California, Massachusetts, Iowa and now Utah. In Egypt, the military overturns elections and in America its the activist leftist judges.
WHAT "harm"? Name the harm.

Do you support Civil Unions, like Pietro does? Do you think they cause equal harm?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15153
Jan 3, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
WHAT "harm"? Name the harm.
Do you support Civil Unions, like Pietro does? Do you think they cause equal harm?
Civil unions are SOOO last decade. I would be surprised if any more states enact civil unions or domestic partnerships. There are currently only four states that recognize those whatchamacallits. In any event, every state will be forced to accept marriage equality long before many of them would have voluntarily recognized same-sex couples.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15154
Jan 3, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
Civil unions are SOOO last decade. I would be surprised if any more states enact civil unions or domestic partnerships. There are currently only four states that recognize those whatchamacallits. In any event, every state will be forced to accept marriage equality long before many of them would have voluntarily recognized same-sex couples.
Oh I agree. I just don't understand how these opponents can fearmonger on and on about some supposed "harms" of same-sex marriage, while these "harms" seem to be magically eliminated if we use civil unions instead. And yet, none of these people can ennumerate the differences, if any, between civil unions and marriages. They champion civil unions, but they cannot prove that civil unions will NOT cause the very same harm (whatever that may be). They want us to wait and see what history tells us about same-sex marriage, but they don't seem to think that we need to wait for history to tell us anything about civil unions. It is a vacuum of logic.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15155
Jan 3, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
We've already seen same sex marriage cause harm on the will of the voters, the legislature and the law in California, Massachusetts, Iowa and now Utah. In Egypt, the military overturns elections and in America its the activist leftist judges.
on the cases brought before the courts.....there were NO RECOGNIZABLE HARMS. that is, your side "tried" to say some things that were ultimately refuted by THEIR OWN WITNESSES, and the judges found there was no state interest in not allowing same sex couples to marry.

....and that "will" of the voters? how about you try to show us from ALL the eligible voters that were registered with those states, just how many voted against same sex marriage? how big was that percentile of the entire voting base in each of those states?

bi, truly, get the facts before you spout off.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••