Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 20 comments on the Jan 7, 2013, NBC Chicago story 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15495 Jan 14, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm simply stating you have the right to petition government to address your grievances. I didn't give an opinion of whether you would be successful in an endeavor to remove the currently legally recognized compelling government interests on which the consanguinity and number restrictions on marriage based.
If the compelling government interest in marriage upon which conjugality is based is removed, then it's reasonable to foresee the possibility of monogamy, and/of consanguinity, also being removed. At that point, legal marriage may become pointless, if it means everything and anything.
No state has done away with "conjugality" in marriage, stupid Peter. Conjugality is a result of marriage, not a requirement for it.
"Conjugality" as in male female, husband and wife, OPPOSITE SEX. Yes, several states have done away with it, as the sole basis for legal marriage.
And it results from both opposite sex and same sex marriages.
Uhhhhhhh...huh.....down is now up.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15496 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I have no desire to punish anyone for their sexual orientation or any other trait; that's not how I roll. I defend marriage as one man and one woman because it benefits gays, whether they realize it or not.
Reason One for keeping marriage one man and one woman: posterity. Every gay was born of heterosexual union; if that's unfair, that's life. Tough love, marriage's not for everybody.
T.F., I don't insult and demean people who support same sex marriage; I just note they prefer sex segregation to perfectly sex integrated marriage - my sole objection here.
Gays have always existed, in the West they've never had so much freedom but ignoring the life and death plight of homosexuals in Tehran because of a same sex marriage agenda is evil and anti-life. Human rights should be universal; let's fight for what we agree, not bicker over redefining marriage. For the sake of gays, lesbians and transsexuals punished by their governments for victim less 'crimes'.
Many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman, some don't. Everyone's free to defend their views.
Reason one is false. Same sex marriage has no impact on opposite sex marriage. It is equally false that every gay was born from a heterosexual union. People are born many ways including from fertility clinic and surrogates. Many children are put up for adoption.

True about marriage. Marriage commitment fails around 50% of the time. It is not for everybody.

True, gays have always existed and will continue to do so. That being the case, who is a gay or lesbian supposed to marry assuming they want to do so?

Same sex marriage is evil and anti-life. The Bible condemns many kinds of promiscuity and sex outside of marriage. How is a homosexual supposed to follow God's way if they are forbidden to marry?

Of course you are free to defend your views but you need something to back those views with rather than empty propaganda Brian.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15497 Jan 14, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
By the way......you CAN'T defeat something that DOESN'T exist........and "GAY" or
"SAME-SEX" Marriage simple DOESN'T exist and that's why you have such a difficult time understanding it!!!!
So why were the laws changed to find it?
The right to marry is FUNDAMENTAL for ALL Americans who meet the martial requirements that the State sets...
Simple requirements too. Of age, able to consent, not closely related by blood, not currently married, and of the opposite sex from the other individual. The fundamental right to marry based on those requirements
....which at this time in 18 States includes Same-Sex Couples:-)
Oh so the FUNDAMENTAL right to marry was redefined for one group. Who's next? What requirement can we jettison next, and still call it a "fundamental right"? Monogamy? Consanguinity? Can we still call it "fundamental" at that point?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15498 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So why were the laws changed to find it?
<quoted text>
Simple requirements too. Of age, able to consent, not closely related by blood, not currently married, and of the opposite sex from the other individual. The fundamental right to marry based on those requirements
<quoted text>
Oh so the FUNDAMENTAL right to marry was redefined for one group. Who's next? What requirement can we jettison next, and still call it a "fundamental right"? Monogamy? Consanguinity? Can we still call it "fundamental" at that point?
Case study of fourteenth amendment rulings would shed light on that question for you. Your posts show your willful ignorance on the subject of fundamental rights.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15499 Jan 14, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
Reason one is false. Same sex marriage has no impact on opposite sex marriage.
Rewriting marriage law impacts everyone, Christians sued because their own religious beliefs prohibit serving for a same sex wedding, Christians locked out of their workplace for answering a question from the press about the nature of sin...

Reason number one, posterity. The future depends on male/female relations so marriage is one woman and one man. Sex segregated marriage is bad because it removes sex integration, sex diversity and affirmative action.

.
WasteWater wrote:
It is equally false that every gay was born from a heterosexual union. People are born many ways including from fertility clinic and surrogates.
Are you kidding? You don't think using surrogates isn't heterosexual reproduction? How do you fool the stork into bringing the baby to the homosexual couple at the fertility clinic? This I gotta hear; I love science fiction.

.
WasteWater wrote:
Many children are put up for adoption.
Catholic Charities was shut out of adoption service markets because they believe children's welfare is best served when they are raised by a mother and father.

.
WasteWater wrote:
True about marriage. Marriage commitment fails around 50% of the time. It is not for everybody.
Here we agree, marriage isn't for everybody.

.
WasteWater wrote:
True, gays have always existed and will continue to do so. That being the case, who is a gay or lesbian supposed to marry assuming they want to do so?
Do they want kids? Religious same sex marriage is legal in every state, so is travel to an from jurisdictions that license sex segregated marriage.

.
WasteWater wrote:
Same sex marriage is evil and anti-life. The Bible condemns many kinds of promiscuity and sex outside of marriage.
Same sex marriage is taboo.

.
WasteWater wrote:
How is a homosexual supposed to follow God's way if they are forbidden to marry?
There's no law stopping your commitment; I wish you all the best. You just don't get to rewrite marriage for everyone but you may love with all the fidelity and forbidden passion you desire. Just don't tell me the sexual details, please.

.
WasteWater wrote:
Of course you are free to defend your views but you need something to back those views with rather than empty propaganda Brian.
How about a civil discussion?

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#15500 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So why were the laws changed to find it?
<quoted text>
Simple requirements too. Of age, able to consent, not closely related by blood, not currently married, and of the opposite sex from the other individual. The fundamental right to marry based on those requirements
<quoted text>
Oh so the FUNDAMENTAL right to marry was redefined for one group. Who's next? What requirement can we jettison next, and still call it a "fundamental right"? Monogamy? Consanguinity? Can we still call it "fundamental" at that point?
The laws have NOT been changed to find it.......all that has been does is that marriage has become INCLUSIVE by NOT being gender specific!!!!

There is NO State compelling interest to keep marriage specifically just between a man and a woman.....and NO where in ANY ruling from SCOTUS has marriage been ruled ONLY a fundamental right just for opposite-sex couples!!!

If ya want the State martial requirements to change to include other things.....then challenge those items!!!

By the way, marriage is as monogamous as the couple decide it is for them.......otherwise, swingers would NOT exist!!!

By the way.....FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT is NOT based on having sex......it's about being able to make a major life decision for one's self and the person who wants to marry them!!!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15501 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
In Massachusettes, Iowa, California and Utah it was a the court that overthrew an election and invalidated the law
You leave out important adjectives. Those courts overthrew UNCONSTITUTIONAL elections and they invalidated UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws. It's important to recognize that the majority citizens in those states attempted to unlawfully strip the minority of their civil rights, and they were rightfully smacked down for doing so.

When you mischaracterize the events by leaving off important qualifiers which identify the misguided nature of those elections, then you will likely wind up with a biased and flawed understanding of the entire issue.
Brian_G wrote:
in Egypt it was the Army.
I really don't think the Egyptian army enforced same-sex marriage for Egyptians. Let's try to keep our perspective here.
Brian_G wrote:
When it comes to moral values like "fairness and equality", the citizenry are the only judge.
Oh my goodness NO. No, no, no, no, and no. Just no.

Are you seriously saying that we can all just TRUST the majority to always and unfailingly do the right thing? How do you explain slavery? Huge portions of the citizenry judged that to be fine and dandy.

What do you think that lawyers and judges go to school FOR? To hone their culinary skills? They study jurisprudence, because the average citizen doesn't have the first clue. Fairness and equality would die a quick death if we put them into the hands of most people.
Brian_G wrote:
Government must have the consent of the governed or it is illegitimate.
The government DOES have the consent of the governed. We call the consent form "The Constitution". This entrusts the government with doing the right thing based on pre-conceived principles, which "the governed" may not understand or even care about.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is bad because it is antidemocratic.
Does that mean it's also "bad" here in Washington, where the citizens voted on it? Or is it ALWAYS bad, no matter how democratic it is?

And, since you believe that government politicians glean some ephemeral "power" by forcing same-sex marriage onto an unwilling populace, would you say that politicians here in Washington were cheated OUT of their "power", since they allowed the citizens to enact it instead? Do California politicians have MORE power than our politicians here in Washington, because of the two different ways these laws worked out?

Help me out here. I'm trying to understand the consistent framework (I'm sure there is one, right?) that you're building your argument on.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15502 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Gay" is a sexual identity term, and a modern one at that, which one chooses to adopt. As is "bisexual", which implies a form of polygamy. So why can't one adopt "polygamist" as a sexual identity label?
The can do so only while IN a polygamist relationship. The label refers to the number of people within a relationship, not some innate personal characteristic. It is not a sexual "identity" if other people can deprive you of it.

There is NO SUCH THING (which I've explained before) as a person who is ONLY able to fall in love with multiple people at a time. Gays, bisexuals AND heterosexuals can always be described by their orientation. It's a part of them (us all).

Those of us who are different from the norm might just understand this better than you "mainstreamers" can. We know what it's like to have feelings that other people not only reject, but condemn and villainize.

There simply AREN'T "polygamists" who go through this. Gay teenagers KILL THEMSELVES from their perceptions of exclusion. But we've ALL been occasionally attracted to more than one person. My partner knows he'd have to share me with Paul Rudd if I had the chance. But being horny for a different pretty face than the one next to you does not make you part of some "class" of people, and it does not define any "identity".
Pietro Armando wrote:
Think Utah, mid to late 19th century.
Please, do cite some sources which document this mistreatment. What year were polygamists allowed to openly serve in the military? Yeah, thought so.

Don’t you think that it would be profoundly unusual to find a class of people confined to a single state, the way that polygamy is largely confined to Utah? Hopefully you can see how that deconstructs your point. Homosexuality is not caused by local religions or state borders.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why is it suddenly an issue now?
What does the timing have to do with it? Why was DADT “suddenly” an issue at the time that it was? Why was the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gay school teachers “suddenly” an issue in 1978? Gay people are sick of being told we’re “abominations”, and that we’re unfit for the most basic civil rights. We’ve been fighting that all along, but “suddenly” we’re winning our cases.

It’s YOUR side that has “suddenly” run out of effective rebuttals.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage, and it's definition within a particular state, is determined by that particular state.
Oh, so you would support a state if it decided to stop recognizing out-of-state marriages? If Alabama decided that “marriage” was defined as “a legal joining of one Alabaman man and one Alabaman woman”, you’d be supportive of that?

I don’t think that states can just define marriage ANY way they want, and I think that’s going to be worked out in the courts in the coming years.

States ADMINISTER marriage, but that is not the same thing as having the freedom to apply ANY definition they feel like, or being free to needlessly discriminate.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Now all of a sudden a federal Judge, tells the state of Utah of all states, ironically, it can no longer maintain the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, within its own borders. Perhaps the Feds should rescind its demand that polygamy be abolished as a condition of statehood, or continued state hood.
Perhaps they should. You go tell them that’s what they should do. I’ll wait here.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15503 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
These cases show......
... not a single case of marriage being denied to a couple by their state due to their inability to procreate. Which is what I asked for.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Apparently those states changed the rules.....more kids get trophies now.
Actually, no, it was the states which ADDED amendments to their constitutions which changed the rules. The states which allow same-sex marriage have come to see that there has been no change to "the rules". Marriages there function just as they always have, ensuring the security of the participants.

But I'm amused at the insensitive short-sightedness which is going to eventually cause your side to lose this nationwide. No one is after trophies for kids. The stakes for our families are much higher than you obviously care to understand.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It can also be delegalized....states, nations, can cease to legally recognize it too.
Not likely. But I’ll take this as an admission that you DO acknowledge my point. Marriage is only a legal arrangement. It’s definition is as changeable as any law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Debunked"? Is that what happens when one falls out of a bunk bed?
Yes, when they oversleep instead of coming up with solid, logical arguments.

Sheesh. I feel a bit like I've brought a bazooka to a knife fight.
Pietro Armando wrote:
We can recognize __________ marriage. Just fill it in.
Now you’re getting it, though it isn’t always just as simple as “filling it in”. A same-sex marriage requires no alterations to how marriage is administered to the two people married. A multi-party marriage requires “filling in” corrections and compensations (1,138 times) so that all participating spouses are represented fairly. Complete THAT work first, and then I’d LOVE to consider polygamous marriages.

But don’t think I didn’t see your dodge. I asked why we can’t recognize same-sex marriages, and you of course diverted to another angle. The old “slippery slope”, to be exact. Gay marriage might lead to recognizing ANYTHING that can fit in the blank!

But disregarding whatever OTHER types of marriages you fear in the future, what specific reason do you have for denying same-sex marriages, specifically?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15504 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Rewriting marriage law impacts everyone, Christians sued because their own religious beliefs prohibit serving for a same sex wedding, Christians locked out of their workplace for answering a question from the press about the nature of sin...
Reason number one, posterity. The future depends on male/female relations so marriage is one woman and one man. Sex segregated marriage is bad because it removes sex integration, sex diversity and affirmative action.
.
<quoted text>Are you kidding? You don't think using surrogates isn't heterosexual reproduction? How do you fool the stork into bringing the baby to the homosexual couple at the fertility clinic? This I gotta hear; I love science fiction.
.
<quoted text>Catholic Charities was shut out of adoption service markets because they believe children's welfare is best served when they are raised by a mother and father.
.
<quoted text>Here we agree, marriage isn't for everybody.
.
<quoted text>Do they want kids? Religious same sex marriage is legal in every state, so is travel to an from jurisdictions that license sex segregated marriage.
.
<quoted text>Same sex marriage is taboo.
.
<quoted text>There's no law stopping your commitment; I wish you all the best. You just don't get to rewrite marriage for everyone but you may love with all the fidelity and forbidden passion you desire. Just don't tell me the sexual details, please.
.
<quoted text>How about a civil discussion?
Perhaps, but in a very positive way. Misguided Christians need to stop busy bodying themselves in the affairs of others. First amendment rights protect those who wish to bury their heads in the sand.

Huge fallacy due to the fact that same sex marriage changes nothing with regard to who has children and family structures. Everyone will do what they already do regardless. Are you implying that same sex marriage will suddenly make all people gay? You must be kidding.

You have no franchise on marriage. or the definition of marriage. If a person is gay or lesbian, and that person has a relationship with God, then it is between that person and God. Suppose that person feels that God favors a marriage commitment to another person. Why should they be shut out of the relationship and the church? What you are saying makes no sense.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#15505 Jan 14, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
... not a single case of marriage being denied to a couple by their state due to their inability to procreate. Which is what I asked for.
<quoted text>
Actually, no, it was the states which ADDED amendments to their constitutions which changed the rules. The states which allow same-sex marriage have come to see that there has been no change to "the rules". Marriages there function just as they always have, ensuring the security of the participants.
But I'm amused at the insensitive short-sightedness which is going to eventually cause your side to lose this nationwide. No one is after trophies for kids. The stakes for our families are much higher than you obviously care to understand.
<quoted text>
Not likely. But I’ll take this as an admission that you DO acknowledge my point. Marriage is only a legal arrangement. It’s definition is as changeable as any law.
<quoted text>
Yes, when they oversleep instead of coming up with solid, logical arguments.
Sheesh. I feel a bit like I've brought a bazooka to a knife fight.
<quoted text>
Now you’re getting it, though it isn’t always just as simple as “filling it in”. A same-sex marriage requires no alterations to how marriage is administered to the two people married. A multi-party marriage requires “filling in” corrections and compensations (1,138 times) so that all participating spouses are represented fairly. Complete THAT work first, and then I’d LOVE to consider polygamous marriages.
But don’t think I didn’t see your dodge. I asked why we can’t recognize same-sex marriages, and you of course diverted to another angle. The old “slippery slope”, to be exact. Gay marriage might lead to recognizing ANYTHING that can fit in the blank!
But disregarding whatever OTHER types of marriages you fear in the future, what specific reason do you have for denying same-sex marriages, specifically?
damn.

you're good.

and patient enough to answer so many of these ridiculous posts.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15506 Jan 14, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Reason one is false. Same sex marriage has no impact on opposite sex marriage.
Time will tell.
It is equally false that every gay was born from a heterosexual union.
Let's keep this simple and dispense with the modern sexual identity labels. Every man or woman is a a product of the male female union, at the very least, a joining of their genetic materials.
People are born many ways including from fertility clinic and surrogates. Many children are put up for adoption.
A man and a woman are still involved on some level.
True about marriage. Marriage commitment fails around 50% of the time. It is not for everybody.
That number varies based on a number of factors. First time marriages have an overall lower divorce rate. Religion, ethnicity, socio economic factors, also play a role.
True, gays have always existed and will continue to do so.
False. People who have engaged in same sex sexual behavior, and or professed a same sex attraction have existed. "Gays" are a recent invention, only a few decades old.
That being the case, who is a gay or lesbian supposed to marry assuming they want to do so?
Who have they married throughout time and place, long before modern sexual identity labels became all the rage? I would guess, someone of the opposite sex, no different from any other man or woman.
Same sex marriage is evil and anti-life.
Uhhhhhh...okay...not sure about all of that.
The Bible condemns many kinds of promiscuity and sex outside of marriage. How is a homosexual supposed to follow God's way if they are forbidden to marry?
They're not forbidden to marry, they can, and have, married like any other man or woman, through out time and place. "Homosexual" wasn't coined until the late 19th century. So why would such a word be found anywhere in any biblical book?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15507 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Time will tell.
<quoted text>
Let's keep this simple and dispense with the modern sexual identity labels. Every man or woman is a a product of the male female union, at the very least, a joining of their genetic materials.
<quoted text>
A man and a woman are still involved on some level.
<quoted text>
That number varies based on a number of factors. First time marriages have an overall lower divorce rate. Religion, ethnicity, socio economic factors, also play a role.
<quoted text>
False. People who have engaged in same sex sexual behavior, and or professed a same sex attraction have existed. "Gays" are a recent invention, only a few decades old.
<quoted text>
Who have they married throughout time and place, long before modern sexual identity labels became all the rage? I would guess, someone of the opposite sex, no different from any other man or woman.
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhh...okay...not sure about all of that.
<quoted text>
They're not forbidden to marry, they can, and have, married like any other man or woman, through out time and place. "Homosexual" wasn't coined until the late 19th century. So why would such a word be found anywhere in any biblical book?
Time will tell what? Are you implying that same sex marriage will make everyone become gay or lesbian? Are you kidding me?

Irrelevant

True

Hair splitting. The label doesn't matter. Homosexuals have always existed and will continue to do so.

They had to hide or have shame marriages. Things are improving for them.

Sham marriages don't count. Are you advocating such dishonesty?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15508 Jan 14, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Case study of fourteenth amendment rulings would shed light on that question for you. Your posts show your willful ignorance on the subject of fundamental rights.
Really? So what union.....what definition of marriage, is at the heart of the fundamental right to marry? Can anyone define marriage and it still remain a fundamental right?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15509 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Really? So what union.....what definition of marriage, is at the heart of the fundamental right to marry? Can anyone define marriage and it still remain a fundamental right?
The legal joining of two unrelated adults as legally recognized family.

What's so wrong with that?

Why don't you start us off by defining "fundamental right"? Maybe you have a different idea of that concept than everyone else does.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15510 Jan 14, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws have NOT been changed to find it......
So eliminating the opposite sex requirement is not a change in the law?
.all that has been does is that marriage has become INCLUSIVE by NOT being gender specific!!!!
It was inclusive before...it included men and women.
There is NO State compelling interest to keep marriage specifically just between a man and a woman.....
No compelling interest you agree with.
and NO where in ANY ruling from SCOTUS has marriage been ruled ONLY a fundamental right just for opposite-sex couples!!!
The right is an individual right, not a "couple's right".
If ya want the State martial requirements to change to include other things.....then challenge those items!!!
Why not change them now and be REALLY inclusive....just think about how inclusive it would be if we did that? From an individual right to marry to a couple's right.....to a group right!
By the way, marriage is as monogamous as the couple decide it is for them.......otherwise, swingers would NOT exist!!!
Really Nor....you have a master's degree....right? "Monogamy" as opposed to "polygamy", not sexual fidelity.
By the way.....FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT is NOT based on having sex....
I never said it was. It's based on the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
..it's about being able to make a major life decision for one's self and the person who wants to marry them!!!
OUTSTANDING! Why Nor I do believe, in that one statement, you just created a fundamental right to marry ANY CONSENTING ADULT(S).....,"to make a major life decision for one's self and the person -or persons-who wants to marry them!!!".

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#15511 Jan 14, 2014
I've been informed that a Judge in Oklahoma has ruled in favor of Marriage Equality, but stayed his ruling for a pending appeal.....to what Circuit Court of Appeals......that's right the 10th!!!

We could have both Oklahoma, Utah and maybe the rest of the 10th territory by this summer!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15512 Jan 14, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal joining of two unrelated adults as legally recognized family.
Hmmmmmmm....very generic....almost clinical sounding. Any historical basis, American history to it? Remember first cousins can marry in some states.
What's so wrong with that?
Again too generic. What's wrong with two related person who wish to be designated "spouses for life" by the state? Now there's another definition of marriage we could use....that is if we're going to start creating new ones.
Why don't you start us off by defining "fundamental right"?
Let's stick with the fundamental right of marriage. How about the fundamental right to marry......enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Maybe you have a different idea of that concept than everyone else does.
No, actually the same concept that existed for quite some time now.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#15513 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So eliminating the opposite sex requirement is not a change in the law?
<quoted text>
It was inclusive before...it included men and women.
<quoted text>
No compelling interest you agree with.
<quoted text>
The right is an individual right, not a "couple's right".
<quoted text>
Why not change them now and be REALLY inclusive....just think about how inclusive it would be if we did that? From an individual right to marry to a couple's right.....to a group right!
<quoted text>
Really Nor....you have a master's degree....right? "Monogamy" as opposed to "polygamy", not sexual fidelity.
<quoted text>
I never said it was. It's based on the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
<quoted text>
OUTSTANDING! Why Nor I do believe, in that one statement, you just created a fundamental right to marry ANY CONSENTING ADULT(S).....,"to make a major life decision for one's self and the person -or persons-who wants to marry them!!!".
Marriage requirements have NOT eliminated ANYTHING for opposite-sex couples......just have INCLUDED Same-Sex Couples.....what part of that DON'T you get?

Marriage included men and women who wanted to marry the OPPOSITE-SEX.......Gays and Lesbians in today's society AREN'T interested in that sole option NOR should they be required to!!!

No COMPELLING State interest that the Courts have agreed with!!!

Exactly......I had the RIGHT to marry my wife and she had the RIGHT to marry me......we exercised that right TOGETHER......which is what MOST couples do!!!

Sorry, Pete.....not going to discuss your polygamy issue.....either file a lawsuit or STFU about it.......because you are NOT really interested in seeing polygamy become legal ANYMORE than you accept the right to marry for a Same-Sex Couple!!!

How a couple define's their marriage is THEIR right.......I know how I define my marriage:-)

Really? Then my wife and I would NOT be legally married because NEITHER of us is a man.....yet, we are LEGALLY married and NO man is involved!!!

Yes, I said this, "to make a major life decision for one's self and the person -or persons-who wants to marry them!!!"....however as it APPLIES to the State's marital requirements....not as a free for all!!!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15515 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hmmmmmmm....very generic....almost clinical sounding.
So? Is that a problem? Definitions usually ARE clinical sounding.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Any historical basis, American history to it?
Sure, every American who ever got married. Including the last 10 years of American history.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Remember first cousins can marry in some states.
Remember, first cousins are often not blood related, and are only cousins because of someone ELSE'S marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Again too generic. What's wrong with two related person who wish to be designated "spouses for life" by the state?
Marriage establishes kinship. That's the whole foundation of the benefits that are granted. Two related persons have no need of establishing kinship.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Let's stick with the fundamental right of marriage.
Why? Why dodge one of my questions AGAIN? Habit?

You want to discuss definitions? Then let’s discuss them. You want a definition of marriage which qualifies it as a “fundamental right”. How can we agree on that, if we’re working with two different ideas of what fundamental rights are? Tell me exactly what you think a “fundamental right” IS.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How about the fundamental right to marry......enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
You mean …enter into a legally recognized union of two unrelated adults? Your “husband and wife” addition is not a requirement where I live. Your definition is inconsistent across the nation. Mine is not.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, actually the same concept that existed for quite some time now.
Demonstrate that we have the same idea of the concept, by providing your definition of “fundamental rights”.

What does the amount of time matter? People had a right to own slaves for a long time. Women had no right to vote for a long time.“Quite some time” is a pointless qualifier. Wrongs aren’t righted by being wrong for a longer period of time.

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 Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 2 min Holy Guacamole 222
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 min The_Box 20,043
News Judge rules in favor of printer that refused ga... 4 min Wondering 8
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 6 min Blackburn 32,087
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 8 min The_Box 3,251
News Congressman introduces resolution to protect LG... 8 min Holy Guacamole 21
News Poll: More faiths embracing gay marriage 14 min Eleanor 31
Are the mods fair and balanced? 57 min Reverend Alan 665
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 2,138
More from around the web