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.

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?

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#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!!!".

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#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.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#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!!!

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#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.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#15516 Jan 14, 2014
#19

Oklahoma's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage struck down!

http://www.edgeboston.com/news/national/News/...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15517 Jan 14, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage requirements have NOT eliminated ANYTHING for opposite-sex couples.....
Ohhhhhh....Kay
.just have INCLUDED Same-Sex Couples.....what part of that DON'T you get?
That's just it! The individual right to marry, has been replaced, as you indicate with a couple's right. So if there's a couple's right, specifically a "same sex couple's right", does that mean any one can create a relationship and have the state designate it "marriage"?
Marriage included men and women who wanted to marry the OPPOSITE-SEX......
Yes. Remember marriage was, and still is in most states. defined exclusively as an opposite sex union
.Gays and Lesbians in today's society AREN'T interested in that sole option
Some still are.
NOR should they be required to!!!
No one is required to marry. Why should bisexuals be "required" to marry only one?
No COMPELLING State interest that the Courts have agreed with!!!
Not all courts.
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!!!
Not quite. You always had the right to marry, no different from any other woman. But you didn't want that, you wanted the state to redefine marriage tailored so you would have the "right to marry a woman".
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!!!
If you are truly interested in "marriage equality" for "LGBT" people, then logically that includes "bisexuals" who should be able to marry according to their orientation if they so choose! They're in the club.
"STFU"? Really....this from a woman with a master's degree....Madone!
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!!!
Please tell me where SCOTUS even implied the fundamental right to marry is based on the union of two women.
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!!!
"Free for all"? So you can choose another woman to "make a major life decision..." .but no one else can choose who they want to do the same? Now you're suddenly interested in the state's marital requirements? Oh sure...as long as they drop the one you don't like.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15518 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?
You're not still clinging to that simple-minded argument, are you? Today, Oklahoma makes 18 States. I wonder why the federal judges are ignoring YOUR argument? Gee... you better call them and straighten them out.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15519 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhh....Kay
<quoted text>
That's just it! The individual right to marry, has been replaced, as you indicate with a couple's right. So if there's a couple's right, specifically a "same sex couple's right", does that mean any one can create a relationship and have the state designate it "marriage"?
A couple's right? huh?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15520 Jan 14, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Time will tell what?
What the impact will be on opposite sex marriages.
Are you implying that same sex marriage will make everyone become gay or lesbian? Are you kidding me?
Seriously Wastey.....not even close......I don't how you got that......too much rainbow punch maybe.
Irrelevant
True
The man and woman involved in the baby making process?

Factors that affect the divorce rate?

Just want to make sure we both on the same page.
Hair splitting. The label doesn't matter. Homosexuals have always existed and will continue to do so.
So what the would a man, or woman, with same sex attraction, have called him or herself, BEFORE the coining of "homosexual" in the late 19th century? C'mon Wastey.....give it a shot.
What would they have put on the bumper of the horse drawn wagon?
They had to hide or have shame marriages.
So every single marriage was a "sham"? No love at all? The children "sham" children? So the new First Lady of NYC, who once publicly identified as a lesbian in a magazine article, has a "sham" marriage because she's married to a man?
Sham marriages don't count.
If man and woman choose to commit to each other, regardless of self professed sexual identity labels, it must be a sham, if the labels don't correspond to what you think they should be?
Are you advocating such dishonesty?
No, are you? Why would you condemn them?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15521 Jan 14, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not still clinging to that simple-minded argument, are you? Today, Oklahoma makes 18 States. I wonder why the federal judges are ignoring YOUR argument? Gee... you better call them and straighten them out.
Well there was a federal judge in Utah who ruled in favor of a plural marriage family.......do you mean him?

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#15522 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
If NorCal Native is right and "people should have the right to marry the person they want", that allows marriage to somebody already married, someone below the age of consent or a very close family member.
If you think polygamy, pederast marriage or incest marriage are wrong; keep marriage one man and one woman.
Slippery slope, old boy.

Epic fail.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15523 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhh....Kay
<quoted text>
That's just it! The individual right to marry, has been replaced, as you indicate with a couple's right. So if there's a couple's right, specifically a "same sex couple's right", does that mean any one can create a relationship and have the state designate it "marriage"?
<quoted text>
Yes. Remember marriage was, and still is in most states. defined exclusively as an opposite sex union
<quoted text>
Some still are.
<quoted text>
No one is required to marry. Why should bisexuals be "required" to marry only one?
<quoted text>
Not all courts.
<quoted text>
Not quite. You always had the right to marry, no different from any other woman. But you didn't want that, you wanted the state to redefine marriage tailored so you would have the "right to marry a woman".
<quoted text>
If you are truly interested in "marriage equality" for "LGBT" people, then logically that includes "bisexuals" who should be able to marry according to their orientation if they so choose! They're in the club.
"STFU"? Really....this from a woman with a master's degree....Madone!
<quoted text>
Please tell me where SCOTUS even implied the fundamental right to marry is based on the union of two women.
<quoted text>
"Free for all"? So you can choose another woman to "make a major life decision..." .but no one else can choose who they want to do the same? Now you're suddenly interested in the state's marital requirements? Oh sure...as long as they drop the one you don't like.
Sorry, but NO it hasn't.......marrying is still the right of individuals who opt to marry each other!!!

Well, you've basically lost 2 States in the last few weeks......so, now you are down to 30....how many will your side lose this year?

Where did SCOTUS say that marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT just in the case regarding a man and a woman? See, they DIDN'T!!!
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15524 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Well there was a federal judge in Utah who ruled in favor of a plural marriage family.......do you mean him?
You think he ruled that polygamy is legal?

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 Trump dating site used sex offender as a model 17 min Rose_NoHo 2
News Man charged with threatening Riverview church o... 18 min Rose_NoHo 43
News Effort Underway To Save City's Oldest Gay Bar '... 1 hr Rose_NoHo 6
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 18,807
News Are Gay Dads 'Treating Women as Mere Breeding M... 1 hr Wondering 45
News Religious protests against gay films show divid... 1 hr Pat Robertson s F... 19
News Arkansas to pay attorney for same-sex couples i... 1 hr Hudson 61
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 11 hr NE Jade 27,401
More from around the web