Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#16032 Jan 27, 2014
Most children are raised by their mother and father; that's why marriage is one man and one woman.

Keep marriage law as is, for the children. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#16033 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Most children are raised by their mother and father; that's why marriage is one man and one woman.
Keep marriage law as is, for the children. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
AND.....every child that is raised by ONE parent is either motherless or fatherless. Hmmmm Didn't think of that though, huh. That includes the ones where the guy gets the girl pregnant and says ......See ya!
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#16034 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Most children are raised by their mother and father; that's why marriage is one man and one woman.
Keep marriage law as is, for the children. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
Every child raised by a single parent is also raised motherless or fatherless.
.
How many children are you and your wife raising together?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#16035 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Most children are raised by their mother and father; that's why marriage is one man and one woman.
Keep marriage law as is, for the children. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
But not one child will be deprived their biological mother and father raising them by same-sex marriage. If you think otherwise, provide even a single example of how that would happen.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#16036 Jan 27, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh gee...that's a fair comparison...(rolls eyes). Really Wastey, you're smarter than that. The vote was on the definition of marriage, a definition which was THE sole legal definition of marriage since e birth of the Republic. Remember, the definition, implies am exclusion of a number of relationships for being designated "marriage", not just same sex sexual relationships.
Always making the same mistakes over and over, small Peter. The law isn't based on unwritten assumptions or what certain people believe is implied. For example, your definition of "one man and one woman" doesn't exclude incestuous relationships. Nor does it exclude plural marriage if each marriage ceremony consists of only one man and one woman. Which is why the restriction is against bigamy or marrying someone when you or the other person is already part of a legal civil marriage. The only thing your definition really does is restrict same sex couples from marrying. Which is why it's really nothing more than a restriction and not a definition since it doesn't encompass all marriages that have existed through time and culture, much less all legally recognized civil marriage in the US today.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16037 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Most children are raised by their mother and father; that's why marriage is one man and one woman.
Keep marriage law as is, for the children. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
Link or lie?

More foolish propaganda.

Why are you so childish?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#16038 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Most children are raised by their mother and father; that's why marriage is one man and one woman.
That has nothing to do with it. If it did, we'd restrict marriage from people raising someone else's child, as in adoption, fostering or stepfamilies. We'd penalize married couples who don't have children, or unmarried people who do. We don't do ANY of that. We even allow two people who both have Downs syndrome to marry. Are you hoping THEY'LL raise some children?

Any halfway competent federal judge would SHRED these "arguments" of yours, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
Keep marriage law as is, for the children. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
Then you must oppose allowing gay couples to adopt children. Do you?

Or, are you like Pietro, who bemoans that allowing same-sex marriage would mean children raised by someone other than their biological parents, yet who has no problem with allowing gay couples to raise children as long as they don't marry?

It's called logic, folks. It doesn't take much.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16039 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Most children are raised by their mother and father; that's why marriage is one man and one woman.
Keep marriage law as is, for the children. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
Around 64% are raised with a mother and father in the home.

What about all the others? You really think preventing SSM will have any impact? Prove it.

Same sex couples find suitable mentors which are often much better than biological parents.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16040 Jan 27, 2014
Parents often bring children into the world and foot the bill. After that, children are raised by others such as the following.

1. Peers
2. Teachers
3. Tutors
4. Mentors
5. Friends

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16041 Jan 27, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
That only proves your ignorance. The state HAS ALWAYS allowed such couples to marry without any question as to the function and purpose of marriage as it relates to procreation.
Can you read, Pietro? Because that is just what I said, and it was precisely the point I was making. That such couples are regularly allowed to marry disproves your infantile notion that procreation has any relevance to legal marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You have yet off the elusive governmental interest in treating some men and women, differently as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all did states. Why do advocate unequal treatment?
You should really look at your coma placement.
I advocate equal protection for same sex couples to marry. You promote inequality under the law by excluding them from marriage. Saying that they have equal protection to marry someone of the opposite sex is a, infantile rationalization that doesn't stand up to even the least stringent scrutiny.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Quite the contrary. It views all men, and all women, as such, and recognizes marriage as a male female union.
You've yet to offer any state interest served by such a definition that would render it constitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Perhaps you could articulate the compelling state interest, in not only redefining marriage to include non conjugal and/or non monogamous relationships in general, but designating a same sex relationships, in particular, "marriage".
Pietro, what do you think conjugal means.
Polygamy doesn't seek equal protection of the law.
Learn to count, moron.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What you are advocating is actually inequality, by asking the state to treat some men and women as it relates to a matter of public policy?
Did you really mean for this to be a question, it seems to be a statement. Either way, it appears to be incomplete.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do you also advocate separate water fountains as well, or separate sections on public modes of transportation too?
No, I am advocating for the law to treat people the same. There is no reason to exclude homosexuals from the legal protections of marriage. You are actually advocating segregation when you argue to exclude same sex couples from marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Feel free to offer any state interest served by designating non conjugal, and/or monogamous relationships as "marriage"......why not start with same sex relationships.
Pietro, you are an idiot. Clearly, you don't know what conjugal means. Look it up.
There is no state interest served by excluding same sex couples from marriage.
Polygamy, by definition, seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people.
Were you not an idiot, you would understand the two are separate issues, and that allowing same sex marriage has no bearing upon polygamy. Just as legalization of interracial marriage had no impact upon polygamy.

I highly suggest you learn to count.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#16042 Jan 27, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
Parents often bring children into the world and foot the bill. After that, children are raised by others such as the following.
1. Peers
2. Teachers
3. Tutors
4. Mentors
5. Friends
None of them match the influence of mother and father; that's why marriage is one husband and one wife.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16043 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
None of them match the influence of mother and father; that's why marriage is one husband and one wife.
Dear moron, can a single mother legally raise a child, or does the state intervene?

The reality is that the state only has an interest in the circumstances surrounding child rearing if the child is in danger.

What is more, having and raising children is neither prerequisite for, nor a requirement of legal marriage.

Quit being an idiot, come back to the topic at hand.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16044 Jan 27, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The Founding Fathers vision specifically provided for a constitutional republic that included a judicial branch with judges appointed for life that exercised the responsibility of judicial review of laws. Further, eligibility to vote at the time of the Founding wasn't universal; it was generally limited to white, male property owners. So the Founders indeed had a concept of government that was managed by the "elite" of the day imposed upon the masses that included nonvoting women and slaves.
Your ignorance of history is truly appalling, Brian.
<quoted text>
Your contempt for the constitution and the Founders' vision is noted.
Excellent

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16045 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>None of them match the influence of mother and father; that's why marriage is one husband and one wife.
False. Given the huge number of dysfunctional homes, many biological parents are completely unfit. If I had a father like you, which I did, I would look elsewhere and ignore your stupidity.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16046 Jan 27, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear moron, can a single mother legally raise a child, or does the state intervene?
The reality is that the state only has an interest in the circumstances surrounding child rearing if the child is in danger.
What is more, having and raising children is neither prerequisite for, nor a requirement of legal marriage.
Quit being an idiot, come back to the topic at hand.
I have had the pleasure of knowing several very successful people raised by single mothers.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16048 Jan 27, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I have had the pleasure of knowing several very successful people raised by single mothers.
I have the same pleasure of knowing several very successful people raised by their married mom and dad. Your point?

Was the single mother, a single mother by choice, or did Dad skip out? Or was he even in the picture?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#16049 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
None of them match the influence of mother and father; that's why marriage is one husband and one wife.
And the fact that same-sex couples were raising and adopting children was one of the reasons the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found denying civil marriages to these couples was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution, the oldest constitution in the world.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#16050 Jan 27, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
I have the same pleasure of knowing several very successful people raised by their married mom and dad. Your point?
The point is your oft repeated ideal of a child raised in a stable home with the biological mother and father is just that: an ideal. Reality can and does fall far short of that. So if the state doesn't intervene to enforce the "ideal" child rearing environment, then there's no rational basis on which to prohibit same sex couples from marrying simply because they don't provide this "ideal" environment that you neither require opposite sex couples to provide in the real world nor require procreation within marriage anyway.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Was the single mother, a single mother by choice, or did Dad skip out? Or was he even in the picture?
What difference does it make? If the state isn't taking children away from these less than "ideal" family environments and placing them in "ideal" ones instead, the reason why a single family environment exists doesn't matter.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#16051 Jan 28, 2014
http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Sci...
Same sex marriage is the Left's attempt to segregate marriage by gender without the consent of the governed.
cancer suxs

Owatonna, MN

#16052 Jan 28, 2014
In the Christian buybull it says greed and gluttony are bad sins in fact it mentions each more then 20 times each.

When will Christians churches start getting laws and bans made to make being rich(greedy) and fat(gluttony) illegal????

Or is only gay sex worth there time to break the Constitution to ban.

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 Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 4 min Rev Wall 33,332
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 6 min Pietro Armando 5,786
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 11 min WeTheSheeple 2,664
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 20 min blasterboy1984 68,575
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 27 min WeTheSheeple 414
News Rare Under 40 poll: This is what young people t... 30 min Tea Bag Residue C... 2
News Rick Santorum Will Fight The Supreme Court If I... 57 min Poof1 100
News Researcher accused of fraud in gay marriage stu... 1 hr KiMare 81
News Gay man forced to have sex with his MOTHER and ... 2 hr Dr Psychobabble 10
More from around the web