Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,562

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.

Full Story

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#16935 Feb 18, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"We"? Children of intact married nuclear families? The bottom line is, no matter what evidence is presented to you regarding the best setting for children, with their OWN married biological MOTHER AND FATHER in a stable home, you will reject it. It's obvious your support for SSM, overrides this truth. You have no experiential knowledge as a father, which also effects your view. What do u tell your own Mom and Dad?
There are three problems with your premise:
1) You insist that in-tact biological families are better than other types of families. Yet you have zero evidence that same-sex headed households are not just as nurturing as biological families. It is your animus toward gays that prevents you from realizing that your assertion requires proof, of which you have provided none.
2) Even if your assertion were true, it would apply only to averages. On average, wealthy households are better places to raise children than poor families. Yet we don't stop poor people from marrying in order to discourage them raising children. Many poor families do a better job of raising their children than some wealthy families. Similarly, many same-sex headed families do a better job of raising children than some biological families.
3) And even if the children in biological households DO have a significantly better chance of happiness and success in life, not one child has been deprived of the biological family that you claim he deserves by his same-sex parents. There is simply no process by which same-sex couples legally establish guardianship over children who would otherwise be raised by their stable, fit, biological parents. I have pointed this out to you as well, ad nauseum. You refuse to admit when your arguments are moot, even if you could prove the premise.

In short, all you ever do is assert that you are right, even after your illogic and dishonesty has been exposed.
Do you propose children be removed from their mother and father absent a valid reason?
Why do you keep making a fool of yourself by asking stupid questions? Do you imagine yourself a clever prosecutor catching a witness in a conundrum? Don't quit your day job.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16937 Feb 18, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
If you ever care to expand your mind, small peter, take a look at the World Population Clock:
http://www.populationinstitute.org/...
we're about to screw ourselves out of room to sit down on this planet.
REDUCING population growth is now the road to survival. But I digress, just wanted to point out the utter lack of relevance of your argument.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joonyun/2012/12/0...

The Next Black Swan: Global Depopulation
Comment Now Follow Comments

What happens to the war over natural resources when the scarcest one of all is human resources?

We’ve all heard the thesis on real estate investing:“They’re not making any more land.” It turns out that before too long we may not be making enough people either.

Global population has been expanding since antiquity, interrupted by wars, disasters, pandemics and famine. Malthusian predictions of overpopulation, unsustainability, and resource depletion have also been a part of conventional wisdom since antiquity and remain popular today (see Paul Gilding’s “The Earth is Full” TED talk). It is, after all, a common trait of the human mind to assume that the past is an accurate predictor of the future.

In contrast with these apocalyptic forecasts, over 40% of the world’s population live in nations with sub-replacement fertility (defined as any rate below 2.1 children per woman)—a common feature among the most prosperous countries. Population is already declining in many other countries, including China, Brazil, Germany, Japan, Italy, Singapore, Hong Kong, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Ukraine and Belarus. Many more are on the brink. The total population of the continent of Europe, including Russia and non-EU countries, peaked in the year 2000.

For some developed countries such as the United States, sub-replacement fertility is being masked by immigration from poorer countries that are still growing in population. However, the number of such developing countries is shrinking as they convert to developed status. Moreover, a report by the Foreign Policy Research Institute states that the phenomenon of sub-replacement fertility rates is rapidly spreading to developing countries. Should all of these trends continue global population will peak–but then experience a secular decline.

The potential consequences of global depopulation could be substantial, and many could be quite positive. Stress on infrastructure and services would diminish. Land might be abandoned and natural habitats could reappear, along with fauna and flora. What happens to the war over natural resources when the scarcest one of all is human resources?

**********
Interesting that SSM, a virtual modern western invention, is being embraced, even celebrated by the West.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16938 Feb 18, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Too late, small peter. You're just upset that Bruce Jenner (Olympic Gold Medalist) turned you down after she had her sex change surgery;0)
Lame....you can do better than that....I have faith in you. Go on...give it another shot.
No, my name isn't Tagtraum, I'm afraid your German is no better than your English.
Albtraum
Contents [hide]
1 German
1.1 Alternative forms
1.2 Etymology
1.3 Pronunciation
1.4 Noun
1.4.1 Declension
1.4.2 Related terms
German[edit]

Alternative forms[edit]
Alptraum
Etymology[edit]
An Alb is a mythological being that was related to dreams.
Pronunciation[edit]
IPA(key):/&#712;&#660; alpt&#640;a&#650;& #815;m/
Noun[edit]
Albtraum m (genitive Albtraums, plural Albträume)
nightmare

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#16939 Feb 18, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Lame....you can do better than that....I have faith in you. Go on...give it another shot.
<quoted text>
Albtraum
Contents [hide]
1 German
1.1 Alternative forms
1.2 Etymology
1.3 Pronunciation
1.4 Noun
1.4.1 Declension
1.4.2 Related terms
German[edit]
Alternative forms[edit]
Alptraum
Etymology[edit]
An Alb is a mythological being that was related to dreams.
Pronunciation[edit]
IPA(key):/&#712;&#660; alpt&#640;a&#650;& #815;m/
Noun[edit]
Albtraum m (genitive Albtraums, plural Albträume)
nightmare
I can't believe you're still here arguing against the inevitable: equality for all. It's happening all around you. There is no going back. You can yell and take a fit and make false claims about all the imaginary bad things you think will happen, but it doesn't matter. The writing is on the wall (and has been for a long time.)

No matter what you say, it doesn't matter.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16940 Feb 18, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
There is ZERO data that allowing gay couples to marry causes society to "disintegrate beyond functionality."
It's good that you can post a response without getting stupid and calling people names etc. like usual. New meds?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16941 Feb 18, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing same sex couples to marry does NOT affect the marriages of opposite sex couples in any way, shape or form. People will always reproduce..... marriage doesn't change that.
Great post and 100% spot on.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16942 Feb 18, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing same sex couple marriages won't alter the population growth, heterosexuals will still be making babies with or sans benefit of a marriage license.
To do that would require a redefinition of marriage which is not in the best interests of society as a whole, in the long run. Marriage has been tinkered with too much, all in the name of "progress", but we've seen the results and the cost is too high. Calling an apple an orange just to satisfy a minute portion of the population is poor public policy. Even gay people have expressed such a sentiment. Does that make them "bigots"?
Marriage is not quite the "holy sacrament" you think it is.
Did I invoke "holy sacrament"?
The church BS means nothing at all, it's the secular establishment of kinship that counts.
Between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
There is no secular reason to prohibit same sex couples from marrying,
There's no secular reason to redefine marriage, which would have to be done, in order to allow "same sex couples" to "marry".
your other holy cow (tradition) is no reason either.
It's the simple fact of life. Marriage recognizes the union of husband and wife, and links both to any children they create. It's about the sexes, both of them. That's all....it's what virtually every human society has recognized throughout history.
A same sex couple next door neither enhances or diminishes my marriage or my children. Diversity hurts no one even though you both fear and hate it.
If you're so concerned about "diversity", why stop with same sex couple's? Throuple's , polygamous, poly amorous, even incest marriages can be recognized in the name of "diversity". None of those would neither enhance, or diminish your marriage either.
Your problem, deal with it. If you can cope quietly, that would be even better. Your whining and foot stomping are not helping or hindering progress.
"Progress"?(Chucklin g) Oh what a misguided well meaning fool....so now it's "progress" to can an apple an orange, a same sex relationship, "marriage", a man a lesbian....yes it's true..men can be lesbians now......ahhhhhhh "progress".
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16943 Feb 18, 2014
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>FYVM?
What the hell are you babbling about now, troll?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16944 Feb 18, 2014
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't believe you're still here arguing against the inevitable: equality for all. It's happening all around you.
[/QQUOTE]

"Equality" doesn't not mean equivalency......but maybe you're on to something here....after polygamists in Utah are happy now...soon they too may be let in the "marriage equality" club.

[QUOTE]
There is no going back. You can yell and take a fit and make false claims about all the imaginary bad things you think will happen, but it doesn't matter. The writing is on the wall (and has been for a long time.)
Oh it started decades ago......same sex marriage is just another step on the diminishing of marriage in society. "No fault divorce" was once viewed as "progress" too.
No matter what you say, it doesn't matter.
That's just it Tony, you're right.......we're "progressing" toward that day....where it just won't matter anymore. Historians will look back on this and say, "what were they thinking, didn't they learn anything, why did they devalue marriage....cohabitation, high divorce rates, increased out of wedlock births, and then they called a same sex relationship 'marriage' then came polygamy, polyamory,......."

Even gay folks recognize the danger in redefining marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16945 Feb 18, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing same sex couples to marry does NOT affect the marriages of opposite sex couples in any way, shape or form. People will always reproduce..... marriage doesn't change that.
Allowing marriage to redefined affects society as a whole.....but to follow your logic...allowing plural marriage would not affect the marriages of couples.....allowing siblings to marry....polyamorous groupings...ditto...throuples. ........
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16946 Feb 18, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing marriage to redefined affects society as a whole.....but to follow your logic...allowing plural marriage would not affect the marriages of couples.....allowing siblings to marry....polyamorous groupings...ditto...throuples. ........
This is the part that makes X Breath get real silly. Marriage equality for me but not for you.

He can't explain it without revealing his hypocrisy so he gets angry and silly. Frankie is stupid ahahahahaha, Frankie is a drug addicted Vietnam vet. Is on pain meds. Is drunk. Is brain damaged from the war...is a moron...got no education...is a liar....
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16947 Feb 18, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing marriage to redefined affects society as a whole.....but to follow your logic...allowing plural marriage would not affect the marriages of couples.....allowing siblings to marry....polyamorous groupings...ditto...throuples. ........
Bottom line is X Breath doesn't like poly marriage just like you don't like SSM, difference between you is you are not a hypocrite, and X breath is. Hence his angst and foul temper.

But you knew that. He's a real piece of work eh? From Joisey. That explains a lot. Unpleasant little fellow. Malcontent. Thrives on anger.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#16948 Feb 18, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
To do that would require a redefinition of marriage
The definition is unchanged: establishing kinship between previously unrelated parties.
Pietro Armando wrote:
which is not in the best interests of society as a whole, in the long run.
That's what slave owners said to abolitionists too. Bigots never like it when the focus of their prejudice gain equal rights.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage has been tinkered with too much, all in the name of "progress", but we've seen the results and the cost is too high.
So because you heterosexuals have f-ed up marriage a minority group has to continue to be discriminated against? I think not.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Calling an apple an orange just to satisfy a minute portion of the population is poor public policy. Even gay people have expressed such a sentiment. Does that make them "bigots"?
Eliminating unjust discrimination against a minority group isn't bad public policy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Did I invoke "holy sacrament"?
Between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
There's no secular reason to redefine marriage, which would have to be done, in order to allow "same sex couples" to "marry".
No change in definition required, stupid Peter, only the elimination of an unconstitutional restriction.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's the simple fact of life. Marriage recognizes the union of husband and wife,
Marriage establishes kinship regardless of the sex of the participants.
Pietro Armando wrote:
and links both to any children they create.
Children are legally linked to their biological parents regardless of whether they're married.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's about the sexes, both of them.
And how the sexes combine for marriage is the constitutionally protected liberty interest of the individuals and not subject to the approval or dictates of you or the state absent a legitimate compelling interest.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's all....it's what virtually every human society has recognized throughout history.
Longevity or historicity of a practice isn't sufficient constitutional justification to continue discriminating against a class of people.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If you're so concerned about "diversity", why stop with same sex couple's? Throuple's , polygamous, poly amorous, even incest marriages can be recognized in the name of "diversity". None of those would neither enhance, or diminish your marriage either.
People exercising their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances aren't required to address the grievances of others nor required to address your false concerns for groups you yourself have no intention of helping.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Progress"?(Chucklin g) Oh what a misguided well meaning fool....so now it's "progress" to can an apple an orange, a same sex relationship, "marriage", a man a lesbian....yes it's true..men can be lesbians now......ahhhhhhh "progress".
Making the lives of bigots like you miserable is progress, stupid Peter.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#16949 Feb 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Bottom line is X Breath doesn't like poly marriage just like you don't like SSM, difference between you is you are not a hypocrite, and X breath is. Hence his angst and foul temper.
But you knew that. He's a real piece of work eh? From Joisey. That explains a lot. Unpleasant little fellow. Malcontent. Thrives on anger.
Actually, stupid Peter is a hypocrite. He only uses polygamists and siblings for the sake of argument against same sex marriage; he has no more intention of letting them legally marry than he does same sex couples.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#16950 Feb 18, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Too late, small peter. You're just upset that Bruce Jenner (Olympic Gold Medalist) turned you down after she had her sex change surgery;0)
No, my name isn't Tagtraum, I'm afraid your German is no better than your English.
Ja, ja, das ist rechtes.

I don't suppose you need the translation of my name either.
:-)

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#16951 Feb 18, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, stupid Peter is a hypocrite. He only uses polygamists and siblings for the sake of argument against same sex marriage; he has no more intention of letting them legally marry than he does same sex couples.
Exactly right. That's a very good summary of page after page of useless waffle.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16953 Feb 18, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, stupid Peter is a hypocrite. He only uses polygamists and siblings for the sake of argument against same sex marriage; he has no more intention of letting them legally marry than he does same sex couples.
Actually Peter is not. He believes the monogamist conjugal model of marriage should be maintained. However if states/judges are going to abandon conjugality, there's no compelling reason to maintain monogamy, or even consanguinity.

Either you favor "marriage equality" Little Terry for all, or you don't. Remember the "B" in the LGBT marquee, demands marriage equality for their sexual orientation too, one of each.
It's the logic of sexual orientation based marriage.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#16954 Feb 18, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joonyun/2012/12/0...
The Next Black Swan: Global Depopulation
Comment Now Follow Comments
blah, blah, blah.....
**********
Interesting that SSM, a virtual modern western invention, is being embraced, even celebrated by the West.
As I said, utterly irrelevant. You can't seem to keep your attention on the subject at hand and I know you went to soooo much trouble to Google, copy'n'paste.*sighs*

Homosexuality is all over the globe. Embraced and celebrated???? You're living proof that every rose has a thorn, small minded peter.

Interesting that you would point out that the more humane (to different degrees) countries are the ones that are beginning to practice tolerance for the GLBTIQ Community ;0)

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#16955 Feb 18, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Ja, ja, das ist rechtes.
I don't suppose you need the translation of my name either.
:-)
Thank you, and yes, I know your name;0)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16956 Feb 18, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Peter is not. He believes the monogamist conjugal model of marriage should be maintained. However if states/judges are going to abandon conjugality, there's no compelling reason to maintain monogamy, or even consanguinity.
Either you favor "marriage equality" Little Terry for all, or you don't. Remember the "B" in the LGBT marquee, demands marriage equality for their sexual orientation too, one of each.
It's the logic of sexual orientation based marriage.
Makes sense to me. I don't see the logic or even the legality of allowing same sex marriage but not polygamy. If there is no compelling state interest in banning one, there is no compelling state interest in banning the other. How can banning only one be justified?

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
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 10 min Snitched off Elto... 57,146
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 36 min Cowobunga 8,545
What Makes a Man Want a Pen!s Up His Ass? 1 hr Righteous 123 2
Man takes legal action after Denver baker refus... 1 hr The Troll Stopper 536
Victim testifies at Boy Scout sex trial about m... 2 hr Pablo 85
Gay Rights Groups Denounce Oklahoma Bills As An... 2 hr david traversa 7
Sex education 'failing millions' 2 hr Pablo 3
Judge Roy Moore Speaks About Alabama Gay Marriage 2 hr NorCal Native 38
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 3 hr Cali Girl 2014 68,730
More from around the web