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.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1807 Jan 22, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me ask you something.
If two gay men walk down the street to a local park and start kissing in front of a group of kids, do you think any of the kids will think what the two men are doing is weird, unusual, or abnormal?
If the any of the kids do think that this behavior is weird/ususual/abnormal, does this automatically make the kids a bunch of bigots?
If kids see a man and a woman slobbering over each other in the park and they say OOOH and start laughing, does that make them prudes?

On the other hand, if you see two men or two women walking through the park, and your child asks you why: Just say because they love each other and feel comfortable in physical contact with each other--just like mommy and daddy. You're kids won't find anything weird about that.
Brad

Manchester, CT

#1808 Jan 22, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid.(Now I'm calling you stupid.)
LOL

Easy there Sally.
Don't strain your uterus.

Lililth_Satans_B ore

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#1809 Jan 22, 2013
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Easy there Sally.
Don't strain your uterus.
oh stfu loooswer
Brad

Manchester, CT

#1810 Jan 22, 2013
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>oh stfu loooswer
Looswer?

Mwahahahahahahahaha

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1811 Jan 23, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me ask you something.
If two gay men walk down the street to a local park and start kissing in front of a group of kids, do you think any of the kids will think what the two men are doing is weird, unusual, or abnormal?
If the any of the kids do think that this behavior is weird/ususual/abnormal, does this automatically make the kids a bunch of bigots?
It would make them a bit young and ignorant, since children see that sort of behavior in public by straight folks all the time.

It should be no different seeing it from gay folks, and the ONLY reason it is, is that gay folks are much less likely yo engage in those PDA's, and kids have simply never seen them before.

Bigotry comes later, when those children start hating those gay men simply because they are gay, and strive to harm them because of their own insecurities.

But, really, how many gay men and gay women, out of the entire population, would do any such thing, anyway? One? A handful? Gay folks, in general are MUCH less likely to flaunt their PDAs in public than straight folks, simply for safety sake.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1812 Jan 23, 2013
Truthteller wrote:
<quoted text>Your horrible hate based radical homosexual movement does a great job of portraying homosexuality as lewd and indecent, especially with the homosexual arrogance parades.
LOL, David. Really?

Marriage equality is "racially hate based"?
barry

Henagar, AL

#1813 Jan 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't include the verses where marriage was between one man and many women. Or when a woman had to marry her dead husband's kin. Or the ones where incestuous unions were supposed to populate the Earth.
Why is that?
And yet, you actually included Leviticus against gay folks, when NO CHRISTAIN TODAY actually follows those laws for ancient Hebrew priests.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
You pick and choose the verses that support your opinions, without giving a thought to what Jesus actually says and means.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>...
and that doesn't even include the verses that clearly define marriage as a relationship between man and woman.
"Quest"<quoted text>
You didn't include the verses where...
Why is that?
answer: because you had asked for verses that condemned homosexuality. verses promoting marriage between men and women would have been off topic.
your interpretation of leviticus is just that a convenient interpretation that ignores the fact that in the context of the rest of the Bible still condemns homosexual activity. i did notice that you do agree that leviticus does speak against homosexual activity.
and as i read the words of Jesus i notice that he supported the judgement of sodom and used it to remind us that we also will be judged. so just what exactly has Jesus said?
barry

Henagar, AL

#1814 Jan 23, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I clearly did not present the story of Noah and his sons as a justification of homosexuality. Instead, I pointed out that this reference is ignored by you religious freaks. What. Exactly, was this sin? Putting a robe over their father's naked body? Doen't that sound like a loving gesture to you? Clearly, something else occurred which is referenced only obliquely. The hints to what that is come from the original texts and concordance with other Bible verses. Serious Bible scholars know that, whichever side of the issue they are on.
<quoted text>
Of course, you made the common leap from rape and I hospitality to homosexuality. I know that you will insist on interpreting this passage the way you wish, so I will point out to others that your interpretation is at odds with even a casual reading of the story, with further references to the events in other parts of the Bible, and with historical interpretation by Jews and Christians alike, up until the last few centuries.
<quoted text>
There's two that we can agree on, though even there the original texts are far from clear.
<quoted text>
Apparently, you have a special version of the bible which substitute phallus worship for idolatry in these passages. I was unable to find even the most oblique reference to homosexuality in any published translation of the Bible.
<quoted text>
So we are now up to 5.
<quoted text>
All of the above reference the sins of Sodom and Gemorrah, but none directly reference homosexuality. Even if we accept that homosexuality was one of the sins for which the cities were destroyed, the text is clear that there were many sins. I know it is comforting for you to always assume that none of the other sins were important, for you undoubtedly are prone to committing many of them. It is much easier for you to assume the truly nasty sin was one toward which you have no inclination. It shows that you have a very well-developed skill of selective reading.
<quoted text>
Well, that wasn't actually the question, was it? You failed. I challenged you to find 10 references to homosexuality, and you found five. You also listed five references to Sodom--and its long litany of sins, among which homosexuality is minor, if it is even a sin. And then you threw in two references to idolatry, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
But I will provide two more references that may support your view: the aforementioned story of Noah, and the story of Jonathan and David. It's clear early in the story that the family was displeased by their relationship.
ok, so let's say you didn't present noah's story as a subtle justification of anything. so why did you bring it up? what ever happened was certainly condemned by God.
you probably brought it up to create a distraction and shift the topic. however you completely butchered the facts of the story and then make an unsubstantiated conclusion that of course just had to include homosexual activity. us religous freaks don't ignore the story. it has nothing to do with the topic. you are the one who brought it up.

if you read the story carefully it never specifically says that they put anything over their father's naked body. however that could be what happened and [once again you get the facts of the story wrong] yes, that was certainly a "loving gesture" those two sons were not the ones that were cursed. Ham was cursed for whatever he did that clearly involved mocking His father.

so if homosexuality was a "minor sin in God's eyes why is it called an abomination?

and then of course you now try to bring david and jonathan into the discussion, implying of course that there had to be some kind of sexual activity between them. just how clearly was any family displeased with their relationship? once again i suspect that either you are twisting or inventing facts here also.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1815 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>barry wrote:
<quoted text>...
and that doesn't even include the verses that clearly define marriage as a relationship between man and woman.
"Quest"<quoted text>
You didn't include the verses where...
Why is that?
answer: because you had asked for verses that condemned homosexuality. verses promoting marriage between men and women would have been off topic.
your interpretation of leviticus is just that a convenient interpretation that ignores the fact that in the context of the rest of the Bible still condemns homosexual activity. i did notice that you do agree that leviticus does speak against homosexual activity.
and as i read the words of Jesus i notice that he supported the judgement of sodom and used it to remind us that we also will be judged. so just what exactly has Jesus said?
You will never know exactly what Jesus said.
barry

Henagar, AL

#1816 Jan 23, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
But when you call Barry out on that, he just ignores that part of the post, and carries repeating his nonsense over and over as if it will ever become true.
He never answered as to whether he ever shops at Walmart or watches football on the Sabbath. Or if he protests those things or tries to ban them. That's in both the old and new testaments, not just Leviticus. Bet he has a great answer for that one!
i didn't realize that that was ever asked. or is that just a patent reply that you fall back on when you are bored?
so, yes i do. i am not jewish.
btw where is the sabbath applied to us in the NT?
barry

Henagar, AL

#1817 Jan 23, 2013
ToManyLaws wrote:
How about church leaders clean off there own porch...Greed and Glutony are both mentioned voer 20 times as being sins...I SEE ALOT OF RICH FAT SLOBS LEAVING CHUCRH ON SUNDAY.....How about worry about that...
agreed. a lot of fat, rich preachers also.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1818 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>barry wrote:
<quoted text>...
...
answer: because you had asked for verses that condemned homosexuality. verses promoting marriage between men and women would have been off topic.
your interpretation of leviticus is just that a convenient interpretation that ignores the fact that in the context of the rest of the Bible still condemns homosexual activity. i did notice that you do agree that leviticus does speak against homosexual activity.
and as i read the words of Jesus i notice that he supported the judgement of sodom and used it to remind us that we also will be judged. so just what exactly has Jesus said?
No, I didn't, as there are NONE that explicitly speak against people who can only be attracted to the same gender, or the families that God has blessed them with.

Leviticus is not followed by anyone today, so you can't use that against any gay person.

You can't use the Sodom story, as gay folks are not mentioned at all.

You can't twist scriptures about pagan temple practices to be against gay folks and their families, and more that you can twist Jesus's own words specifically against divorce to support a bias against gay folks, instead of a good scolding aimed at people tossing their spouses out the door and re-marrying.

Something that most Christian denominations allow, in direct disobedience to Jesus himself.

Each and every church has the perfect right to marry ONLY those that they choose, and every member of every denomination has the perfect right to follow the guidelines of the denomination that THEY have chosen.

But NO denomination has the right to try to apply it's own belief system to anyone who is not a member of that denomination, and any attempt to do so will be met with a fight.

As it should be.

That's the very principle that our country was founded on.

YOU would not like to be forced to live under Sharia law, since you are not Muslim. If you are not a Catholic, you would not like to be required by law to accept the Pope as the head of Christianity.

And well you should not accept those things, since YOU did not choose them.

In the same way, your personal religious beliefs cannot be forced upon other Americans, regardless of the place those beliefs have in your own life.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1819 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>agreed. a lot of fat, rich preachers also.
Yes, but they would not be greedy and rich with out blind a lonely followers willing to empty their pockets into their bank accounts.

Sad stuff.

But, I would like to think that this sort of "preacher" will find themselves answering for it, someday.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1820 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i didn't realize that that was ever asked. or is that just a patent reply that you fall back on when you are bored?
so, yes i do. i am not jewish.
btw where is the sabbath applied to us in the NT?
Most Christians are not Jewish.

Now, we can all argue the exact meaning of every scripture. Jewish folks have a fine tradition of this, and Christians do as well. Sometimes those different interpretations lead to separate denominations with different beliefs.

But, I am also confused by Christians who say that old laws ONLY applied to Jewish folks before Jesus was born, but then quote the ancient laws for Hebrew priests in Leviticus as something that must be followed only by gay folks.

It's never made sense to me.
barry

Henagar, AL

#1821 Jan 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but they would not be greedy and rich with out blind a lonely followers willing to empty their pockets into their bank accounts.
Sad stuff.
But, I would like to think that this sort of "preacher" will find themselves answering for it, someday.
i agree.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1822 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>ok, so let's say you didn't present noah's story as a subtle justification of anything. so why did you bring it up? what ever happened was certainly condemned by God.
you probably brought it up to create a distraction and shift the topic. however you completely butchered the facts of the story and then make an unsubstantiated conclusion that of course just had to include homosexual activity. us religous freaks don't ignore the story. it has nothing to do with the topic. you are the one who brought it up.
if you read the story carefully it never specifically says that they put anything over their father's naked body. however that could be what happened and [once again you get the facts of the story wrong] yes, that was certainly a "loving gesture" those two sons were not the ones that were cursed. Ham was cursed for whatever he did that clearly involved mocking His father.
so if homosexuality was a "minor sin in God's eyes why is it called an abomination?
and then of course you now try to bring david and jonathan into the discussion, implying of course that there had to be some kind of sexual activity between them. just how clearly was any family displeased with their relationship? once again i suspect that either you are twisting or inventing facts here also.
So, in the story of Noah, we at least agree that something happened, but that something is elided in the modern English Bibles. I wonder what you think that something was?

Bible scholars have studied the language used in the older texts and concluded that the words are consistent with other Biblical references to sexual acts. There's really not much question about this among those who study these things. There is only a popular reluctance to acknowledge.

As for justifying anything: I do not approve of taking advantage of anyone while they are drunk. I do not approve of sex between sons and fathers. What happened between Noah and Ham is wrong on many levels.

As for "abomination," let me give you a few other abominations that were listed in Leviticus: Shrimp and lobster; sowing two crops in the same field; mixed fabrics; disrespecting one's parents; having sex with a woman during her period; masturbation and wet dreams; mules; etc.

When you start taking all the other abominations seriously, I will at least respect your beliefs. But I still won't share them.

In the meantime, you are merely a blowhard.
barry

Henagar, AL

#1823 Jan 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Most Christians are not Jewish.
Now, we can all argue the exact meaning of every scripture. Jewish folks have a fine tradition of this, and Christians do as well. Sometimes those different interpretations lead to separate denominations with different beliefs.
But, I am also confused by Christians who say that old laws ONLY applied to Jewish folks before Jesus was born, but then quote the ancient laws for Hebrew priests in Leviticus as something that must be followed only by gay folks.
It's never made sense to me.
agreed, the principle of the body needing to rest perhaps once a week was given to us for our benefit. unfortunately in our culture it is very difficult to practice that and we suffer physically because of it. it is not because we don't keep some religious ritual, even a pagan benefits from rest.

however since the concept of a sabbath is a biblical principle we could let the Bible explain it.

Exodus 31:16-17
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

the sabbath was for the jews but the principle of needing to rest is for everyone.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1824 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>barry wrote:
<quoted text>...
and that doesn't even include the verses that clearly define marriage as a relationship between man and woman.
"Quest"<quoted text>
You didn't include the verses where...
Why is that?
answer: because you had asked for verses that condemned homosexuality. verses promoting marriage between men and women would have been off topic.
your interpretation of leviticus is just that a convenient interpretation that ignores the fact that in the context of the rest of the Bible still condemns homosexual activity. i did notice that you do agree that leviticus does speak against homosexual activity.
and as i read the words of Jesus i notice that he supported the judgement of sodom and used it to remind us that we also will be judged. so just what exactly has Jesus said?
"If Jesus ever said anything about homosexuality, it is not recorded in the Bible, even mistranslated. He did, however, speak extensively on God's unconditional love. Yet instead of dwelling on biblical love, Christians have historically been more concerned with obscure passages of Levitical cleanliness codes and Paul's misunderstood comments in Romans. Instead of focusing on the incredible injustice and hatred demonstrated by Christians and others, tying to deny homosexuals even basic civil rights, people appear more concerned with the specific homosexual acts between consenting adults who are naturally have a homosexual orientation. As James B. Nelson notes, the Bible more clearly advocates a "love ethic" rather than a "sex ethic."

I Cor 6:9, no way refers to homosexuality. The original Greek word often quoted as sexual immorality, Paul used was "porneia" which means "a harlot for hire". In Corinth in the temples of Venus, the principal deity of Corinth, where Christians went to worship, a thousand public prostitutes were kept at public expense to glorify and act as surrogates for the fertility Gods. This sex with the pagan Gods is what Paul was talking about - fornication is an admitted mistranslation and has nothing to do with gays or singles sex. This rendering reflected the bias of the translators rather than an accurate translation of Paul's words to a culture of 2000 years ago worshipping pagan sex gods.

Romans 1:26-27 mentions homosexual acts performed by people who are clearly described as heterosexual. The men in the NT patriarchal culture exerted dominance not only over women, but over younger males as well. The nature of homosexual acts in the Bible are so very different from what we know as homosexuality today that the passages have no application to today's homosexuality. Such practices as in NT times simply no longer exist. Alleged references to homosexuality in I Corinthians and I Timothy are the inventions of anti-gay translators. They are not in the original Greek texts." (Rev.Dr. Mel White)

The word "homosexual" wasn't even invented until 1869. When you see it in the bible, you know it is a modern mistranslation and misinterpretation of the original texts.

"What the Bible forbids is acts of lust, rape, idolatry, violation of religious purity obligations, or pederasty, but no condemnation of homosexuality in relationships of mutual respect and love. "On the other hand, the Bible pointedly celebrates instances of same-sex emotional intimacy, a fact often overlooked by fearful homophobic readers." James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary

What Jesus told us:

John 13:34: A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

John 15:12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

Luke 6:37: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Matthew 7:12: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1825 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
btw where is the sabbath applied to us in the NT?
Are you serious? Jesus applied all of the old law to His followers. He was quite clear about that.

Some of the old dietary laws were supposedly overturned by a vison that Peter had on the way to Caesarea. It is a far stretch to use that vision to overturn all of Levitican law by that vision. It is an even bigger stretch to imagine that it was all overturned, except for homophobes favorite passages about sex between men.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1827 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>agreed, the principle of the body needing to rest perhaps once a week was given to us for our benefit. unfortunately in our culture it is very difficult to practice that and we suffer physically because of it. it is not because we don't keep some religious ritual, even a pagan benefits from rest.
however since the concept of a sabbath is a biblical principle we could let the Bible explain it.
Exodus 31:16-17
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
the sabbath was for the jews but the principle of needing to rest is for everyone.
I agree that the "day of rest" is a common sense idea. Absolutely. I will never argue that there is not great wisdom and beauty throughout the Bible.

However, I also believe that the Bible was never intended to be a scientific manual or a complete history book, and I think we do it a disservice when we spend waaaay too much time arguing about whether the Creation story was a myth of early people, or a literal historical account.

My faith isn't solely based on whether some OT account or other is a parable, or an historical event.

We seem to spend less time discussing what Jesus intended us to think and to be, then we do on other people's interpretations of specific scriptures.

But, back to Leviticus, no Christian today follows ALL of the Holiness Code. Do they?

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 LGBT outrage over Trump ban on transgender mili... 5 min Ms Sassy 16
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 8 min Freedomofexpression 13,661
News Trump's transgender troops ban divides veterans... 11 min Marcavage s Trick 46
News Study: 12,000 acts of condomless gay sex, 0 HIV... 25 min This 2017 not 1977 53
News Transgender troops: A presidential tweet is not... 43 min Conroy 2
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 44 min Lawrence Wolf 7,065
News The Latest: Duckworth says transgender ban disc... 1 hr TomInElPaso 49
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr TomInElPaso 52,249
News Trump bans transgender people from military 1 hr The Troll Stopper 56
News 12-year-old girl comes out to her Mormon congre... 2 hr The Troll Stopper 534
More from around the web