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.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1960 Jan 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What are the consequences of that 'expansion', to men in prisons? If you think prison rape is bad, wait for prison forced marriages.
Writing new marriage laws redefines marriage. Until the 21st Century, marriage has always been gender diverse; same sex marriage brings a bad standard of gender apartheid to marriage.
As usual, the anti-gay yahoos have to stoop to the most bizarre, nonsensical examples.

Men in prison can already get married (to women prisoners, to psycho fans, etc.)

So your proposal is that straight men will force other straight men to marry them while in prison? LOL. Is that before or after the alien spacecraft lands on the roof?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1961 Jan 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the copies came from somewhere. the preponderance of their agreement settles any argument over the few times that they disagree. the source of their place of origin gives value to the weight of consideration given to their validity. and the agreement that they would have with the ancient churches and commentators plays a roll in determining their place in understanding the word of God.
if God gave us his word and then promised to preserve his word, then he being God would have done just that. otherwise he would not be God.
So much assumption in so few sentences.

The biggest one being that the copies came "from somewhere" and therefore must be accurate. Wow. I may try to sell you a bridge tomorrow.

"Few differences?" Hardly. There are many differences.

"Plays a roll?" How, do they put piano keys on a hot dog roll? Oh, stupid meant "role."

Yes, God could have preserved His word. He didn't. That means something.

If you're willing to gamble your soul on "close enough," that's your prerogative.

You don't get to push your distorted version of religion on anyone else.

As is common with ignorant people (or children) you are taking what should simply be a positive sign (that different translations are similar) and taking it to the extreme conclusion that every word must be accurate.

No, it only means they are similar, not identical.

Did you ever do the thing where you whisper a sentence in somebody's ear, and then they whisper it into the ear next to them, and so on and so on, and the last person tends to end up with a very different sentence? Don't you understand that concept? Can you then conclude that the last person's sentence means the same thing as the first person's sentence because it's "similar" or "close enough?"

Suppose the sentence was, "I'm going to pay Barry 1 billion dollars."

Suppose after all the permutations, it ended up being VERY close (closer than you would expect) but the last person said, "I'm going to pay Barry 1 million dollars."

Tiny, tiny difference in sentence. Huge difference in meaning.

That doesn't even take into consideration the people with agendas who purposefully changed things to read how they wanted them to read. If you doubt that people with agendas would do something to support their position against homosexuals, just look at the fact that the word "homosexual" was never in any version of the bible until recently. It is a fact that people will do this. And they have done it.

It's also ironic that those who seem so interested in the truth, really aren't. They only want evidence to support what they think is the truth. They are not open to receiving the truth itself. That's you.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1962 Jan 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What are the consequences of that 'expansion', to men in prisons? If you think prison rape is bad, wait for prison forced marriages.
And once again, Brian outdoes only himself in stupidity. He tries for a new record every day, but he has already set a very high (or is that low) bar.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#1963 Jan 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the copies came from somewhere. the preponderance of their agreement settles any argument over the few times that they disagree. the source of their place of origin gives value to the weight of consideration given to their validity. and the agreement that they would have with the ancient churches and commentators plays a roll in determining their place in understanding the word of God.
if God gave us his word and then promised to preserve his word, then he being God would have done just that. otherwise he would not be God.
In 1946; when the fundies started rewriting what has become 42+ different versions of their 'bible'; their oldest 'ancient translation' source reads like this:
.
++++++++++
Translated from the original tongues
Being the version set forth A.D. 1611
Revised A.D. 1881-1885, and A.D. 1901
Compared with the most ancient
Authorities and revised
A.D. 1946-1952
++++++++++
.
Here's one of their 'translations':
.
From the Authorized King James Bible "ancient translation" of 1611:
.
++++++++++
1 Corinthians 6:9> Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,
.
1 Corinthians 6:10> Nor theeues, nor couetous, nor drunkards, nor reuilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
++++++++++
.
So the fundamentalist rednecks changed GOD's Holy Words and added homosexuals to spice up the story. To enable the practice of fundamentalism; they also deleted sociopaths (mankind abusers) from GOD's list:
.
++++++++++
1 Corinthians 6:9> Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,
.
1 Corinthians 6:10> nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
++++++++++
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1965 Jan 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
So much assumption in so few sentences.
The biggest one being that the copies came "from somewhere" and therefore must be accurate. Wow. I may try to sell you a bridge tomorrow.
"Few differences?" Hardly. There are many differences.
"Plays a roll?" How, do they put piano keys on a hot dog roll? Oh, stupid meant "role."
Yes, God could have preserved His word. He didn't. That means something.
If you're willing to gamble your soul on "close enough," that's your prerogative.
You don't get to push your distorted version of religion on anyone else.
As is common with ignorant people (or children) you are taking what should simply be a positive sign (that different translations are similar) and taking it to the extreme conclusion that every word must be accurate.
No, it only means they are similar, not identical.
Did you ever do the thing where you whisper a sentence in somebody's ear, and then they whisper it into the ear next to them, and so on and so on, and the last person tends to end up with a very different sentence? Don't you understand that concept? Can you then conclude that the last person's sentence means the same thing as the first person's sentence because it's "similar" or "close enough?"
Suppose the sentence was, "I'm going to pay Barry 1 billion dollars."
Suppose after all the permutations, it ended up being VERY close (closer than you would expect) but the last person said, "I'm going to pay Barry 1 million dollars."
Tiny, tiny difference in sentence. Huge difference in meaning.
That doesn't even take into consideration the people with agendas who purposefully changed things to read how they wanted them to read. If you doubt that people with agendas would do something to support their position against homosexuals, just look at the fact that the word "homosexual" was never in any version of the bible until recently. It is a fact that people will do this. And they have done it.
It's also ironic that those who seem so interested in the truth, really aren't. They only want evidence to support what they think is the truth. They are not open to receiving the truth itself. That's you.
you wrote a lot of words just to show your ignorance of the study of these texts.

each copy may have its errors but they will not be the same as all the other copies. therefor by looking at the complete body of manuscripts from one passage, the actual original will reveal its self.
yes there really are only a few differences. unless of course you include all the families of manuscripts but even they will agree over ninety percent of the time and then the areas that they disagree will only be found in less then 5% of the documents.
but then you'll never be able to grasp that because even if they did agree 100% you would still reject them.
roll/role; the intent and the content was clearly understood so go play grammar police with your grade school student who needs to pas her next english test.

as for your example of "did you ever the thing...whisper..." you really don't know how things were copied nor do you understand how they are studied.

btw i'd settle for a million$

the word "homosexual" was not in a Bibles until recently because it didn't exist until recently. that doesn't mean it is not what was meant nor does it mean that it is not an accurate translation.
btw. my Bible doesn't use the word "homosexual" so i guess it escapes your "agenda" condemnation.

the truth is that the Bible is very clear and you just don't accept it. it would be more honest on your part if you would just simply say that you reject the authority of the word of God in stead of trying to use it to support your position.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1966 Jan 29, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1946; when the fundies started rewriting what has become 42+ different versions of their 'bible'; their oldest 'ancient translation' source reads like this:
.
++++++++++
Translated from the original tongues
Being the version set forth A.D. 1611
Revised A.D. 1881-1885, and A.D. 1901
Compared with the most ancient
Authorities and revised
A.D. 1946-1952
++++++++++
.
Here's one of their 'translations':
.
From the Authorized King James Bible "ancient translation" of 1611:
.
++++++++++
1 Corinthians 6:9> Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,
.
1 Corinthians 6:10> Nor theeues, nor couetous, nor drunkards, nor reuilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
++++++++++
.
So the fundamentalist rednecks changed GOD's Holy Words and added homosexuals to spice up the story. To enable the practice of fundamentalism; they also deleted sociopaths (mankind abusers) from GOD's list:
.
++++++++++
1 Corinthians 6:9> Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,
.
1 Corinthians 6:10> nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
++++++++++
what was the translation/version of your second set of verses?
AzAdam

Santa Fe, NM

#1967 Jan 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you wrote a lot of words just to show your ignorance of the study of these texts.
each copy may have its errors but they will not be the same as all the other copies. therefor by looking at the complete body of manuscripts from one passage, the actual original will reveal its self.
yes there really are only a few differences. unless of course you include all the families of manuscripts but even they will agree over ninety percent of the time and then the areas that they disagree will only be found in less then 5% of the documents.
but then you'll never be able to grasp that because even if they did agree 100% you would still reject them.
roll/role; the intent and the content was clearly understood so go play grammar police with your grade school student who needs to pas her next english test.
as for your example of "did you ever the thing...whisper..." you really don't know how things were copied nor do you understand how they are studied.
btw i'd settle for a million$
the word "homosexual" was not in a Bibles until recently because it didn't exist until recently. that doesn't mean it is not what was meant nor does it mean that it is not an accurate translation.
btw. my Bible doesn't use the word "homosexual" so i guess it escapes your "agenda" condemnation.
the truth is that the Bible is very clear and you just don't accept it. it would be more honest on your part if you would just simply say that you reject the authority of the word of God in stead of trying to use it to support your position.
I reject the authority if the Bible as the words if men. Not originating from God.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1968 Jan 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you wrote a lot of words just to show your ignorance of the study of these texts.
each copy may have its errors but they will not be the same as all the other copies. therefor by looking at the complete body of manuscripts from one passage, the actual original will reveal its self.
That is a completely illogical fantasy. I can't even believe you think that's true. Gullible!

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1969 Jan 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you wrote a lot of words just to show your ignorance of the study of these texts.
each copy may have its errors but they will not be the same as all the other copies. therefor by looking at the complete body of manuscripts from one passage, the actual original will reveal its self.
yes there really are only a few differences. unless of course you include all the families of manuscripts but even they will agree over ninety percent of the time and then the areas that they disagree will only be found in less then 5% of the documents.
but then you'll never be able to grasp that because even if they did agree 100% you would still reject them.
roll/role; the intent and the content was clearly understood so go play grammar police with your grade school student who needs to pas her next english test.
as for your example of "did you ever the thing...whisper..." you really don't know how things were copied nor do you understand how they are studied.
btw i'd settle for a million$
the word "homosexual" was not in a Bibles until recently because it didn't exist until recently. that doesn't mean it is not what was meant nor does it mean that it is not an accurate translation.
btw. my Bible doesn't use the word "homosexual" so i guess it escapes your "agenda" condemnation.
the truth is that the Bible is very clear and you just don't accept it. it would be more honest on your part if you would just simply say that you reject the authority of the word of God in stead of trying to use it to support your position.
It's OK. I suppose there have to be people like you in the world. Followers, fools, people who can't think for themselves and require strict structure in order to function, people without good judgment, people who need to be told what to do or they don't know what to do.

aka stupid people.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1971 Jan 29, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
I reject the authority if the Bible as the words if men. Not originating from God.
good, then don't argue that church leaders need to follow your interpretation of it.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1972 Jan 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a completely illogical fantasy. I can't even believe you think that's true. Gullible!
that is the way it works in simple terms. if you don't believe it that's ok, it doesn't change the facts.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1973 Jan 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
I see, so we can save money by not recognizing certain peoples' marriages.
True, and the corollary, having government recognize same sex marriage will cost more money, is also true. We've already won the freedom issue; cohabitation, economic, religious and your social freedom to call yourself married exists everywhere in the USA. No state can stop your religious marriage ceremony, unless you're already married.

.
Tony C wrote:
We can save a lot more by not recognizing opposite-sex marriages.
True, but marriage has always provided government with a tremendous benefit; the next generation of taxpayers.

.
Tony C wrote:
Only an unpatriotic person would suggest freedom is dependent on a price tag.
I disagree with your definition of 'unpatriotic'. Let me ask, is it unpatriotic to spend trillions of dollars you don't have and saddle people with debt? I'd suggest; patriotism isn't the issue; I'm talking about management, leadership or just good stewardship.

.
Tony C wrote:
But rest assured, many of us already can get Viagra from our spouse's health care plan - if we live in a civilized area and he works for a decent company.
You have the freedom to buy a health plan you choose, and negotiate with your employer for benefits. You might choose not to pool in a plan that treats the erectile dysfunction of the same sex partner of a homosexual employee. You might choose a plan with a high deductible that only covers hospitalization or the treatment of a limited set of illnesses.

Same sex marriage steals freedom, as surely as does Obamacare. The left wants government more than fathers, providing for children and government more than mothers, comforting and teaching children.


.
Tony C wrote:
So you're already paying for that.
Too true. Four more years.

.
Tony C wrote:
Not to mention, many simply have their own insurance, so it would more likely just be a case of doubling-up on which spouse had the better plan - the same decision made by many opposite sex households.
Which is why government shouldn't be involved; they only screw it up.

.
Tony C wrote:
So in short, your objection was BS and was handily refuted. Here, you can have your ass back now.
I dispute your argument; cost is the price of harm. If you like bigger government, same sex marriage is for you. If you like government to know its place; keep marriage one man and one woman.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1974 Jan 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
And once again, Brian outdoes only himself in stupidity. He tries for a new record every day, but he has already set a very high (or is that low) bar.
Some same sex marriage supporter posted a US Supreme Court reference to a case involving prison marriage regulations. The Court determined the warden may not intervene. Think of those ramifications for prison same sex marriages.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1975 Jan 29, 2013
Used to be, prison and a fine; with same sex marriage it's prison, fine and spousal support court orders.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1976 Jan 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Some same sex marriage supporter posted a US Supreme Court reference to a case involving prison marriage regulations. The Court determined the warden may not intervene. Think of those ramifications for prison same sex marriages.
Brian is trying for two record stupidity awards in one day. At least we can give him an E for Effort.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1977 Jan 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>that is the way it works in simple terms. if you don't believe it that's ok, it doesn't change the facts.
Except that it isn't "facts." It's conjecture.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1978 Jan 29, 2013
Yet, I make all my arguments without insulting my opponent's intelligence. Even when these same ad hominem insults are repeated, I chalk it up as mistakes.

Ignore the effects of same sex marriage on prison life if you want. I pity the victims of ignorance.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1979 Jan 29, 2013
This is ludicrous!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#1980 Jan 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Yet, I make all my arguments without insulting my opponent's intelligence.
You don't have any intelligence to insult.
You claim gay marriage will lead to prison rape.
Brian_G wrote:
Even when these same ad hominem insults are repeated, I chalk it up as mistakes.
Ignore the effects of same sex marriage on prison life if you want. I pity the victims of ignorance.
See what I mean...

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1981 Jan 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>True, and the corollary, having government recognize same sex marriage will cost more money, is also true. We've already won the freedom issue; cohabitation, economic, religious and your social freedom to call yourself married exists everywhere in the USA. No state can stop your religious marriage ceremony, unless you're already married.
.
<quoted text>True, but marriage has always provided government with a tremendous benefit; the next generation of taxpayers.
.
<quoted text>I disagree with your definition of 'unpatriotic'. Let me ask, is it unpatriotic to spend trillions of dollars you don't have and saddle people with debt? I'd suggest; patriotism isn't the issue; I'm talking about management, leadership or just good stewardship.
.
<quoted text>You have the freedom to buy a health plan you choose, and negotiate with your employer for benefits. You might choose not to pool in a plan that treats the erectile dysfunction of the same sex partner of a homosexual employee. You might choose a plan with a high deductible that only covers hospitalization or the treatment of a limited set of illnesses.
Same sex marriage steals freedom, as surely as does Obamacare. The left wants government more than fathers, providing for children and government more than mothers, comforting and teaching children.
.
<quoted text>Too true. Four more years.
.
<quoted text>Which is why government shouldn't be involved; they only screw it up.
.
<quoted text>I dispute your argument; cost is the price of harm. If you like bigger government, same sex marriage is for you. If you like government to know its place; keep marriage one man and one woman.
Well that's a new one: "cost is the price of harm."

You just keep grasping at straws.

Gee, if women/blacks have the right to vote, then we have to print that many more ballots, have more polling stations open, etc.

Do the founding documents state that all men are created equal but there's no room in the budget for any more people?

Your argument is so asinine, it's insulting to America. We do not restrict peoples' rights based on the cost. Ever. Period.

Not to mention you haven't proven there would be an increase in cost.

1. You're only talking about health insurance. Most gay people already have health insurance. Haven't we gone over this already? It's more a matter of switching policies than writing new ones. Sure, some new ones will be written. That's OK. Get over it. Same thing happened with interracial marriage, didn't send us into a depression.

2. You're conveniently ignoring all the savings and revenue generated. When it is legal, more people will do it. Right now it is mostly certain gay people who go as far as marriage, government be damned. So you'll have the ceremonies themselves, the taxes that will generate, the people they will employ, etc. etc.

Then you have all the same harder to quantify but still there benefits of any other marriage. Statistically, spouses will live longer, healthier lives with less chance of government dependency. That means reduced health care costs, more improvement to homes and neighborhoods, stability, etc.

Tell me again about the cost. HA!

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 Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 5 min NorCal Native 473
News Governors vow to fight SCOTUS ruling on gay mar... 23 min Brian_G 627
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 29 min Brian_G 3,314
News 10 Questions for Christians Who Support Gay Mar... 44 min Belle Sexton 8
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 48 min Belle Sexton 240
News Kentucky couples sue clerk who won't issue gay ... 58 min Mary Juwanna 23
News Supreme Court ruling allows same-sex couples to... 1 hr butters_ 1
News 'You can't have marriage equality without polyg... 2 hr DebraE 64
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 3 hr NorCal Native 7,043
More from around the web