Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,567

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

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3154 Feb 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if pigs could fly, I'd think twice about saying Suey.
Have you seen the GEICO commercial?

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#3155 Feb 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you seen the GEICO commercial?
No, bring it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3156 Feb 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
No, bring it.
http://m.youtube.com/...

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#3157 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
.
For SSMers, no, for the rest of society, yes. Please explain how removing one gender from the marital relationship, doesn't change the "what" of marraige for a population that is 90% plus, heterosexual?How does that not change marriage for everyone.
......
\

No one is "removing" one gender form marriage for any heterosexual who walks on this planet.

Are you saying that if gay people start marrying people of the same gender, that the 90%+ of the population that is not gay will start doing it as well? It hasn't happened in the past and I doubt it would happen in the future.

Or, are you saying that the very IDEA that somewhere a gay person might be marrying will so harm straight people that their marriages will be damaged? Or their ideas about marriage will be so twisted that they will stop marrying all together?

I don't think you give heterosexuals enough credit, here. Or humans in general.

When the laws were changed to allow interracial marriages, it didn't harm my parent's marriage one bit, despite all of the doom and gloom predictions from those opposed.

And they made arguments very similar to yours.

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#3158 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
...
If SSM can be considered "equal" to OSM, even though it is not the same, and it excludes one sex, then plural marriage is just as equal to binary OSM, because it includes both sexes.
......
If "A" is legally equal to to "B", does it follow that unrelated "C" must be equal to them both?

You just can't let go of the straw man, can you?

I understand it's all you have, but it's still illogical.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3160 Feb 27, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
If "A" is legally equal to to "B", does it follow that unrelated "C" must be equal to them both?
"A" is married to "B", and "C". But "B" and "C" are not married to each other.
You just can't let go of the straw man, can you?
I understand it's all you have, but it's still illogical.
You just can't embrace the poly man in the name of marriage equality, can you? I understand, its all you have not to, but its still illogical.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3161 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"A" is married to "B", and "C". But "B" and "C" are not married to each other.
If 'a' is married to 'b' and 'c' the next stop for 'a' is jail.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#3162 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
http://m.youtube.com/...
\
Your links don't work well on my computer. What are you using?
AzAdam

United States

#3163 Feb 27, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Pietro Armando" doesn't care about polygamy one way or another. Think he's ever actually made a post in a polygamy forum? Bet not.
Nope. It's purely a red herring for him. He has no real interest in it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3164 Feb 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> If 'a' is married to 'b' and 'c' the next stop for 'a' is jail.
That all depends....are they legally recognized marriages? Is it in a state with an anti cohabitation law, or anti polygamy law?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3165 Feb 27, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. It's purely a red herring for him. He has no real interest in it.
Interesting....so by your reasoning a person has to have a "real interest" in an issue in order to discuss it. Or it could be you're somehow afraid of discussing it in relation to ssm for fear that it will undermine or otherwise negatively effect it.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#3166 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay
<quoted text>
For SSM advocates, no, for plural marriagem practitioners, yes.
<quoted text>
For SSMers, no, for the rest of society, yes. Please explain how removing one gender from the marital relationship, doesn't change the "what" of marraige for a population that is 90% plus, heterosexual?How does that not change marriage for everyone.
<quoted text>
How so?
<quoted text>
Marriage laws were changed SSCs. Yet you're argument is they didn't change anything for OSCs. Changing the laws for polygamists, will not change what marriage is for OSCs, or SSCs.
<quoted text>
By that reasoning only SSM is equal because it contains two of the same sex.
<quoted text>
It is just as unequal as binary opposite sex marriage in that it contains two different sexes.
<quoted text>
As does female SSM,it restricts the number of women available to men as well.
<quoted text>
SSM denies some women the opportunity for a husband, and some men the opportunity for a wife that destabilizes society, for all.
<quoted text>
That statement fails to address the reality of plural marriage as practiced by consenting adults within specific geopgraphic, and/or, religious communities. It also fails to explain why it is acceptable for a man to father several children with several different women without the benefit, legitmacy, and recognition, that legal plural marriage would provide for himself, his children, and their mothers.
"For SSMers, no, for the rest of society, yes. Please explain how removing one gender from the marital relationship, doesn't change the "what" of marraige for a population that is 90% plus, heterosexual?How does that not change marriage for everyone."

That is easy. At its core, marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults. The contract provides for division of property, resposiblities along with other things. The contract offers various benifits to the two parties from the government. As a contract it is by nature gender neutral party of the first party of the second. So Marriage is not changed redefined in any way. The concept may be but the legal act of marriage does not change what so ever. Funny thing voting used to be strictly for men.... that concept changed... society functioned as normal. Then it changed from 21 to 18yo could vote... concept changed.. society funtioned as normal. Same thing will haappen when (not if but when) ssm becomes law of the land

"As does female SSM,it restricts the number of women available to men as well."
Do you realize how stupid that statement is. The women who get married to the women they love, NEVER EVER was available to men. It does not take any more or any less women out of play for men. Going by your "logic" marriage itself restricts the number of women availible to men...

"SSM denies some women the opportunity for a husband, and some men the opportunity for a wife that destabilizes society, for all."

Tell me you dont believe tht at this t ime the women and men who want to have ssm are interested in the opportunity for a wife or husband? Really... heres a quarter...buy a clue.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3167 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That all depends....are they legally recognized marriages? Is it in a state with an anti cohabitation law, or anti polygamy law?
Of course they aren't legally recognized marriages, you flaming moron! Jesus tap-dancing Christ!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3168 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting....so by your reasoning a person has to have a "real interest" in an issue in order to discuss it. Or it could be you're somehow afraid of discussing it in relation to ssm for fear that it will undermine or otherwise negatively effect it.
The issue is: political backlash if gay marriage passes

The issue is NOT: you're a hypocrite if you don't support polygamy, too
AzAdam

United States

#3169 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting....so by your reasoning a person has to have a "real interest" in an issue in order to discuss it. Or it could be you're somehow afraid of discussing it in relation to ssm for fear that it will undermine or otherwise negatively effect it.
I said it was a red herring. The rest of that you're adding yourself.

You obviously can and do discuss it. And no. I don't find it scary. SSM can and is being considered as a separate issue from poly marriage. Your attempts to marry the two are failing in this little micro blog and in the wider public debate, the preposterous notion isn't even on the RADAR.

I do, however fully support poly marriage and I don't find the idea that SSM would pave the way for it at all troubling. It's rather humorous to see you hold it up like the boogeyman. Like trying to scare a child with cotton candy.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3170 Feb 27, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
I said it was a red herring. The rest of that you're adding yourself.
You obviously can and do discuss it. And no. I don't find it scary. SSM can and is being considered as a separate issue from poly marriage. Your attempts to marry the two are failing in this little micro blog and in the wider public debate, the preposterous notion isn't even on the RADAR.
I do, however fully support poly marriage and I don't find the idea that SSM would pave the way for it at all troubling. It's rather humorous to see you hold it up like the boogeyman. Like trying to scare a child with cotton candy.
I agree the poly argument is a red herring and scare tactic.

While it is irrational to think removing the gender restriction will result in heterosexual people taking on a same sex partner, it is not irrational to believe removing the numbers restriction would result in more heterosexuals abandoning monogamy for plural marriages. This is the track record for polygamy, and it also results in rich men having more wives, leaving others with none. At least the one to one ratio helps keep equal opportunities open for those without great resources.

Polygamy is just one more way the wealthy can consolidate their power and control over others.

This is just one of the many ways poly arrangements are different than removing the gender restriction.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3171 Feb 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay
<quoted text>
For SSM advocates, no, for plural marriagem practitioners, yes.
<quoted text>
For SSMers, no, for the rest of society, yes. Please explain how removing one gender from the marital relationship, doesn't change the "what" of marraige for a population that is 90% plus, heterosexual?How does that not change marriage for everyone.
<quoted text>
How so?
<quoted text>
Marriage laws were changed SSCs. Yet you're argument is they didn't change anything for OSCs. Changing the laws for polygamists, will not change what marriage is for OSCs, or SSCs.
<quoted text>
By that reasoning only SSM is equal because it contains two of the same sex.
<quoted text>
It is just as unequal as binary opposite sex marriage in that it contains two different sexes.
<quoted text>
As does female SSM,it restricts the number of women available to men as well.
<quoted text>
SSM denies some women the opportunity for a husband, and some men the opportunity for a wife that destabilizes society, for all.
<quoted text>
That statement fails to address the reality of plural marriage as practiced by consenting adults within specific geopgraphic, and/or, religious communities. It also fails to explain why it is acceptable for a man to father several children with several different women without the benefit, legitmacy, and recognition, that legal plural marriage would provide for himself, his children, and their mothers.
Well, can't squeeze the reply in here, so I'll try a separate post.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3172 Feb 27, 2013
By "okay" it appears you are finally conceding the numbers requirement and the gender restriction are two different things. Removing one does not require removing the other. Poly is a separate restriction and therefore a separate argument.

Removing the gender restriction doesn't change marriage for heterosexuals because they have no interest or desire to marry someone of the same sex. It would not be personally fulfilling. Of course there may be a few self destructive exceptions, but it is irrational to believe the heterosexual "90%" would stop being heterosexual. Their marriages, present or future, are not changed.

Changing the laws for polygamists requires removing the current restrictions on number for everyone. Polygamy is just another (usually) heterosexual lifestyle choice, not a sexual orientation. While there is no reason to believe heterosexuals will stop being heterosexual, there is plenty of reason to believe removing the numbers restriction will result in more people taking multiple spouses. Again, this gives rich folks an unfair advantage, and restructures the society in their favor. Accommodating polygamy requires removing the number restriction for everyone, which changes what marriage is for everyone, SSC and OOC alike.

2 =2
That means whether two of the same or opposite sex, it is still only 2 people.

3 or more does not equal 2. That means, despite gender, 3 or more people is not the same as 2 people. 3 or more requires changing the laws for everyone, while 2 does not change what marriage is for 2, regardless of gender. All of the laws for 2 people remain the same once the gender restriction is removed.

Again, removing the gender restriction does not limit the options for heterosexuals. Heterosexual will still seek out heterosexuals, and gay people will still seek out other gay people. This will not destabilize society, but can only have a stabilizing effect as more gay people marry. Heterosexuals will also continue to marry, but won't accidentally get stuck in a non-sexual, unfulfilling relationship with a closeted gay person.

Your "responsible procreation" argument is a separate one from equal treatment under the laws currently in effect. Again it requires changing the laws for everyone. It is not equal to the current structure.

And yet each of the two polygamous parents is recognized as being responsible for the child financially as well as legally, while the legal relationship between same sex couples and their children changes when they cross state lines.

So, again, the poly argument is a very different argument because it requires changing the social structure as well as the laws for everyone, while allowing same sex couples to participate under the laws currently in effect, changes neither.

Poly is a fear mongering red herring.
AzAdam

United States

#3173 Feb 27, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree the poly argument is a red herring and scare tactic.
While it is irrational to think removing the gender restriction will result in heterosexual people taking on a same sex partner, it is not irrational to believe removing the numbers restriction would result in more heterosexuals abandoning monogamy for plural marriages. This is the track record for polygamy, and it also results in rich men having more wives, leaving others with none. At least the one to one ratio helps keep equal opportunities open for those without great resources.
Polygamy is just one more way the wealthy can consolidate their power and control over others.
This is just one of the many ways poly arrangements are different than removing the gender restriction.
Lets not confuse marriage for monogamy. That's a joke.

And the consolidation of power can be quelled with equal rights for women and full veto power on future wives or husbands.

You don't have to support poly marriage but I do.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3174 Feb 27, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets not confuse marriage for monogamy. That's a joke.
And the consolidation of power can be quelled with equal rights for women and full veto power on future wives or husbands.
You don't have to support poly marriage but I do.
As long as you understand it is a very different argument, requiring fundamental changes to the legal structure and social structure as well.

While I don't support criminalization of the private behavior, I don't support legalization either. I didn't really care till I started looking into it, and as usually practiced, it violates our ideas about equal treatment for all persons, concentrating power and resources in the hands of a few, depriving others of equal opportunities. Women currently have equal legal rights, but that doesn't mean they are always realized. These issues present a real and substantial hurdle for those in support, to overcome. And while free to try, again, it is a very different argument from treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect.

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min John Galt 1,152,919
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min Rogue Scholar 05 181,674
Tuesday's election will be hard to take sober 1 hr Le Jimbo 188
GOP Victory Sets Stage for Fresh Antiabortion... 2 hr tha Professor 79
Is Ted Cruz Running For President...In 2008? Tue Le Duped 1
Under UIC plan, part of Obama library complex w... Tue reality is a crutch 1
Senate Begins Weekend Session, Hours From Shutdown Dec 14 Le Jimbo 5