Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments (Page 104)

Showing posts 2,061 - 2,080 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Poly Marriage Equality

Lexington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2169
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that some people succeed in knitting together loving, functional families comprised of more than two individual adults committed to one another.
Do you agree that plural marriage should be included in discussing marriage equality? Yes, or no, please.
Excellent. You do realize that there are structural issues to be resolved. So get to work and resolve them. Then build consensus among polygamists, and make your case to the rest of the country.
There is no reason a polygamist consensus must be built first before plural marriage equality should be considered. Does everyone in the gay community support same sex marriage?
Some people seem to think that society should make up the rules that govern polygamy. I can't even imagine why polygamists would want someone like me to make up the rules for them.
Yet you've excepted rules made by others for opposite sex couples, and adopted them for your own.
As you know, many people aren't very good at writing down their wishes. So we need to lay down some rules that will govern polygamous marriages in the absence of clear agreements among the husbands and wives.
There's no reason the existing laws cannot be adapted to accommodate plural marriage. If the can be altered to accommodate same sex couples, they can be altered to accommodate plural marriage. Fair is fair.
Poly Marriage Equality

Lexington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2170
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait. So your first rule is that the polygamous families must consist of adults of both sexes? No male threesomes nor female threesomes? Is it okay if a woman has six husbands? Or a husband and two wives (for her pleasure, not his)?
I merely pointed out one family as an example. Historically, polygyny, one man several wives, has been the norm. Polyandry, one woman several husbands, is very rare. However, in order to have true marriage equality, other equally loving poly relationships must be considered.Fair is fair, marriage equality is not just for same sex couples.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2171
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've never tried to refuse service to a woman; that's Tony's game, not mine. I'm for treating everyone with dignity and respect while recognizing gender role differences. Men and women are not equal, neither in law or in nature.
Aren't women superior, since THEY are the one's strong enough to carry other humans inside their bodies for months? Aren't women superior since they aren't as violent and led by testosterone and negative emotions?

It's all in how you look at it.

But, just try to deny ANY women any basic civil right under the law based ONLY on gender, and you will discover just how "unequal in nature" they are.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2172
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Poly Marriage Equality wrote:
<quoted text>
I merely pointed out one family as an example. Historically, polygyny, one man several wives, has been the norm. Polyandry, one woman several husbands, is very rare. However, in order to have true marriage equality, other equally loving poly relationships must be considered.Fair is fair, marriage equality is not just for same sex couples.
Well, take your fight to the courts. Prove no harm. Prove benefits. Prove how the complete reorganization of marriage law from a two person model to a many person model would benefit the people marrying, and not harm others, and society.

Take to the streets with your cause!

But, lets face it, you could really not care a hoot about "poly".

You just can't come up with a rational argument against same sex folks marrying ONE person.

The clue is that you are posting on a thread about same sex marriages, and not a polygamy forum.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2173
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Poly Marriage Equality wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you agree that plural marriage should be included in discussing marriage equality? Yes, or no, please.
.......
Usually, the ONLY people discussing polygamy on a same sex marriage thread are those that have NO interest in it, themselves, but want to use polygamy as a straw man because they can't come up with any rational reason to prevent same sex people from marrying ONE person.

Silly, isn't it?

If you are really a crusader for polygamy, then fight for it.

But comparing it to two people marrying really isn't going to work wellfor you.

Most people can count past two.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2175
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
They are not the same, they are different. Equal isn't different. Equal is the same.
If you have gender equality, women in combat units on the front lines and gender segregation marriage; society changes. I prefer treating women and children, protected groups and get to the lifeboats first. I like an ethical and moral society that teaches boys to become adult protectors and providers.
The Church is warning us of these dangers, you have the right to listen.
in a 'moral' society? wtf is that? there's no such thing as 'societal moral values'... never has been because it's a logical impossibility.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2176
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Usually, the ONLY people discussing polygamy on a same sex marriage thread are those that have NO interest in it, themselves, but want to use polygamy as a straw man because they can't come up with any rational reason to prevent same sex people from marrying ONE person.
Silly, isn't it?
If you are really a crusader for polygamy, then fight for it.
But comparing it to two people marrying really isn't going to work wellfor you.
Most people can count past two.
exactly

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2177
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Quest wrote:
Aren't women superior, since THEY are the one's strong enough to carry other humans inside their bodies for months? Aren't women superior since they aren't as violent and led by testosterone and negative emotions? It's all in how you look at it.
That's right; men and women are different, not equal. There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution.

.
Quest wrote:
But, just try to deny ANY women any basic civil right under the law based ONLY on gender, and you will discover just how "unequal in nature" they are.
I've never suggested denying any basic civil right to anyone; there is no right to redefine marriage.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2178
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

dances with weebles wrote:
in a 'moral' society? wtf is that? there's no such thing as 'societal moral values'... never has been because it's a logical impossibility.
Maybe in your world, but our small government democracy requires individual act responsibly and morally in their communities. Local groups used to provide most of the welfare support the federal government provides now.
sickofit

Hayfield, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2179
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Over 20 times both greed and glutony are mention in bible as being real bad sins..gay sex is mentioned 5 times 4 of which in old testament....WHY DONT RELIGOUS FREAKS GET MADE AT FAT SLOBS AND RICH PEOPLE??????????How about a fat and rich people ban christians????????
sickofit

Hayfield, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2180
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe in your world, but our small government democracy requires individual act responsibly and morally in their communities. Local groups used to provide most of the welfare support the federal government provides now.
And when churches stopped helping the por and closed there door to helping them someone had to....YOU RELIGOUS FREAKS CAN HELP ANYTIME YOU WANT....Now go do it..........
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2181
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>During a debate that lasted more than six hours, many Conservative MPs denounced the legislation, saying it was morally wrong, not a public priority, and unnecessarily divisive, threatening a corrosive legacy of bitterness.
Conservative lawmaker Gerald Howarth told parliament that the government had no mandate to push through a "massive social and cultural change".
"This is not evolution, it's revolution," added Edward Leigh, another Conservative member of parliament, saying marriage was "by its nature a heterosexual union".
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/uk-b...
The reason 'morality' lost the fight; is because 'morality' is too abstract to have legal bearing
.
Morality leans more towards individual opinion; than towards public law
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2182
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Poly Marriage Equality wrote:
<quoted text>
Our marriages are just as valid as yours, and we support marriage equality. We ask that it be reciprocated. Marriage equality is for everyone, not just opposite sex, or same sex couples.
No, your marriages don't exist legally, so they are NOT as valid.
There's no such thing as "marriage equality." What our constitution guarantees is equal protection. If you believe your group has been wrongly excluded from the protection of legal marriage, you are free to take your grievence to court. Our support will make no difference to the court. Make your case. Go for it. Good luck.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2183
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex couples have freedom of association; no state restricts homosexual's freedom to live as they please. What nobody gets is the special right to redefine marriage.
Advocating same sex marriage as a freedom issue is similar to advocating legalizing marijuana, K2, Spice and other drugs. Same sex marriage is harmful to the body of civilization in the same way drugs harm the human body.
Don't do drugs and keep marriage one man and one woman.
Good grief, Brian. You're a mess.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2184
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Brian_G wrote:
They are not the same, they are different. Equal isn't different. Equal is the same.
If you have gender equality, women in combat units on the front lines and gender segregation marriage; society changes. I prefer treating women and children, protected groups and get to the lifeboats first. I like an ethical and moral society that teaches boys to become adult protectors and providers.
The Church is warning us of these dangers, you have the right to listen.
The Church is playing you like a cheap violin.
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2185
Feb 6, 2013
 
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, your marriages don't exist legally, so they are NOT as valid.
just like if you tried to marry in jersey, right?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2186
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."
(Golinski v. OPM)

Prejudice is clearly displayed by refusing to treat others as you would yourself under the law.

Treating gay people equally under the laws currently in effect for straight people does not alter what marriage is for straight people. It only expands who can participate. Denial of equality provides nothing to straight couples. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2187
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Poly Marriage Equality wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you agree that plural marriage should be included in discussing marriage equality? Yes, or no, please.
I don't know what the rules for plural marriage will be. At this point, there is nothing to discuss.
There is no reason a polygamist consensus must be built first before plural marriage equality should be considered. Does everyone in the gay community support same sex marriage?
Not everyone in the heterosexual community supports marriage. But the rules that govern marriages between two people are well-known. So we can discuss it.
Yet you've excepted rules made by others for opposite sex couples, and adopted them for your own.
<quoted text>
There's no reason the existing laws cannot be adapted to accommodate plural marriage.
That's exactly what I've been saying: There's no reason existing laws cannot be adapted. But how do you propose to do so? It's up to you and fellow polygamists, not us.
If the can be altered to accommodate same sex couples, they can be altered to accommodate plural marriage. Fair is fair.
We are not asking for any alterations in the laws, other than to drop gender references.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2188
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dodo wrote:
Good grief, Brian. You're a mess.
I make all my arguments based on reason, not ad hominem fallacies.

.
Jane Dodo wrote:
The Church is playing you like a cheap violin.
Yet, I don't use religious arguments even though I appeal to allies in the religious community. We have allies in the homosexual community too; not every gay supports same sex marriage.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2189
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

sickofit wrote:
And when churches stopped helping the por and closed there door to helping them someone had to....YOU RELIGOUS FREAKS CAN HELP ANYTIME YOU WANT....Now go do it..........
They never stopped, the government shut them out because their religious values, a child should be raised by a mother and father doesn't meet the requirement of new secular laws. The government is spending more than it has, putting our children in debt.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,061 - 2,080 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

27 Users are viewing the US News Forum right now

Search the US News Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min DanFromSmithville 112,018
Obama may hold fix to flood of immigrant kids 6 min Chicopee 24
Obama: US always has been a nation of immigrants 9 min dirtbag1958 101
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min shinningelectr0n 1,073,275
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 13 min Quirky 240,560
Obama offers US help negotiating Israel cease-fire 27 min jew 80
Every Year On July 11, Bosnian Muslims Hold A M... 28 min Nandrelle 16
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 50,854
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••