Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3834 Mar 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Only if you don't care about species survival.
.
<quoted text>^^^An excellent reason to keep marriage one man and one woman. For some people, religion is the number one reason to keep marriage male/female; on my list it's number 26.
Illogical.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3835 Mar 11, 2013
WasteWater seems to like same sex marriage because "were are on a path to destruction due to the negative impacts of overpopulation". In fact, we need more population for growth and prosperity; this is where we differ.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3836 Mar 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
WasteWater seems to like same sex marriage because "were are on a path to destruction due to the negative impacts of overpopulation". In fact, we need more population for growth and prosperity; this is where we differ.
No we don't. Growth is limited by resources. When the population becomes larger than what is needed or to do all the work necessary to support one another, then the excess population only acts as an economic drain to the prosperous ones. For example, the Middle East is full of people who have very little to look forward too each day. They are happy to do suicide bombings in order to help feed other family members. Same-sex marriage will have zero impact on population growth because same-sex families will remain an insignificant portion of the entire population of the world. Another example of why your postion on population has already been proven wrong is the "Marketing Paradox." One would think that a larger population would increase the opportunities to sell goods and services. This has been proven to be untrue because it becomes harder to identify and reach market segments as the population becomes larger and more diverse.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3837 Mar 11, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
No we don't. Growth is limited by resources. When the population becomes larger than what is needed or to do all the work necessary to support one another, then the excess population only acts as an economic drain to the prosperous ones. For example, the Middle East is full of people who have very little to look forward too each day. They are happy to do suicide bombings in order to help feed other family members. Same-sex marriage will have zero impact on population growth because same-sex families will remain an insignificant portion of the entire population of the world. Another example of why your postion on population has already been proven wrong is the "Marketing Paradox." One would think that a larger population would increase the opportunities to sell goods and services. This has been proven to be untrue because it becomes harder to identify and reach market segments as the population becomes larger and more diverse.
Doesn't any concern about population rely on the irrational belief equal legal treatment of same sex couples will somehow affect the sex lives of straight people? Does anyone really believe their sex drives will be diminished by knowing more same sex couples are receiving equal legal treatment?

It also ignores that same sex couples sometimes choose assisted reproduction, or adopt the rejected children of opposite sex couples.

Denial of equality provides nothing to opposite sex couples, while harming same sex couples needlessly.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3839 Mar 11, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't any concern about population rely on the irrational belief equal legal treatment of same sex couples will somehow affect the sex lives of straight people? Does anyone really believe their sex drives will be diminished by knowing more same sex couples are receiving equal legal treatment?
It also ignores that same sex couples sometimes choose assisted reproduction, or adopt the rejected children of opposite sex couples.
Denial of equality provides nothing to opposite sex couples, while harming same sex couples needlessly.
Yes, in the context of this debate concern about population is irrational as same-sex marriage will have no impact what-so-ever on the total population. OTOH, you are correct that same-sex couples can help provide loving homes for orphans as they already do. I agree that denial of equality hurts families.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3840 Mar 11, 2013
oh_rea11y __-__ wrote:
<quoted text>
You ain't the only one, sista.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =XLgYAHHkPFsXX
Yes indeed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3841 Mar 11, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Illogical.
Live long and prosper.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3842 Mar 11, 2013
Brainiac2 wrote:
Many wights and wrongs are not culturally subjective.
Earth 2 brainiac?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3843 Mar 11, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Really??
I can marry any woman I want to, provided she's a consenting adult and not currently married to anyone else.
Now you're catching on!
Can I do the same with a man?
Of course not silly rabbit, a man isn't a woman.
Unless I can, your "No prevention based on gender" argument kind of falls apart really quickly, doesn't it?
You cannnnn? Lordy lordy....its a miracle...theys gone and turned a man into a woman.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3844 Mar 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Live long and prosper.
You too my friend. I love Star Trek.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3846 Mar 11, 2013
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
But love is not required for marriage either. So, what argument do homosexual couples have to any right to marriage? That opposite-sex couples get to marry?
A man has the right to marry a woman, a woman should have that same right.
A woman has the right to marry a man, a man should have that same right.
Charlie Feather wrote:
However, it is not enough that homosexual marriage advocates make the argument that "gay couples should get to marry because opposite-sex couples get to do it." The question that needs to be addressed is, "Why do opposite-sex couples even get to marry in the first place?" Why indeed?!
Non-issue, really. The fact a man can marry a woman is reason enough a woman should have the same right. The fact a woman can marry a man is reason enough a man should have the same right.
Charlie Feather wrote:
The issue of homosexual marriage calls into the question the governmentÂ’s motivation for having instituted marriage in the first place. If it's not for procreation and it's not for love, then what is it for?
Non-issue really, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Would have been simple enough to make it a requirement.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3847 Mar 11, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>look around you, what keeps all of this in place? what prevents the earth from leaving its orbit?
Are you really this stupid?
barry wrote:
what actually keeps your heart beating even when you are asleep? how in the world did a muscle evolve that does not need to stop and rest? all other muscles need to, why just this one? why do otherwise healthy people just die? how would you prove that there is not a fool in your shower?
Are you in there?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3848 Mar 11, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so why do we pay a journeyman nba player more than the best street cleaners? why are the best wba players payed less than the bottom nba players? why doesn't the nba have a total team height rulee that would force teams with 7 footers to play players who are 5 foot tall? why do we still keep women out of front line combat? why do married couples with two cars pay less insurance than a single person who owns two cars. he can only drive one at a time? and since when is marriage a right?
Look up Loving v VA, dummy.
And people don't have a right to play in the NBA, so your analogy is almost as dumb as you are.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3849 Mar 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Only if you don't care about species survival.
.
<quoted text>^^^An excellent reason to keep marriage one man and one woman. For some people, religion is the number one reason to keep marriage male/female; on my list it's number 26.
No, stupid, it's not. We have freedom from religion in the US.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3850 Mar 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your assertion sex between husband and wife can result in conception, is not true for most married couples.
"Most"? I 'm not sure how you define most, but considering the median age for first marriages is 28 for men, and 26 for women, I'd say that assertion is not quite accurate. The word is "can".
Many are too old, have had vasectomies or other operations, are otherwise infertile, or are physically incapable of even having sex.
Of course physical infirmity, age, infertility, would have to factor in. However, to clarify, why don't we keep it between the ages of 18 and 50, for married couples. That should cover it.
And again, procreation has never been a requirement.
As I have acknowledged.
The fact that some can accidentally procreate provides no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right to those who can't.
Accidentally procreate? If men and wome are engaging in sexual intercourse, accidental pregnancy is a possibility. Does government not have a interest in sex taking place within the marital relationship, than without, so as to deal with such possibilities?
But you already admit procreation is not a legal requirement or restriction. So why keep proposing it as such?
I do not propose it be a legal requirement.
Those who choose plural families have the option of participating under the laws currently in effect. Changing the gender restriction won't provide them any more or less protection than anyone else has. It will simply allow same sex couples the legal protections plural families and opposite sex couples currently enjoy.
We both know, in order to accommodate plural marriage families, as with SSM, the laws would have to be changed, as it has been in states that allow legal SSM, to allow for such accommodation.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3851 Mar 12, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
A man has the right to marry a woman, a woman should have that same right.
Only if she becomes a man.
A woman has the right to marry a man, a man should have that same right.
Only if he becomes a woman.

What does it mean to marry? In 32 plus U.S. states it mean to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. Thus a man can only, by definition, marry a woman, and vice versa.
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
P.s. I didnÂ’t mean to jump on your case earlier, but the whole "marriage is for making babies" argument just pisses me off.
No problem amico
It could not be farther from the truth.
How so?
One of my daughters is incapable of having children for medical reasons, and to think anyone would belittle her marriage to her husband because "marriage is only about making babies" makes me what to hit someone... and I am a peaceful person... but go after my kids and the hair raises on the back of my neck.
No one is belittling her marriage, or my marriage, we're discussing the concept of marriage, it's definition, and the state's, and/or society's interest in it.
I know that was not your intent, but there is a HUGE hole is the "marriage is for making babies" argument.
It is a lame excuse of an argument.
Grazie
None of my children happen to be gay, but I would be fully supportive of any of them if they happened to be. I do have an extended family member that is gay, and she got married before prop 8 and is one of the 18,000 legally married same sex couples in California, and I applaud them and wish them well.
Non-issue, really. The fact a man can marry a woman is reason enough a woman should have the same right. The fact a woman can marry a man is reason enough a man should have the same right.
That requires a redefinition of marriage to reflect your assertion. One that 32 states have rejected.
Non-issue really, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Would have been simple enough to make it a requirement.
There was no need to make it a requirement. Why do you assume that failure to do so means that marriage, conjugal marriage of us and and wife, doesn't involve procreation, or that it isn't a valid function of marriage as has been understood through out time and place where marriage exists, and has existed?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3852 Mar 12, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong standard? You said that someday a studies would show conclusively that parents raised in same-sex households are at some sort of disadvantage to other children. I said the preponderance of the evidence that we've collected to date suggests you're wrong.
What standard do you like? The one that says "I believe whatever suits me, and I can always manufacture a fragment of evidence to support it?"
We both know he evidence is based on a limited subject base. There a not sufficient numbers of children raised from birth by SSCs who were together that entire time, and them alone, to make valid conclusions. Additionally, one person of the couple will always be a non biological parent. How does one make a valid comparison, between that family structure, and the biological nuclear family, all other factors being equal?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3853 Mar 12, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Wrong on both counts. What gender-specific terms one chooses to call his or her spouse is irrelevant to the legal protections attained through civil marriage.
That's not what you asked. You asked:
Name a reason that a gay couple would wish to marry and then explain to us why a straight couple could not also have the same reason.
My answer fit your question.
And for you to suggest that a straight man would desire to marry another man simply because he wants to call his spouse a husband rather than a wife is probably one of the most bizarre and ridiculous arguments I've ever seen here.
It's almost as bizarre as suggesting I did, or intended suggest that.
However, even in your irrelevant answers, you proved my point. Gay couples and straight couples wish to marry for EXACTLY the same reasons.
It's neither straight or gay, it's either same sex couple or opposite sex couple. An opposite sex couple may wish to marry to provide their children with their own married mother and father, a reason a SSC would not offer.
And regarding paternity/maternity issues and "legitimacy" of children (who thinks about that anymore??), same/same. Same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples desire the same protections for their families for the same reasons.
That's not what you asked. Go back an retread what you wrote. My answer fits into what you wrote.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3854 Mar 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal marriages of same sex couples are not treated equally under the law to the marriages of opposite sex couples from the same jurisdiction, by the feds and all other states. This is discrimination under the law, based on gender. While gender alone is not a restriction, requiring one of each is a restriction based on gender.
(Of course you know this, and are just being difficult.)
I know that when some states legalized SSM it was highly controversial, and the Federal government, and more,than half the states did not agree, thus DOMAIN, and the various state constitutional amendments.
You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment to same sex couples under the laws currently in effect for opposite sex couples.
Those states that do not wish to provide "equal treatment" do not have to, nor do they choose to. There reason to do so is valid, for they do not view SSM as a legitimate form of marriage, one wish they choose to acknowledge.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3855 Mar 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Most"? I 'm not sure how you define most, but considering the median age for first marriages is 28 for men, and 26 for women, I'd say that assertion is not quite accurate. The word is "can".
Another operative word is "first." What do you suppose is the median age for second and third marriages?

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 41 min Brian_G 996
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 43 min Brian_G 11,857
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr dark wood 384,190
News Alabama Supreme Court annuls its ruling on lesb... 1 hr Magic Utah Uwear 4
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Joe Balls 214,484
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr they 225,069
News Mexican-American textbook stirs cultural debate... 2 hr Dee Liverence 24
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 2 hr Snagle Tooth 875
News Government to stop using 'negro' and 'oriental' 8 hr WeTheSheeple 354
More from around the web