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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4926 Jun 25, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Polyandry wasn't rare, but common in ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Japan, South America, North America, and some parts of China and India.
As compared to the far more common, and widespread practice of polygyny, yes it is.
Also, in Japan, Greece, and Rome, homosexual unions were considered more noble than heterosexual unions(I think a union is honorable if it's based upon love and trust. This is just how they felt). In many Native American cultures, people who were gay were considered to be "two-spirited" and were viewed with reverence, as were their unions. Idk why you're saying these unions weren't recognized as marriage when in these places and at these times, heterosexual unions were more viewed as nuisances that were necessary for heirs, trade, and contracts.
Not all of them were recognized as marriage, certainly not on the same level as conjugal, husband and wife, marriage. SSM, despite scattered historical examples, is virtually a modern western invention. It has no deep, cross time, cross culture, sustained, historic roots. If it did, there be no need for this debate, it would already exist, and be part of our culture.
I have no idea where you're going with the veggie burger analogy. I guess youre saying that gay unions aren't as good as hetero unions?
A veggie patty is created to look like a hamburger, even called a "burger", but its not. It bears the appearance of a hamburger but that's it. My point is, SSUs differ in form, and function. It's not an issue of "as good as", which, I don't understand the intent.
If so, you don't really know what you're talking about. I know gays that are in incredibly loving relationships, and I know heterosexual people who cheat all the time. It's not about the sex of the person. It's about the character of that person.
You're making a value judgement, while ignoring the difference in form and function, between the two, opposite sex, and same sex, unions.
. Idk why you would seek to bring people down just because they're not being like you(I'm going to assume you're a guy like me, who likes girls). Get over it, and stop judging people like that. It's not your life, it's not your problem, so it's not your decision
I'm a married man with children. So anything goes? Is that it? Why is it "judging people" to oppose redefining legal marriage?
.I'd like to also say that your blatant ignoring of the sexual discrimination at place here is silly.
"Sexual discrimination"? Advocating for gender segregated marriage is not discriminatory? Please explain.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4927 Jun 25, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot of the points these people make seem either personal, irrational, or just off-beat. One guys claims he's against it because he views it as disrespectful to faith and weird(which is BS), one person is against it because she views marriage as hateful towards women and says gays should instead fight against climate change(which is BS and unfair), one person is against marriage for gays because he views marriage as destructive against
families(which is BS), and another guy says he's against it because he likes being petty and likes how civil unions will exclude heterosexual people(which is terrible as well as being BS). All you've proven with this link is that every community has its imbeciles. Also, I don't know why this should be a basis for gays not being allowed to marry. Many heterosexuals don't like marriage, but some marry. The option should be put on the
table. It's just the right thing to do.
How is redefining marriage, legally sanctioning gender segregation in marriage, "the right thing to do"? If it's that, is also the "right thing to do" to legalize polygamy between consenting adults? Siblings, at least same sex siblings?

There are gay people who oppose redefining marriage because of the possible long term negative consequences for society. They desire legal protections for SSCs, but believe legal marriage should be maintained as a union of husband and wife.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765625848/...

Doug Mainwaring, a homosexual man and co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots, published a piece about why he is opposed to same-sex marriage on The Witherspoon Institute's Public Discourse website last month.


Mainwaring recognized his attraction to the same sex at the age of 8 but later entered into a heterosexual marriage to his "soul mate," whom he met singing in a youth choir. Mainwaring and his wife were unable to conceive and adopted two boys before their marriage ended.


Following the divorce, Mainwaring explored a homosexual lifestyle and came to realizations that led him to gather his family under one roof again.


"Over several years, intellectual honesty led me to some unexpected conclusions:(1) Creating a family with another man is not completely equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both."


Mainwaring says he has come to these conclusions not by religion but by reason and experience.


"Over the last couple of years, I've found our decision to rebuild our family ratified time after time. One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my 16-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on. With two dads in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-pla ying son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4928 Jun 25, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/us/05belief...

A Gay Catholic Voice Against Same-Sex Marriage
By MARK OPPENHEIMER
WASHINGTON —“I spent the summer before college reading Shakespeare and staring out the window and occasionally being a roadie for my friend’s band,” says Eve Tushnet, the celibate, gay, conservative, Catholic writer. That was all good fun, she says upon meeting in Union Station, but she was ready for more, although she knew not what.“I was hoping for something very different in college.”

It is common, this freshman urge for self-invention. The football player tries his hand at poetry; the classical violinist fiddles in a bluegrass band. But Ms. Tushnet — whose parents, Mark Tushnet and Elizabeth Alexander, are a well-known liberal Harvard law professor and a former American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, respectively — did not imagine that she would become a Roman Catholic, nor that 10 years after graduation, her voice, on her blog and in numerous articles, would be one of the most surprising raised against same-sex marriage.

As the hundred or so daily readers of eve-tushnet.blogspot.com , and a larger audience for her magazine writing, know by now, Ms. Tushnet can seem a paradox: fervently Catholic, proudly gay, happily celibate. She does not see herself as disordered; she does not struggle to be straight, but she insists that her religion forbids her a sex life.

“The sacrifices you want to make aren’t always the only sacrifices God wants,” Ms. Tushnet wrote in a 2007 essay for Commonweal. While gay sex should not be criminalized, she said, gay men and lesbians should abstain. They might instead have passionate friendships, or sublimate their urges into other pursuits.“It turns out I happen to be very good at sublimating,” she says, while acknowledging that that is a lot to ask of others.

Marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals, whose “relationships can be either uniquely dangerous or uniquely fruitful,” she explained in an e-mail message.“Thus it makes sense to have an institution dedicated to structuring and channeling them.”

But same-sex marriage, she wrote in The New York Post in 2007,“can bring one of three outcomes: A two-tiered marriage culture, where heterosexual couples are asked to do the hard things (sex only within marriage, marriage for life in most circumstances) and homosexual couples work out their own marriage norms; reshape marriage into an optional, individualized institution, ignoring the creative and destructive potentials of ‘straight’ sex; or encourage all couples to restrict sex to marriage and marry for life, and hope that gay couples accept norms designed to meet heterosexual needs.”

Ms. Tushnet entered Yale in 1996 a happy lesbian, out since age 13 or 14 (she can’t quite remember). Her father, a nonobservant Jew, and her mother, a Unitarian, both belonged to progressive traditions, tolerant of her sexuality.

When, as a freshman, she attended a meeting of the Party of the Right, a conservative group affiliated with the Yale Political Union, it was “specifically to laugh at them, to see the zoo animals,” she says.

“But I was really impressed, not only by the weird arguments but the degree to which it was clear that the people making them lived as if what they were saying had actual consequences for their lives, that had required them to make sacrifices.”

But she found the Party of the Right students compassionate, intellectual and not terribly exercised about her homosexuality. She was drawn to the Catholics among them, who corrected her misimpression that the existence of sin “means you are bad.” It means “precisely the opposite,” they taught her.“It means you have a chance to come back and repent and be saved,” she says. She began reading books like St. Anselm’s “Why God Became Man.” She began attending church. Her sophomore year, she was baptized.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4930 Jun 25, 2013
lides wrote:
You have yet to prove that the IRS released the form, moron. Listen to your rant. Why would HRC release this information 5 years after the fact? Can you prove that NOM didn't release the form to smear HRC? Your assertion is inept, and your inability to rationally defend it is hysterical. Never have I seen anyone so eager to prove their own incompetence.
We need an FBI investigation of this felony tax infraction; the form published by the Huffington Post had IRS processing information so it obviously was obviously leaked after the form was submitted. The HRC and Huffington Post admitted they got NOM's tax form from a whistleblower. Let's have an investigation and learn the truth.

The idea "that NOM did[] release the form to smear HRC" is the most absurd example of blaming the victim I've ever heard. I suppose likes would blame the rape victim and ask for proof she didn't proposition the rapist.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4931 Jun 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We need an FBI investigation of this felony tax infraction; the form published by the Huffington Post had IRS processing information so it obviously was obviously leaked after the form was submitted. The HRC and Huffington Post admitted they got NOM's tax form from a whistleblower. Let's have an investigation and learn the truth.
The idea "that NOM did[] release the form to smear HRC" is the most absurd example of blaming the victim I've ever heard. I suppose likes would blame the rape victim and ask for proof she didn't proposition the rapist.
Brian, you've yet to prove that NOM is a victim, that HRC did anything illegal (you have regularly linked to an HRC article that claims the document in question is a publicly available FEC filing, which basically proves that your claim is baseless), or that the IRS acted in appropriately( http://www.hu ffing tonpost.com/2013/0 6/24/irs-progressi ve-groups_n_349267 9.html?1372112673 ). What is more, NOM being a political organization, your assertion that their form 990 Schedule B is private is also false, a claim that has been illustrated with links to the IRS website. "Tax-exempt political organizations may also be required to file Form 990 , including Schedule B. Political organizations must make both of these forms available to the public, including the contributor information." http://www.irs.gov /pub/irs-tege/eo_d isclosure_faqs.pdf

Your argument has more holes than a screen door, and you seem to lack the ability to rationally defend it on any level.

Feel free to keep posting you unsubstantiated drivel, I will be more than happy to keep posting information that makes you look like the ignorant fool you are.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4932 Jun 25, 2013
lides wrote:
Brian, you've yet to prove that NOM is a victim, that HRC did anything illegal (you have regularly linked to an HRC article that claims the document in question is a publicly available FEC filing, which basically proves that your claim is baseless),
Last July, our colleague Kim Strassel reported on the troubling case of Idaho businessman Frank VanderSloot, who'd donated money to a pro-Romney organization. In April, an Obama campaign website "called out Mr. VanderSloot and seven other private donors by name and occupation and slurred them as having 'less-than-reputable' records." Two months later he received an audit notice from the IRS. Two more weeks later the Department of Labor informed him it would audit his business.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788...
http://bit.ly/OxwGv6

.
lides wrote:
or that the IRS acted in appropriately([URL deleted]).
Releasing confidential tax information to a third party is a felony, the IRS did not act appropriately.

.
lides wrote:
What is more, NOM being a political organization, your assertion that their form 990 Schedule B is private is also false, a claim that has been illustrated with links to the IRS website. "Tax-exempt political organizations may also be required to file Form 990 , including Schedule B. Political organizations must make both of these forms available to the public, including the contributor information." http://www.irs.gov /pub/irs-tege/eo_disclosure_fa qs.pdf
NOM isn't a political organization, any more than the HRC is. NOM is a policy organization, pro marriage.

I assume the link should be: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eo_disclosure...

It states:

"9. Is a tax-exempt organization required to disclose the names or addresses of its contributors?

A tax-exempt organization is generally not required to disclose publicly the names or addresses of its contributors set forth on its annual return, including Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF). The regulations specifically exclude the name and address of any contributor to the organization from the definition of disclosable documents...."

.
lides wrote:
Your argument has more holes than a screen door, and you seem to lack the ability to rationally defend it on any level.
I propose an investigation, to fill the holes.

.
lides wrote:
Feel free to keep posting you unsubstantiated drivel, I will be more than happy to keep posting information that makes you look like the ignorant fool you are.
NOM claimed to Congress, that its 2008 Schedule B was published without its consent; if that's a lie that's perjury. The victim made a claim, the Huffington Post admits the release of confidential tax documents, let's investigate.
http://www.nomblog.com/35132

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4933 Jun 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Last July, our colleague Kim Strassel reported on the troubling case of Idaho businessman Frank VanderSloot, who'd donated money to a pro-Romney organization. In April, an Obama campaign website "called out Mr. VanderSloot and seven other private donors by name and occupation and slurred them as having 'less-than-reputable' records." Two months later he received an audit notice from the IRS. Two more weeks later the Department of Labor informed him it would audit his business.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788...
http://bit.ly/OxwGv6
Congratulations, you’ve found another case where you can’t prove the IRS acted improperly. It seems the crux of this non-scandal was a tweet. Do you relize how stupid you look when you can’t support your argument and then link to a controversy, or an attempt to make one, fabricated from a tweet?

Twit.
Brian_G wrote:
Releasing confidential tax information to a third party is a felony, the IRS did not act appropriately.
First, you haven’t proven that they have done so. Second,
“Tax-exempt political organizations may also be required to file Form 990 , including Schedule B. Political organizations must make both of these forms available to the public, including the contributor information." http://www.irs.gov /pub/irs-tege/eo_d isclosure_faqs.pdf
Brian_G wrote:
NOM isn't a political organization, any more than the HRC is. NOM is a policy organization, pro marriage.
I assume the link should be: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eo_disclosure...
It states:
"9. Is a tax-exempt organization required to disclose the names or addresses of its contributors?
A tax-exempt organization is generally not required to disclose publicly the names or addresses of its contributors set forth on its annual return, including Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF). The regulations specifically exclude the name and address of any contributor to the organization from the definition of disclosable documents...."
Mission statement of NationalOrganization for Marriage
“The mission of the Organization is to promote the importance of, and advocate for, marriage between one man and one woman, in law and society.”
http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/26-024...

If they are involved in the legal aspect, they are a political organization. Only an imbecile would claim otherwise.

You look dumb when you make statements like this, and when you cite law or federal regulations incorrectly.
Brian_G wrote:
I propose an investigation, to fill the holes.
I propose that you are an imbecile calling for an investigation, which would be costly, without first proving that there is probable cause that anyone acted in appropriately. Do you know what we call that? A witch hunt.
Brian_G wrote:
NOM claimed to Congress, that its 2008 Schedule B was published without its consent; if that's a lie that's perjury. The victim made a claim, the Huffington Post admits the release of confidential tax documents, let's investigate.
http://www.nomblog.com/35132
NOM can’t substantiate this claim.
NOM made this claim 5 years after the filing date in a clear attempt to bootstrap on the allegations of IRS misconduct, which have similarly been proven to be false. Like yourself, Issa is a liar. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-19...
I have already illustrated that your assertion that their Form 990 Schedule B is private is a false one.“Tax-exempt political organizations may also be required to file Form 990 , including Schedule B. Political organizations must make both of these forms available to the public, including the contributor information." http://www.irs.gov /pub/irs-tege/eo_d isclosure_faqs.pdf

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4934 Jun 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06 /05/us/05beliefs.html?_r=0
A Gay Catholic Voice Against Same-Sex Marriage
By MARK OPPENHEIMER
WASHINGTON —“I spent the summer before college reading Shakespeare and staring out the window and occasionally being a roadie for my friend’s band,” says Eve Tushnet, the celibate, gay, conservative, Catholic writer. That was all good fun, she says upon meeting in Union Station, but she was ready for more, although she knew not what.“I was hoping for something very different in college.”
It is common, this freshman urge for self-invention. The football player tries his hand at poetry; the classical violinist fiddles in a bluegrass band. But Ms. Tushnet — whose parents, Mark Tushnet and Elizabeth Alexander, are a well-known liberal Harvard law professor and a former American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, respectively — did not imagine that she would become a Roman Catholic, nor that 10 years after graduation, her voice, on her blog and in numerous articles, would be one of the most surprising raised against same-sex marriage.
As the hundred or so daily readers of eve-tushnet.blogspot.com , and a larger audience for her magazine writing, know by now, Ms. Tushnet can seem a paradox: fervently Catholic, proudly gay, happily celibate. She does not see herself as disordered; she does not struggle to be straight, but she insists that her religion forbids her a sex life.
“The sacrifices you want to make aren’t always the only sacrifices God wants,” Ms. Tushnet wrote in a 2007 essay for Commonweal. While gay sex should not be criminalized, she said, gay men and lesbians should abstain. They might instead have passionate friendships, or sublimate their urges into other pursuits.“It turns out I happen to be very good at sublimating,” she says, while acknowledging that that is a lot to ask of others.
Marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals, whose “relationships can be either uniquely dangerous or uniquely fruitful,” she explained in an e-mail message.“Thus it makes sense to have an institution dedicated to structuring and channeling them.”
But same-sex marriage, she wrote in The New York Post in 2007,“can bring one of three outcomes: A two-tiered marriage culture, where heterosexual couples are asked to do the hard things (sex only within marriage, marriage for life in most circumstances) and homosexual couples work out their own marriage norms; reshape marriage into an optional, individualized institution, ignoring the creative and destructive potentials of ‘straight’ sex; or encourage all couples to restrict sex to marriage and marry for life, and hope that gay couples accept norms designed to meet heterosexual needs.”
Ms. Tushnet entered Yale in 1996 a happy lesbian, out since age 13 or 14 (she can’t quite remember). Her father, a nonobservant Jew, and her mother, a Unitarian, both belonged to progressive traditions, tolerant of her sexuality.
When, as a freshman, she attended a meeting of the Party of the Right, a conservative group affiliated with the Yale Political Union, it was “specifically to laugh at them, to see the zoo animals,” she says.
“But I was really impressed, not only by the weird arguments but the degree to which it was clear that the people making them lived as if what they were saying had actual consequences for their lives, that had required them to make sacrifices.”
But she found the Party of the Right students compassionate, intellectual and not terribly exercised about her homosexuality. She was drawn to the Catholics among them, who corrected her misimpression that the existence of sin “means you are bad.” It means “precisely the opposite,” they taught her.“It means you have a chance to come back and repent and be saved,” she says. She began reading books like St. Anselm’s “Why God Became Man.” She began attending church. Her sophomore year, she was baptized.
Catholic Voice. Irrelevant as usual.

“Emblem of the Brave and True”

Since: Sep 10

Los Angeles, CA

#4935 Jun 25, 2013
Political backlash from church leaders? Could this be the beginning to some sort of separation between church and state then, I wonder.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4936 Jun 25, 2013
Nomos Soter wrote:
Political backlash from church leaders? Could this be the beginning to some sort of separation between church and state then, I wonder.
It could be the beginning of the end of tax exemption for religious organizations that decide to enter into the political realm.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#4937 Jun 25, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree that you should be able to control whether people are in your business creating a disturbance, or causing any problems for your business, your staff, or your other customers. But you seem to want to stand at the door, turning away anyone who doesn't meet your standards of "acceptable", standards which have nothing to do with conducting business, before those individuals have acted in a way that is disruptive.
<quoted text>
How is that any different from gay customers? I guarantee you, if I walked into your business, you wouldn't have any idea that I was gay.
What if you already KNEW some of these things about a person? What if your neighbor's daughter came in, and you already KNEW she'd had an abortion, or that she was divorced and remarried? Would you ban her from your store, for fear of being perceived as "condoning and celebrating" her "lifestyle"?
<quoted text>
What do you mean by "imposed"? Are you being FORCED to adopt the "lifestyle" of someone, just because you serve them a coffee or check their brake fluid (or bake a cake)? What is being "imposed"? If a gay man walks into your business and orders whatever, what is he "imposing" on you?
<quoted text>
You should hold the same rule of "acting in a polite social way" for EVERYONE who walks in your door, gay or straight (or any walk of life), until they violate THAT rule.
<quoted text>
We're not talking about HIRING practices, but SERVICE practices. We also aren't talking about exclusively Christian institutions like universities, but PUBLIC businesses. I'm sure you can find many "justifications" for treating strangers like pariahs if you tack on enough qualifiers to change the conversation from a public business to a private facility, but I'll never see any moral superiority in such practices. It also has nothing to do with what we were discussing. This only makes it look like you can no longer defend your position, and need to narrow the conditions down to only very specific cases.
Gay people aren't going into businesses and having sex on the floor. They're in there to spend money on the services offered to everyone. You seem perfectly happy to serve OTHER people who engage in a whole host of activities that Christians would consider "immoral", as long as they behave in a polite and civil manner while in your business. I have to wonder why you don't want to extend this courtesy to gay people.
The more I see behavior from Christians purporting to be "moral", the less I believe it. Clearly, this religion would prefer to have society sliced up into divisions of people who are worth associating with, and people who are not. More focus is given to frowning on private, consensual activities, than to polite and civil behavior. Why is it a Christian tenet to seek the "right" to mistreat and shun their fellow humans, rather than work cooperatively with different types of people to build a more unified world?
it all stems from the old testement ideal of "abomination" (biblical definition) which was about not dining with egyptians.

"When it is said, for example, "The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians," this is the word used; the significance being that the Hebrews were repugnant to the Egyptians as foreigners, as of an inferior caste, and especially as shepherds (Gen 46:34).
The feeling of the Egyptians for the Greeks was likewise one of repugnance. Herodotus (ii.41) says the Egyptians would not kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or taste meat cut with the knife of a Greek."

interesting, isn't it? even in ancient times, there was some sort of justification of racial division.
Broseph

Newark, DE

#4938 Jun 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As compared to the far more common, and widespread practice of polygyny, yes it is.
<quoted text>
Not all of them were recognized as marriage, certainly not on the same level as conjugal, husband and wife, marriage. SSM, despite scattered historical examples, is virtually a modern western invention. It has no deep, cross time, cross culture, sustained, historic roots. If it did, there be no need for this debate, it would already exist, and be part of our culture.
<quoted text>
A veggie patty is created to look like a hamburger, even called a "burger", but its not. It bears the appearance of a hamburger but that's it. My point is, SSUs differ in form, and function. It's not an issue of "as good as", which, I don't understand the intent.
<quoted text>
You're making a value judgement, while ignoring the difference in form and function, between the two, opposite sex, and same sex, unions.
<quoted text>
I'm a married man with children. So anything goes? Is that it? Why is it "judging people" to oppose redefining legal marriage?
<quoted text>
"Sexual discrimination"? Advocating for gender segregated marriage is not discriminatory? Please explain.
You can say that with a lot of things. When compared with colored people, whites are far less common. When compared to tyrannies, republics and democracies are far less common. Just because something is lessncommon doesn't make it bad or even odd. The point was that polyandry wasn't the out-of-the-blue occurrence you made it out to be. It was well-established in many ancient cultures. Also, of course many same sex marriages and unions weren't on the same level as opposite sex unions and marriages. Many times, same sex marriages and unions were regarded in much higher esteem.

“Emblem of the Brave and True”

Since: Sep 10

Los Angeles, CA

#4939 Jun 25, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It could be the beginning of the end of tax exemption for religious organizations that decide to enter into the political realm.
Even Better!
Broseph

Newark, DE

#4940 Jun 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As compared to the far more common, and widespread practice of polygyny, yes it is.
<quoted text>
Not all of them were recognized as marriage, certainly not on the same level as conjugal, husband and wife, marriage. SSM, despite scattered historical examples, is virtually a modern western invention. It has no deep, cross time, cross culture, sustained, historic roots. If it did, there be no need for this debate, it would already exist, and be part of our culture.
<quoted text>
A veggie patty is created to look like a hamburger, even called a "burger", but its not. It bears the appearance of a hamburger but that's it. My point is, SSUs differ in form, and function. It's not an issue of "as good as", which, I don't understand the intent.
<quoted text>
You're making a value judgement, while ignoring the difference in form and function, between the two, opposite sex, and same sex, unions.
<quoted text>
I'm a married man with children. So anything goes? Is that it? Why is it "judging people" to oppose redefining legal marriage?
<quoted text>
"Sexual discrimination"? Advocating for gender segregated marriage is not discriminatory? Please explain.
So you acknowledge gay marriage has existed in ancient history, yet still think it's 100% modern? That's a new one. Also, just because something doesn't exist in in a certain place or time doesn't mean it doesn't have historical roots that are deep. The Star Spangled Banner borrowed the tune of called Anarcreon in Heaven. Anacreon was a Greek poet who liked to write many things, including gay love stuff. St Paul's Cathedral is literally filled with statues and drawings of half-naked men, which were inspired by real-life or mythical, gay romance. Western society is full of gayness. In Japan, you still have tons of pre-Meiji era art and stories that detail then love samurais had for each other. To pretend that gay unions or marriages don't have strong historical roots is a falsehood. Even if it were something, new, which it isn't, so what? It doesn't hurt anyone, and it helps gay people and their families. What's the harm? Also it's not simply about you judging people. It's about you forcing your will on other people simply because you don't like things that are different. Thats the issue. Also, it's not gender segregation. Heterosexuals like marrying people of the opposite sex while homosexuals like being married to people of the same sex. Segregation implies that they're being denied entrance into something that their contemporaries can enter in, but if same sex marriage were also recognized, then any, consenting adult can marry any other consenting adult. It's that people typically marry people that they're attracted to. The only thing stopping them is their free will, and the free will of their partner. Totally no segregation in regard to sex or gender. Your way is true gender segregation for it stops people of the same sex from getting married to each other, and simply because they are of the same sex.
Broseph

Newark, DE

#4941 Jun 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As compared to the far more common, and widespread practice of polygyny, yes it is.
<quoted text>
Not all of them were recognized as marriage, certainly not on the same level as conjugal, husband and wife, marriage. SSM, despite scattered historical examples, is virtually a modern western invention. It has no deep, cross time, cross culture, sustained, historic roots. If it did, there be no need for this debate, it would already exist, and be part of our culture.
<quoted text>
A veggie patty is created to look like a hamburger, even called a "burger", but its not. It bears the appearance of a hamburger but that's it. My point is, SSUs differ in form, and function. It's not an issue of "as good as", which, I don't understand the intent.
<quoted text>
You're making a value judgement, while ignoring the difference in form and function, between the two, opposite sex, and same sex, unions.
<quoted text>
I'm a married man with children. So anything goes? Is that it? Why is it "judging people" to oppose redefining legal marriage?
<quoted text>
"Sexual discrimination"? Advocating for gender segregated marriage is not discriminatory? Please explain.
So you acknowledge gay marriage has existed in ancient history, yet still think it's 100% modern? Which is it? Is gay marriage totally new or is it not? Also, just because something doesn't exist in in a certain place or time doesn't mean it doesn't have historical roots that are deep. The Star Spangled Banner borrowed the tune of called Anarcreon in Heaven. Anacreon was a Greek poet who liked to write many things, including gay love stuff. St Paul's Cathedral is literally filled with statues and drawings of half-naked men, which were inspired by real-life or mythical, gay romance. Western society is full of gayness. In Japan, you still have tons of pre-Meiji era art and stories that detail then love samurais had for each other. To pretend that gay unions or marriages don't have strong historical roots is a falsehood. Even if it were something, new, which it isn't, so what? It doesn't hurt anyone, and it helps gay people and their families. What's the harm? Also it's not simply about you judging people. It's about you forcing your will on other people simply because you don't like things that are different. Thats the issue. Also, it's not gender segregation. Heterosexuals like marrying people of the opposite sex while homosexuals like being married to people of the same sex. Segregation implies that they're being denied entrance into something that their contemporaries can enter in, but if same sex marriage were also recognized, then any, consenting adult can marry any other consenting adult. It's that people typically marry people that they're attracted to. The only thing stopping them is their free will, and the free will of their partner. Totally no segregation in regard to sex or gender. Your way is true gender segregation for it stops people of the same sex from getting married to each other, and simply because they are of the same sex.
Broseph

Newark, DE

#4942 Jun 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As compared to the far more common, and widespread practice of polygyny, yes it is.
<quoted text>
Not all of them were recognized as marriage, certainly not on the same level as conjugal, husband and wife, marriage. SSM, despite scattered historical examples, is virtually a modern western invention. It has no deep, cross time, cross culture, sustained, historic roots. If it did, there be no need for this debate, it would already exist, and be part of our culture.
<quoted text>
A veggie patty is created to look like a hamburger, even called a "burger", but its not. It bears the appearance of a hamburger but that's it. My point is, SSUs differ in form, and function. It's not an issue of "as good as", which, I don't understand the intent.
<quoted text>
You're making a value judgement, while ignoring the difference in form and function, between the two, opposite sex, and same sex, unions.
<quoted text>

I'm a married man with children. So anything goes? Is that it? Why is it "judging people" to oppose redefining legal marriage?
<quoted text>
"Sexual discrimination"? Advocating for gender segregated marriage is not discriminatory? Please explain.
How has gay marriage adversely affected you, your marriage, and your family?
Broseph

Newark, DE

#4943 Jun 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How is redefining marriage, legally sanctioning gender segregation in marriage, "the right thing to do"? If it's that, is also the "right thing to do" to legalize polygamy between consenting adults? Siblings, at least same sex siblings?
There are gay people who oppose redefining marriage because of the possible long term negative consequences for society. They desire legal protections for SSCs, but believe legal marriage should be maintained as a union of husband and wife.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765625848/...
Doug Mainwaring, a homosexual man and co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots, published a piece about why he is opposed to same-sex marriage on The Witherspoon Institute's Public Discourse website last month.
Mainwaring recognized his attraction to the same sex at the age of 8 but later entered into a heterosexual marriage to his "soul mate," whom he met singing in a youth choir. Mainwaring and his wife were unable to conceive and adopted two boys before their marriage ended.
Following the divorce, Mainwaring explored a homosexual lifestyle and came to realizations that led him to gather his family under one roof again.
"Over several years, intellectual honesty led me to some unexpected conclusions:(1) Creating a family with another man is not completely equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of
both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both."
Mainwaring says he has come to these conclusions not by religion but by reason and experience.
"Over the last couple of years, I've found our decision to rebuild our family ratified time after time. One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my 16-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on. With two dads
in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-pla ying son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness."
Marriage isn't being redefined because gay marriage and gay unions have been documented from thousands of years ago. If anything, it's a throwback on a classic than a remix. Also, even if it was a redefinition, so what? We've redefined a lot of things in this country in order to rectify wrongs. It used to be an American citizen was a land-owning, wealthy, Christian, white male. That's changed. Just because something is old doesn't make it just. Also, it's not gender segregation. You're coming from a zero-sum game, but it's not. Gay people being marrying each other doesn't mean that it is only strictly one gender with one gender and another gender with another. If gay marriage were legal, any legal adult could marry any other, consenting legal adult that he or she wants. It just so happens that gays want to marry the same sex while heterosexuals want to marry the opposite sex. It's not segregation, but the free will and choices of individuals at play. Do you understand now?
Broseph

Newark, DE

#4944 Jun 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How is redefining marriage, legally sanctioning gender segregation in marriage, "the right thing to do"? If it's that, is also the "right thing to do" to legalize polygamy between consenting adults? Siblings, at least same sex siblings?
There are gay people who oppose redefining marriage because of the possible long term negative consequences for society. They desire legal protections for SSCs, but believe legal marriage should be maintained as a union of husband and wife.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765625848/...
Doug Mainwaring, a homosexual man and co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots, published a piece about why he is opposed to same-sex marriage on The Witherspoon Institute's Public Discourse website last month.
Mainwaring recognized his attraction to the same sex at the age of 8 but later entered into a heterosexual marriage to his "soul mate," whom he met singing in a youth choir. Mainwaring and his wife were unable to conceive and adopted two boys before their marriage ended.
Following the divorce, Mainwaring explored a homosexual lifestyle and came to realizations that led him to gather his family under one roof again.
"Over several years, intellectual honesty led me to some unexpected conclusions:(1) Creating a family with
another man is not completely equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both."
Mainwaring says he has come to these conclusions not by religion but by reason and experience.
"Over the last couple of years, I've found our decision to rebuild our family ratified time after time. One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my 16-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on. With two dads in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-
football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness."
There is no proof that shows gays marrying each other as harmful, and the current data shows that gay parents are perfectly capable of raising kids and doing it well. Also, this guy you cite here is clearly a man who has yet to come to terms with his sexuality. He clearly hates himself, and his opinions are all based off of untrue data and negative stereotypes about masculinity.. There are a lot of men, both gay and straight, who are loving towards their kids. The fact that he can't have a truly tender moment with his child just shows me that he shouldn't even be talking about deeper issues with others, for he has too many issues himself.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4945 Jun 25, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Catholic Voice. Irrelevant as usual.
Thanks Wastey.....but a Catholic lesbian.....yeah that's right.....Convert to Catholcism and a lesbian.....don't b a hater.:)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4946 Jun 25, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
How has gay marriage adversely affected you, your marriage, and your family?
Not at all.....but the same could also be said if polygamy were legalized, or sibling marriage. So where is the line drawn? Can any consenting adult relationship be labeled marriage by the state?

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 Trump bounces into the lead 2 min spud 63
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min The Donald_ 1,403,980
News Rendell says Wasserman Schultz shouldn't take t... 9 min spud 23
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 10 min Buster Steinbeizer 219,456
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 11 min observe 10,396
News Pro-Sanders demonstrators march in the swelteri... 18 min Cordwainer Trout 7
News Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 18 min spud 131
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Abe 232,974
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 hr Quirky 391,199
More from around the web