Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5276 Jul 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Make up your mind. If people should be allowed to marry according to their orientation, logically a bisexual, should be allowed to marry one of each sex, if they so choose. Ya can't have it both ways, although, bisexuals do.
Yawn. Can someone wake me when the bisexuals all want to marry one of each gender!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5277 Jul 5, 2013
Oh, and make sure that those two people of opposite gender also want to marry each other and not just the bisexual person!!!!
Pietro Armando

West Hartford, CT

#5278 Jul 5, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Just how dumb are you? Many bisexuals enter into monogamous relationships.
Three is still greater than two. I'm still sorry you can't count or engage in basic logic
And gay people marry someone of the opposite sex. So I guess orientation is such a factor after all. See equal protection.
Pietro Armando

West Hartford, CT

#5279 Jul 5, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I say that Pietro? Which post? I'd especially love to see the part where I mentioned "denying". I'm very curious where I mentioned my view on the subject.
Waiting....
waiting....
Waiting....
Your routine is tired, and lame. But given the immaturity of your posts, I do see where it would be easier to argue against things you pretend were said rather than addressing actual statements.
It's simply the matter of the logic of sexual orientation, as advocated by SSM activists. The argument is gay people should be allowed to marry according to their orientation. If that is so, then why can't bisexuals, who are orientated towards both sexes, marry one of each, if they so choose? Just answer the question.

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

#5280 Jul 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So u would deny bisexuals, the "B" in LGBT, the right, if they so choose, to marry the one of each sex, they love?
Bisexuals are fully capable of finding the one person they love. I dated both men and women before I met my husband. Just because I find both sexes attractive does not mean I need to have a relationship with more than one person at a time and frankly I would think that would be far too complicated to do.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5281 Jul 5, 2013
TrueAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Bisexuals are fully capable of finding the one person they love. I dated both men and women before I met my husband. Just because I find both sexes attractive does not mean I need to have a relationship with more than one person at a time and frankly I would think that would be far too complicated to do.
Thanks for the honest response. The point is, if we apply the logic or sexual orientation as it affects who a person can marry, it stands to reason, a bisexual person should have the right to marry one of each if s/he chooses. I did not say all bisexuals are incapable of being with one person. Appreciate the answer.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5282 Jul 5, 2013
Video shows men attacking religious protesters at Pridefest
By Michael Harthorne Published: Jul 3, 2013 at 9:19 AM PDT

SEATTLE -- A protester holding a sign reading "Repent or Else" was attacked by a group of people following a loud argument during Pridefest Sunday, according to the Seattle Police Department.

Bicycle officers heard a loud debate between two groups of people near Fourth Avenue North and Broad Street but continued on their way.

According to video shot by a witness, after officers leave the crowd continues to yell at and shove two religious protesters, one of whom is holding a sign that reads "Repent or Else" and "Jesus Saves from Sin."

At one point, the video shows a 36-year-old Marysville man taking off his shirt and threatening the sign-holding protester. The man eventually starts leaving, saying, "Cops are coming; let's roll."

After a group of women try unsuccessfully to steal the protester's sign, a group of men grab onto it and pull him to the ground while the crowd applauds. That's when the video shows the 36-year-old run back toward the fight and punch the sign-holder in the back of the head multiple times.....
http://www.komonews.com/news/crime/Video-show...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5283 Jul 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So u would deny bisexuals, the "B" in LGBT, the right, if they so choose, to marry the one of each sex, they love?
You have demonstrated a fundamental--but common--misunderstanding of bisexuality. Bisexuals may be attracted to people of either sex. This does not mean that their requirement for more than on mate is any great her or less than that of a straight or a homosexual person in a similar relationship. But if they happen to fall in love with another person. And the two wish to commit to one another, they should have the same right to marry regardless of gender.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5284 Jul 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Which society needs children? Does the world need overpopulation? Sure it's nice for children to have two loving parents, but what about abusive ones? Do children need both parents when one is abusive. You are making generalizations. What about all the children abandoned by parents but adopted by loving gay and lesbian couples? Should those families be disadvantaged because some people oppose SSM? Nobody is actually denying that there are differences; we are discussing equal protection of the laws for both so than neither is disadvantaged. That's all.
You concede far too much ground. Despite multiple corrections, Pietro wants us to agree that children of same-sex couples would miraculously obtain biological parents of opposite gender if only gays were prevented from marrying or adopting. Yet no one on these boards has yet answered the fundamental question of who these children are who are being deprived of a mother and father.

How did they get there? Were they adopted because their biological parents agreed that they couldn't care for them? If so, then they are hardly deprived of anything: they are afforded the opportunity of two loving parents that they otherwise would not have had. Are they the product of sperm donation or surrogacy? In that case, perhaps the children wouldn't exist at all without the intervention of same-sex parents. Does Pietro argue that the children would have been better off not being born?

This idea of being deprived of either a mother or father is completely bogus. Nobody yet has described a situation where any child is deprived of any parent. In every circumstance you can imagine, children are given homes that are better than. The alternatives.

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

#5285 Jul 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the honest response. The point is, if we apply the logic or sexual orientation as it affects who a person can marry, it stands to reason, a bisexual person should have the right to marry one of each if s/he chooses. I did not say all bisexuals are incapable of being with one person. Appreciate the answer.
I think this logic is flawed. By your logic, allowing heterosexual marriage should leave room for a straight person to marry more than one person of the opposite sex. I don't believe that to be the case. Allowing two consenting adults to get married doesn't carry with it the same logic to allow polygamy.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5286 Jul 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Make up your mind. If people should be allowed to marry according to their orientation, logically a bisexual, should be allowed to marry one of each sex, if they so choose. Ya can't have it both ways, although, bisexuals do.
No, moron, a bisexual is attracted to people of both sexes. However, equal protection of the law requires they be able to enter into a legal marriage with the, one, partner of their choosing, male or female.

Only an idiot would make the argument you present. Then again, only an idiot would think that a bisexual was not necessarily monogamous. If you are straight, and that is somewhat doubtful, should you be able to marry several women?
Pietro Armando wrote:
And gay people marry someone of the opposite sex. So I guess orientation is such a factor after all. See equal protection.
That's still just two people. Ergo, equal protection.

I'm sorry that you never learned to count. Life must be terribly difficult for you.
SunFLShine

Tampa, FL

#5287 Jul 6, 2013
I wish you people would vow a backlash over the violence being committed by your community.
Pietro Armando

Brighton, MA

#5288 Jul 6, 2013
TrueAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I think this logic is flawed. By your logic, allowing heterosexual marriage should leave room for a straight person to marry more than one person of the opposite sex.
That's called polygamy, a valid form of marriage world wide, and practiced, albeit without government recognition. The reasoning is this. A person with an opposite sex orientation marries someone of the opposite sex, SSO, same sex, bisexual orientation, one of both sexes, if they so choose.
I don't believe that to be the case. Allowing two consenting adults to get married doesn't carry with it the same logic to allow polygamy.
That depends on how one defines marriage. SSM seeks to change the nature, conjugal as in husband and wife, of the marital relationship, where as polygamy seeks to change the monogamy. Each represents a significant change in the American legal understanding of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife. To argue otherwise is ether naive, arrogant, or both.
Pietro Armando

Brighton, MA

#5289 Jul 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, moron, a bisexual is attracted to people of both sexes. However, equal protection of the law requires they be able to enter into a legal marriage with the, one, partner of their choosing, male or female.
So sexual orientation doesn't matter? If a bisexual is forced to choose between their two sexual orientations, why is someone with a homosexual orientation not forced to choose someone of the opposite sex?
Only an idiot would make the argument you present. Then again, only an idiot would think that a bisexual was not necessarily monogamous. If you are straight, and that is somewhat doubtful, should you be able to marry several women?
I did not say a bisexual could not be monogamous, simply that they should have, based on their orientation, the right to choose one of both sexes.
That's still just two people. Ergo, equal protection.
[/QUOTE

Husband and wife, equal protection.

[QUOTE]
I'm sorry that you never learned to count. Life must be terribly difficult for you.
I'm sorry you failed high school biology.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5290 Jul 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's called polygamy, a valid form of marriage world wide, and practiced, albeit without government recognition. The reasoning is this. A person with an opposite sex orientation marries someone of the opposite sex, SSO, same sex, bisexual orientation, one of both sexes, if they so choose.
<quoted text>
That depends on how one defines marriage. SSM seeks to change the nature, conjugal as in husband and wife, of the marital relationship, where as polygamy seeks to change the monogamy. Each represents a significant change in the American legal understanding of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife. To argue otherwise is ether naive, arrogant, or both.
Tyngsboro, MA...
Awwwww, was Pietro really just wondering all along? The trolling is so similar, that perhaps it should have been obvious.

Similarly, neither seems to be able to count, or understand that three or more is greater than two.

Grow up, Pietro/Wondering.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5291 Jul 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Tyngsboro, MA...
Awwwww, was Pietro really just wondering all along? The trolling is so similar, that perhaps it should have been obvious.
Similarly, neither seems to be able to count, or understand that three or more is greater than two.
Grow up, Pietro/Wondering.
Nor can u understand that one plus one can equal three, or four, or more. One man plus one woman, equally protected by law, can, by their physical sexual union, which is understood by American marital jurisprudence, create another life. Or two put it in simple language even you can understand, which human societies have understood throughout time and place, "two go to bed, but three get up".

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5292 Jul 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nor can u understand that one plus one can equal three, or four, or more.
Thank you, for admitting, and then illustrating, that you do not have a command of basic counting and math skills.

I see you have decided to log back in, but the cat is out of the bag regarding the fact that you post under multiple user names, both registered and unregistered. It's sad to think that one would be so insecure as to feel the need to employ such duplicity.
Pietro Armando wrote:
One man plus one woman, equally protected by law, can, by their physical sexual union, which is understood by American marital jurisprudence, create another life. Or two put it in simple language even you can understand, which human societies have understood throughout time and place, "two go to bed, but three get up".
The "three" that get up in your scenario are not married. Your argument is an irrational one.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5293 Jul 6, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You concede far too much ground. Despite multiple corrections, Pietro wants us to agree that children of same-sex couples
Clearly not "of" in the biological sense.
would miraculously obtain biological parents of opposite gender
Everyone has biological parents of the opposite gender, even you. HS biology.
if only gays were prevented from marrying
Gays can marry, same as anyone else.
or adopting.
Gays can adopt, and as I've said in numerous posts in the past, can be wonderful parents. There are children who have been adopted by gay couples and are very fortunate to have been.
Yet no one on these boards has yet answered the fundamental question of who these children are who are being deprived of a mother and father.
Perhaps the lesbian couple who goes to the local sperm bank for a "freeze pop", pun I tended. Or the gay male couple who buy an egg, rent a womb, and mix their sperm so that they do not know who the biological father is.
How did they get there? Were they adopted because their biological parents agreed that they couldn't care for them? If so, then they are hardly deprived of anything: they are afforded the opportunity of two loving parents that they otherwise would not have had.
See above.
Are they the product of sperm donation or surrogacy? In that case, perhaps the children wouldn't exist at all without the intervention of same-sex parents. Does Pietro argue that the children would have been better off not being born?
The children wouldn't exist at all in those scenarios, unless a deliberate attempt was made for conception.
This idea of being deprived of either a mother or father is completely bogus. Nobody yet has described a situation where any child is deprived of any parent.
I just did, see above.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5294 Jul 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Which society needs children?
Every society does to a degree. In Europe, and Japan, the birth rate is not keeping up with the death rate. Societies need children to replenish themselves. We can debate the actual number, even argue that, in the case of Europe, immigration, is filling the deficiencies, and thus there is limited need for Europeans to bear too many children.
Does the world need overpopulation?
See above.
Sure it's nice for children to have two loving parents, but what about abusive
ones?
Uhhhh....what about them. Abuse of children, regardless if the abusers are the bio parents, should. Of be tolerated.

[
Do children need both parents when one is abusive.
See previous statement.
You are making generalizations. What about all the children abandoned by parents but adopted by loving gay and lesbian couples?
They are very fortunate, and as I've said in numerous posts in the past, gay couples can be, and in many cases, are, loving parents.
Should those families be disadvantaged because some people oppose SSM?
All families should receive support, and there are government programs to do just that. As to SSCs, why not acknowledge the distinctions, and extend protections to them? If SSCs wish to be "spouses for life", and be declared by the state as such, why not a Civil (spousal) Union?
Nobody is actually denying that there are differences; we are discussing equal protection of the laws for both so than neither is disadvantaged. That's all.
So if all the advantages of the legal marital structure were offered, without the gender specific references, and conjugal sexual references, were offered for SSCs, as I suggested above were available nationwide, with federal recognition, would that solve the issue, while acknowledging the differences?

I think a significant stumbling block with this issue, is the failure of some on both sides, to recognize the concerns and views of the other. Perhaps if this was established early on, if more of those opposing SSM, hd been more open to the idea of a Civil Union, a SSM in all but name. We might actually have a nationwide, civil union structure in place, even recognized by the Feds.

My personal take is both sides recognize the importance of maintaining the legal definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife, as some gay people have publicly, while agreeing that SSCs should have a legal relationship structure that is recognized nationwide, and by the Feds. Win win.

I know this is the part where all those who have the rainbow flag tattooed across their foreheads start ranting and raving, screaming "homophobia", "discrimination", "anti-gay", etc. Apparently, unless we call an apple an orange, a veggie patty a "burger", nothing else will do.
Pietro Armando

Brighton, MA

#5295 Jul 6, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
The Government Accountability Office doesn't establish rights. But yes, some are identified as "benefits" or "privileges". This is just a summation of adjectives that describe those 1,138 ACTIONS granted by marriage. It's perfectly valid to just CALL them all "rights" for clarity's sake. But both benefits and privileges can be categorized as rights.
Your question was asking for verification that the number is actually 1,138. Now you're on about semantic differences which only specify more detailed information about these rights. You're drifting from your own point. These are all "rights" in every sense of the term, and there are 1,138 of them.
Verification note, and no, they are not all "rights" in every sense of the word.
Then siblings must be able to get married. That must be reality.
Understood, but the question remains, where is the line drawn, or is any consenting adult relationship designated "marriage", if the participants so choose?
Even though these are not strangers who have met and found in each other the desire to become family. Even though they have no need of a contract agreement to make them into family.
They desire to have the state declare them, "spouses" with all the associated benefits.
]
It's one thing to have a hypothetical conversation about whether polygamy should be legal, without any actual input from polygamists. But it's really something else to put yourself in their place and give thanks on their behalf. I'll wait to say "you're welcome" until I'm saying it to a real polygamist who has actually acheived anything legally.
Step one is decriminalization. As Lawrence vs, Texas did for homosexual sexual acts, and relationships.
Otherwise, you're inventing people to thank me, just as much as you're inventing the people fighting for polygamist rights.
You seem like a smart fella, the poly people are publicly thanking the gay folks for "blazing the trail" of marriage equality". It's been in the news.
And the law is coming out on our side in this. Challenges brought by gay couples are being won. Society, and the law, seems to be heading toward defining it as a legal joining of two unrelated adult humans.
Other than first cousins. In time, one of those unrelated adults, could be allowed to have a second wife, or husband, thanks to the trail blazed by SSMers.
So, what limits would you impose? Infinitely unlimited may not be possible, but they could certainly go on for a while. How many spouses is too many? 10? 50? 500? Where would you tell them to put on the brakes?
Valid question. Four, I believe is the authorized number among the three monotheistic religions, so that. Ought serve as a guide.
Will polygamous marriages be only 1 man with multiple women, or 1 woman with multiple men?
The first is polygyny, the second is polyandry, much more rarer than the first. Think of the poor woman's back, not to mention the beer, and direct tv sports package bills.
Can they be 4 men and 6 women? Can a 10 person marriage join with another 10 person marriage, making a new big 20 person group? Can some of them marry into other groups? Could there be one, giant polygamous MASS across the country, all inter-married to each other?
That would be poly amorous.
Just because there are so many hours in a day doesn't mean that polygamists will voluntarily impose their own self-limits. Do you have ANY ideas for what the limits should be? Can you see why this complexity makes the idea almost too unwieldy to implement, and why it can't simply be tackled at the same time as same-sex marriage?
Not impossible though. A limited plural marriage structure, could be created, even a trinary structure, as the maximum. Again, SSM has blazed the trail for marriage equality.

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 Meet the Candidate: Carly Fiorina 1 min Miss Id 749
News Putin Is Winning: EU Backs Away From Ukraine Tr... (Oct '14) 2 min Hue 105
News Activist takes down Confederate flag outside So... 2 min Le Jimbo 124
News Clerk to quit, cites 'moral conviction' 2 min lides 39
News Walker calls for respect on same-sex marriage 3 min Anonymous of Indy 77
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min sonicfilter 1,251,472
News Fed. judge: Ala. ounties must allow gay marriag... 4 min Yakitori 2
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 12 min LeDuped 186,348
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 25 min Coffee Party 332,930
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 168,870
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Coffee Party 192,230
More from around the web