Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,562

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

Full Story

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#7380 Aug 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
We're you raised by your Mom and Dad?
Regardless of how I was raised is irrelevant.....my biological parents divorced before I was a year old......I'm thankful that I'm alive and living......but I am the person I am not because of my parents, but in spite of them!!!

Gender DOESN'T make the parent and in a society were divorce happens at least 50% of the time in first heterosexual marriages and subsequently that number goes up for multiply marriages.......I'd say many children are growing up in some sort of extended family........there are many more in the foster care system as well as orphanages.....wonder why biological parents AREN'T always raising their own children? My guess is some just can't handle it and therefore throw their own kids away.......and you think because of the way you see how you want the world to be......that make you right.....and it doesn't!!!

To be honest with ya Pete.......every child deserves to be raised in a loving, stable home environment and that is usually better when their are 2 adults sharing the responsibility.......whether the 2 parents are mom/dad, aunt/uncle, grandpa/grandma, 2 mom's, 2 dad's, 2 aunt's or 2 uncle's........and this in NO WAY says that single parents are bad parents because they aren't.......and truly if ya ask kids what they want......most will tell ya......they just want to be loved and belong!!!

Now, please go twist this to meet your justifiable animosity towards those people, my family included who DON'T meet your standards of acceptance!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7381 Aug 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Did you over look the word "desired"? Are you promoting increased rates of out of wedlock births? Celebrating them? Why do you hate married Mothers and fathers raising their own biological kids together?
Of course, the question is desired, by whom?

I am not celebrating out of wedlock birth, merely noting their existance, and pointing out that the state does not intervene.

You seem to forget that what we are talking about is a civil law, and the guarantee of equal protection. You keep trying to conflate childbirth/child rearing with the issue of marriage, but the reality remains that the state does not take a stance on procreative ability, procreation, or child rearing relative to legal marriage.

I don't hate married parents raising their children. I also don't hate adopted parents, single parents, relative raising children for loved ones, gay parents, etc.

The reality remains, you keep on returning to irrelevant arguments, and attempting to put words in my mouth (and doing a pretty bad job of it, at that).

Feel free to get back to attempting to find a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. I don't think you are up to the task.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7382 Aug 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I disagree, mothers and fathers both bring different abilities and resources to socializing children. Same sex marriage is bad because every child raised by a same sex couple is raised without either a mother or father.
You can, of course, provide peer reviewed studies that illustrate concretely that same sex parents yield substantially worse outcomes, right?

Oh, I forgot, it's Brian_G, who never provides proof of anything, they merely issue imperial statements as though their word were gospel.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7383 Aug 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless of how I was raised is irrelevant.....my biological parents divorced before I was a year old......I'm thankful that I'm alive and living......but I am the person I am not because of my parents, but in spite of them!!!
Irrelevant? No. We're all products of how we were raised, and it shapes our opinions, and perspective.
Gender DOESN'T make the parent and in a society were divorce happens at least 50% of the time in first heterosexual marriages and subsequently that number goes up for multiply marriages.......I'd say many children are growing up in some sort of extended family........there are many more in the foster care system as well as orphanages.....wonder why biological parents AREN'T always raising their own children? My guess is some just can't handle it and therefore throw their own kids away.......and you think because of the way you see how you want the world to be......that make you right.....and it doesn't!!!
Such is the state of our society today, and no I do realize, as I have stared in various previous posts of this forum, there are parents who are unable to, or unwilling to, care for their own children.
To be honest with ya Pete.......every child deserves to be raised in a loving, stable home environment and that is usually better when their are 2 adults sharing the responsibility.......whether the 2 parents are mom/dad, aunt/uncle, grandpa/grandma, 2 mom's, 2 dad's, 2 aunt's or 2 uncle's........and this in NO WAY says that single parents are bad parents because they aren't.......and truly if ya ask kids what they want......most will tell ya......they just want to be loved and belong!!!
I agree most want to be loved and belong, but the desire to be loved, and belong to, their biological mother and father is a strong instinct. Why wouldn't be? Is it not part of the human experience to know one's biological family, where they came from, cultures, physical characteristics, ethnicity, etc?
Now, please go twist this to meet your justifiable animosity towards those people, my family included who DON'T meet your standards of acceptance!!!
Actually, you're doing the twisting by implying that because I profess that children should be raised by their own biological married mother and father in a stable loving home, that its indicative of animosity I have towards non nuclear family situations. Sorry, but you're wrong on that. All sorts of families out there, those headed by SSCs, male or female, are but one example.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7384 Aug 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Irrelevant? No. We're all products of how we were raised, and it shapes our opinions, and perspective.
You seem to be suffering form the delusion that there is a state interest both in procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage, and in a child being raise by two opposite sex birth parents. Both of these assertions are patently false, and it can be proven.

The state does not intervene in cases of out of wedlock birth.

The state allows divorce, even in instances where children are involved.

The state allows adoption, even by single parents, and in the vast majority of jurisdictions even by homosexuals.

What is more, you've not offered any proof that a child being raised in any other situation than by two opposite sex birth parents turns out any worse than a child being raised in a traditional marriage. Feel free to substantiate your claims. You won't be able to do so.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7386 Aug 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be suffering form the delusion that there is a state interest both in procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage, and in a child being raise by two opposite sex birth parents. Both of these assertions are patently false, and it can be proven.
The state does not intervene in cases of out of wedlock birth.
The state allows divorce, even in instances where children are involved.
The state allows adoption, even by single parents, and in the vast majority of jurisdictions even by homosexuals.
What is more, you've not offered any proof that a child being raised in any other situation than by two opposite sex birth parents turns out any worse than a child being raised in a traditional marriage. Feel free to substantiate your claims. You won't be able to do so.
I'm still waiting for you to prove it. None of your laughable 'reasons' detract from a state's interest in biological families. Biological families are more stable and less likely to be a burden on the state and its taxpayers. Studies have proven that single parent families have children that are more likely to live in poverty, do poorly in school, commit crimes, use drugs, etc. It appears that you are the one that can't substantiate your claims but most people already know that.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7387 Aug 6, 2013
lides wrote:
Oh, I forgot, it's Brian_G, who never provides proof of anything, they merely issue imperial statements as though their word were gospel.
That sounds more like you.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#7388 Aug 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You already possess that fundament right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid nationwide. It is not my "personal requirements", but those of the state. Thirty plus states constitutionally define marriage as a union of husband and wife, a definition that is as old, if not older, as the Republic.
<quoted text>
Yet the Court was unwilling to nationalize SSM. Odd, if that is what five justices thought.
We already posses the fundamental right to marry. That includes the same sex partner of our choice as well as an opposite sex partner, and that marriage is now recognized by the federal government. Some states have tried to prevent us from exercising that right, without demonstrating any compelling governmental reason for doing so. Again tradition is not a valid excuse, and it is all you have.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#7389 Aug 6, 2013
The state has a compelling interest in providing protections to families, both conventional and unconventional. Biology is not the only way families are created and shouldn't be treated as if it were. No one is taking away the right of heterosexual destiny by allowing folk who are not heterosexually destined anyways to follow their homosexual destiny to marry one another. So it serves the compelling interest of the state to protect families, including the biological ones, by denying equal protection to these homosexually composed families how exactly? Just wondering.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7390 Aug 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I disagree,
Which means diddly squat since your a complete idiot.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
mothers and fathers both bring different abilities and resources to socializing children.
So do same gender couples. Abilities and resources aren't derived by gender you moron.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is bad because every child raised by a same sex couple is raised without either a mother or father.
And yet absolutely no peer reviewed research agrees with you that same gender parents are bad for children. Want to know who else disagrees with you?

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
American Psychoanalytic Association
National Association of Social Workers
Child Welfare League of America
North American Council on Adoptable Children
Canadian Psychological Association

Now, let's see. When it comes to the well being of children, should I take the advice of these professionals or the Village Idiot?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#7391 Aug 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
I agree most want to be loved and belong, but the desire to be loved, and belong to, their biological mother and father is a strong instinct. Why wouldn't be? Is it not part of the human experience to know one's biological family, where they came from, cultures, physical characteristics, ethnicity, etc?
Again, you are trying to make it all about biologically and IT'S NOT that simple........I'd truly have to disagree with you simply because a child in an orphanage who doesn't know their biological parents........but is adopted and raised by good loving parents will probably not have that same desire or instinct to search for what they have NEVER known........and again, you keep making every post about biology, conjugal, children when this whole discussion is about marriage.......and marriage TRULY has NOTHING to do with child rearing!!!

The rest of your post is irrelevant to me, so, I will not respond!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#7392 Aug 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Biological families are more stable and less likely to be a burden on the state and its taxpayers.
Provide some credible evidence to back up this claim seeing as we all KNOW that the divorce rate is roughly 50% for 1st marriages with that number increasing for second, third and fourth marriages!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7393 Aug 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Provide some credible evidence to back up this claim seeing as we all KNOW that the divorce rate is roughly 50% for 1st marriages with that number increasing for second, third and fourth marriages!!!
Wondering wrote:
Biological families are more stable and less likely to be a burden on the state and its taxpayers.
I believe the point Wondering was making is that biological families, assuming it means married mother and father and their children, are more stable that other family structures. The comparison would have to be made between the biological nuclear familia structure and other family structures.

The divorce rate stat doesn't apply to unmarried couples w/children who cohabitate.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7394 Aug 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, the question is desired, by whom?
The state and society at large.
I am not celebrating out of wedlock birth, merely noting their existance, and pointing out that the state does not intervene.
Actually the state does intervene by means of providing benefits, ADC, WIC, etc.
You seem to forget that what we are talking about is a civil law, and the guarantee of equal protection. You keep trying to conflate childbirth/child rearing with the issue of marriage, but the reality remains that the state does not take a stance on procreative ability, procreation, or child rearing relative to legal marriage.
“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)

“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978

“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.

“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33
I don't hate married parents raising their children. I also don't hate adopted parents, single parents, relative raising children for loved ones, gay parents, etc.
Very good, ai was getting a bit worried there.
The reality remains, you keep on returning to irrelevant arguments, and attempting to put words in my mouth (and doing a pretty bad job of it, at that).
As it pertains to marriage, the issues I've raised are relevant.
Feel free to get back to attempting to find a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. I don't think you are up to the task.
Why do you keep implying a right to plural marriage? If a same sex couple has the right to marry, to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, it stand to reason, then there is a third person, of the opposite sex, part of the marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7395 Aug 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll return to posting with you when you stop being a jerk......frankly, you're not here to debate......just to repeat yourself over and over again.
NorCal, with all do respect, aren't we all, to a degree, repeating ourselves?
Don't like me being married......that's to damn bad and it's your problem.......we are celebrating our 5th WEDDING anniversary this month:-)
Congratulations! Boil the water, I'll bring the sauce, pasta, and vino.
Oh and if your opposite-sex intimate relationship can be considered a marriage......guess what.....SO IS MINE!!!
Actually it's the "opposite sex intimate relationship" that is the marriage definitional standard. l

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7396 Aug 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
Which means diddly squat since your a complete idiot.
I think you're giving him too much credit.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#7397 Aug 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
...I believe the point Wondering was making...
You do remember that you both are the same person, I hope.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7398 Aug 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The state and society at large.
I hadn't realized that you had become the authorized spokesman for the republic. Do you realize that a majority of people in real life, as opposed to the fantasy land in your head, support marriage equality?
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/n...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_conten...

Darn those facts, they keep on getting in the way of your rhetoric.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Actually the state does intervene by means of providing benefits, ADC, WIC, etc.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted BS>
You can keep trying to make that dog hunt, but the reality remains that one need not be able to procreate in order to marry. That fact sends your rationalization packing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Very good, ai was getting a bit worried there.
Perhaps if you quit trying to put words in other people's mouth, you wouldn't worry yourself so much?
Pietro Armando wrote:
As it pertains to marriage, the issues I've raised are relevant.
I wish you would actually grow up and answer my question about what compelling governmental interest is served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry. Sadly, I don't think you will ever do so. Ultimately, most of the arguments you make are utterly irrelevant.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why do you keep implying a right to plural marriage?
I don't. In fact, I keep explaining the it seeks greater, not equal protection of the law. Why do people who advance this argument a) not realize that it is a completely separate issue, and b) lack the ability to count.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If a same sex couple has the right to marry, to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, it stand to reason, then there is a third person, of the opposite sex, part of the marriage.
I suppose it would stand to reason if one had poor reasoning skills, and couldn't count.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7399 Aug 6, 2013
lides wrote:
I suppose it would stand to reason if one had poor reasoning skills, and couldn't count.
LOL!!!!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7400 Aug 6, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
my 3 kids are having a normal childhood.
Not if they have same sex parents.

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
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min Sunshine 168,493
Greek radical left wins election, threatening m... 6 min Robespierre 13
Romney to tell supporters his 2016 plans 10 min serfs up 27
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 10 min positronium 305,833
Kiev Announces Russian Invasion of Ukraine a Hoax 10 min Brit Ex Pat 6
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min dirtclod 143,148
Can Obama's presidency be saved? 11 min Hingle McCringleb... 1,673
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min Wardaddy 1,174,688
Sarah Palin and her onetime fans on the right: ... 1 hr spud 209
More from around the web