Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,567

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

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12287 Nov 2, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
He made no such allusions that any couples should or should not marry.
He clearly said that for certain couples entering into marriage would somehow be bad for the couples themselves. Not bad for the institution of marriage or for society. I would like to know what those bad, non good, things are that would accrue to the couple should they marry.
Again, not every man, woman, or couple, to clarify should marry. Some are just not the marrying kind, or mature enough to handle the responsibility and/or commitment.
I am not designating any relationship as marriage. Marriage is a specific societal institution. Couples IN A RELATIONSHIP often choose to enter into marriage. My nephew and his girlfriend are in a relationship. They are not married.
Exactly, specific societal institution comprised of one man and one woman, as husband AND wife. The only nationwide, available marital institution known since the birth of the Republic.
Your narrow husband/wife marriage is NO LONGER THE ONLY MARRIAGE!
"Your narrow husband/wife marriage....."? Wow...I never knew it belonged only to little ole me. But your right, there are also husband/wife/wife/wife marriages too....albeit it without legal recognition in this country, but quite popular throughout time and place in many parts of the world.
Husband and husband, and wife and wife are now able to legally marry in many (and more and more) states and countries. Your continued dismissal of these legally valid marriages is insulting.
It's only "insulting" if you assume as such, and assume an malicious intent. Seriously Dave, despite those marriages being legally valid, do you honestly think, considering the number of SSMs, both and female, although the latter outnumber the former, and the virtually newness of SSM in the West, that marriage is suddenly not still viewed culturally, socially, legally, and/or religiously as union of husband and wife? Really, legal SSM in a handful of states and countries won't wipe out the collected concept of marriage as a male female union. Percentages alone would indicate that.
Yes, we know you don't like the notion of these couples marrying. But you have yet to offer any legally valid reason to stop such marriages.
No, I don't support redefining legal marriage from a union of husband and wife, to spouses for life regardless of gender composition. Do support further redefinition, to include, other consenting adult relationships? After all, we wouldn't want to insult anyone.
I was not defining marriage. I was asking a question seeking more information.
Fair enough.
Since I was asking Brian to clarify his statements, he would/could have better defined what he meant when he declared that marriage as an institution would not be good for certain people. I was not making any statements of fact but merely asking for clarification.
Brian, would you be so kind as to clarify for Dave?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#12288 Nov 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, not every man, woman, or couple, to clarify should marry. Some are just not the marrying kind, or mature enough to handle the responsibility and/or commitment.
<quoted text>
Exactly, specific societal institution comprised of one man and one woman, as husband AND wife. The only nationwide, available marital institution known since the birth of the Republic.
<quoted text>
"Your narrow husband/wife marriage....."? Wow...I never knew it belonged only to little ole me. But your right, there are also husband/wife/wife/wife marriages too....albeit it without legal recognition in this country, but quite popular throughout time and place in many parts of the world.
<quoted text>
It's only "insulting" if you assume as such, and assume an malicious intent. Seriously Dave, despite those marriages being legally valid, do you honestly think, considering the number of SSMs, both and female, although the latter outnumber the former, and the virtually newness of SSM in the West, that marriage is suddenly not still viewed culturally, socially, legally, and/or religiously as union of husband and wife? Really, legal SSM in a handful of states and countries won't wipe out the collected concept of marriage as a male female union. Percentages alone would indicate that.
<quoted text>
No, I don't support redefining legal marriage from a union of husband and wife, to spouses for life regardless of gender composition. Do support further redefinition, to include, other consenting adult relationships? After all, we wouldn't want to insult anyone.
<quoted text>
Fair enough.
<quoted text>
Brian, would you be so kind as to clarify for Dave?
A handful of states?

You do know where the United States began, right? It was in those handful of states. Back then it all came from the Eastern states but now, it's coming from both coasts.

SSM is squeezing you from all sides. All road lead to Topeka and Fred Phelps. You know the driving directions, right? Make your stand in Topeka.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#12289 Nov 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Yes. I took the liberty of disregarding your overly wordy and very boring post. Glad you agree it was a good idea and you are not too offended.
How could I be offended by what you don't have to read but choose to anyway? But no, you didn't "disregard" it. You only would've done that if you'd posted nothing at all.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#12290 Nov 2, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
How could I be offended by what you don't have to read but choose to anyway? But no, you didn't "disregard" it. You only would've done that if you'd posted nothing at all.
Semantics. I started reading your overly long post but stopped because it was too stupid and emotional.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12291 Nov 2, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Trying (and failing) to ascertain the emotion in others' posts again?
Yes. Blankie does that all the time. It's a common tactic used by intellectual losers. They have no actual argument so they attempt to change the dynamic by labeling us as angry. Blankie has no idea how entertaining his posts really are.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12292 Nov 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Semantics. I started reading your overly long post but stopped because it was too stupid and emotional.
Yes. One cannot read anything more than a couple of sentences before all the words seem to run together and none of the scrambled up letters make any sense... How can anyone ever read a whole entire page???????? Watching a video is easier.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#12293 Nov 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Semantics. I started reading your overly long post but stopped because it was too stupid and emotional.
It wasn't intended for you. I give zero fux for your critique. Sorry.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#12294 Nov 2, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. One cannot read anything more than a couple of sentences before all the words seem to run together and none of the scrambled up letters make any sense... How can anyone ever read a whole entire page???????? Watching a video is easier.
So watch a video then.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#12295 Nov 2, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't intended for you. I give zero fux for your critique. Sorry.
Sure it was.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#12296 Nov 2, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. Blankie does that all the time. It's a common tactic used by intellectual losers. They have no actual argument so they attempt to change the dynamic by labeling us as angry. Blankie has no idea how entertaining his posts really are.
The common tactic used by losers is the one you're using now.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#12297 Nov 3, 2013
Dave wrote: "Since I was asking Brian to clarify his statements, he would/could have better defined what he meant when he declared that marriage as an institution would not be good for certain people. I was not making any statements of fact but merely asking for clarification."
Pietro Armando wrote:
...Brian, would you be so kind as to clarify for Dave?
Marriage is good for society but to assume marriage is good for every member of society is the fallacy of composition. Marriage isn't for everyone.

"The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).

The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.

Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/comp...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#12298 Nov 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Dave wrote: "Since I was asking Brian to clarify his statements, he would/could have better defined what he meant when he declared that marriage as an institution would not be good for certain people. I was not making any statements of fact but merely asking for clarification."
<quoted text>
Marriage is good for society but to assume marriage is good for every member of society is the fallacy of composition. Marriage isn't for everyone.
"The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).
The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.
Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/comp...
http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12299 Nov 3, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
A handful of states?
You do know where the United States began, right? It was in those handful of states. Back then it all came from the Eastern states but now, it's coming from both coasts.
Yes, handful. The majority still do not recognize it.
SSM is squeezing you from all sides. All road lead to Topeka and Fred Phelps. You know the driving directions, right? Make your stand in Topeka.
Uhhhhh...sure.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#12300 Nov 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, handful. The majority still do not recognize it.
<quoted text>
Uhhhhh...sure.
for now, Peter. For now.

How old are you?

I ask because you know that the majority is coming, right? You know what happens when the Feds get involved don't you?

I do. States fall in line or they don't get federal funds. They may hold out for a week or two but they always get their heads around it, don't they?

"We strongly denounce this federal mandate...but we have no fuckinchoice".

America, ya gotta love it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12301 Nov 3, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
for now, Peter. For now.
How old are you?
Old enough to realize redefing marriage is not a smart move.
I ask because you know that the majority is coming, right? You know what happens when the Feds get involved don't you?
They screw it up.
I do. States fall in line or they don't get federal funds. They may hold out for a week or two but they always get their heads around it, don't they?
"We strongly denounce this federal mandate...but we have no fuckinchoice".
America, ya gotta love it.
Really? Do ya gotta love that? Blackmail? You have a strange love interest.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#12302 Nov 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Dave wrote: "Since I was asking Brian to clarify his statements, he would/could have better defined what he meant when he declared that marriage as an institution would not be good for certain people. I was not making any statements of fact but merely asking for clarification."
<quoted text>
Marriage is good for society but to assume marriage is good for every member of society is the fallacy of composition. Marriage isn't for everyone.
"The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).
The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.
Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/comp...
And yet you still have not explained how marriage is not good for certain people.

Try doing it this way. Identify for us a characteristic of marriage then explain why that characteristic is good for most people but for certain people, why that same characteristic would not be good.

Don't ask me to give an example. I cannot think of even one characteristic of marriage that would not be good for all. You were the one to make the claim "Marriage is good for society, it isn't good for every part of society."

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#12303 Nov 3, 2013
One thing typical of most marriage is procreation. Many married couples have the characteristic of raising their own children or adopted children. All those couples have the characteristic of giving their children a mother and father. That won't work for same sex couples; all their children are raised either motherless or fatherless.

Motherless and fatherless children aren't good for society. Rewriting marriage law to create male/male and female/female marriage would create new norms, regulations, custody precedents and adoption regulations; perhaps biased to make up for past discrimination. Certainly a motherless or fatherless child's harm outweighs an imagined 'right' to redefine marriage for everyone.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#12304 Nov 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Again, not every man, woman, or couple, to clarify should marry. Some are just not the marrying kind, or mature enough to handle the responsibility and/or commitment.
Reading comprehension is not one of your strengths, is it?

The question was not an issue of WHO should marry. The question was that for some, marriage would be bad. I would like to know what would be bad for certain couples that marry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly, specific societal institution comprised of one man and one woman, as husband AND wife. The only nationwide, available marital institution known since the birth of the Republic.
Marriage as an institution that provides benefits to society and to the couples involved. Benefits that accrue regardless of the genders of the couples or their sexual orientations.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Your narrow husband/wife marriage....."? Wow...I never knew it belonged only to little ole me. But your right, there are also husband/wife/wife/wife marriages too....albeit it without legal recognition in this country, but quite popular throughout time and place in many parts of the world.
I never mentioned marriages of more than two in the family.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's only "insulting" if you assume as such, and assume an malicious intent. Seriously Dave, despite those marriages being legally valid, do you honestly think, considering the number of SSMs, both and female, although the latter outnumber the former, and the virtually newness of SSM in the West, that marriage is suddenly not still viewed culturally, socially, legally, and/or religiously as union of husband and wife? Really, legal SSM in a handful of states and countries won't wipe out the collected concept of marriage as a male female union. Percentages alone would indicate that.
Are male-male couples legally married in the United States? YES!

Are female-female couples legally married in the United States? YES!

Does Pietro constantly make claims that those couples are somehow not married? YES!

QED

If what has occurred in Massachusetts is any example, same-sex couples marrying has become a non issue. Even republican candidates for office support marriage equality. Sure there are people like Brian Camenker, Wondering, and you that continue to rant but are increasingly moved to the sidelines.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, I don't support redefining legal marriage from a union of husband and wife, to spouses for life regardless of gender composition. Do support further redefinition, to include, other consenting adult relationships? After all, we wouldn't want to insult anyone.
And yet you have yet to make any legally compelling arguments to stop same-sex marriages.

If others wish to legally marry more than one souse at a time, they are free to put forth their legal arguments to make it happen. Not my responsibility to make their arguments. I'm making the argument for same-sex legal civil marriage.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#12305 Nov 3, 2013
River Tam wrote:
...You know what happens when the Feds get involved don't you? I do. States fall in line or they don't get federal funds. They may hold out for a week or two but they always get their heads around it, don't they? "We strongly denounce this federal mandate...but we have no fuckinchoice". America, ya gotta love it.
Reason 7, same sex marriage creates intrusive new regulations. R.T. is right, same sex marriage means a different form of marriage regulation where public funds are used to subsidize a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries; people never considered eligible by legislators or taxpayers. These new regulations are used to leverage power for the left.

These new marriage regulations do more than withhold benefits to states or pay off constituent groups, they allow suing Christians for refusing to serve and support a same sex wedding rite. They take religious and artistic freedom and impose a celebration of differences, not tolerance. New regulations are applied without tolerance, harming individual liberty.

This is why I defend marriage as one man and one woman: intrusive new regulations.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#12306 Nov 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
One thing typical of most marriage is procreation. Many married couples have the characteristic of raising their own children or adopted children. All those couples have the characteristic of giving their children a mother and father. That won't work for same sex couples; all their children are raised either motherless or fatherless.
Motherless and fatherless children aren't good for society. Rewriting marriage law to create male/male and female/female marriage would create new norms, regulations, custody precedents and adoption regulations; perhaps biased to make up for past discrimination. Certainly a motherless or fatherless child's harm outweighs an imagined 'right' to redefine marriage for everyone.
But how is that bad for the couples involved, which was your original claim?

You have obviously never read the Goodridge (2005) decision. Those children with same-sex parents was one of the reasons the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court mandated marriage equality for same-sex couples.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Dogen 134,823
Hundreds Rally Against Proposed Natural Gas Pip... 9 min Citizen X 5
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min RealDave 1,156,647
A Sea of Blue Salutes Fallen Police Officer 21 min serfs up 41
How Should the US Government Respond to ISIS? 27 min LMR 2,002
The uncomfortable truth about racism in America 29 min JCK 313
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 41 min wojar is a homo 182,315
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 hr EAGLE EYE1 295,199
Protesters: "Not the time" to change Cuba relat... 6 hr USMail XXXII 143
US and Cuba move to normalize ties, open embassy 7 hr xxxraytred 328
Obama: Racism, bias in US will take time to tackle 7 hr Uncle Bob 797
More from around the web