Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12318 Nov 3, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure the sound of you wretching seems holy to you. Everyone else thinks it's disgusting.
Not everyone. YUK!YUK!YUK! Wretch!

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12319 Nov 3, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> I know you do.
Lame. Be a big girl.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12320 Nov 3, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>obviously you are not a muslim nor do you understand that like Christianity there are different sects, denominations of muslims.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17665989/ns/busines...
MINNEAPOLIS — Muslim cashiers at some local Target stores who object to ringing up products that contain pork are being shifted to other positions where they don’t need to, the discount retailer said Saturday.
The Star Tribune reported this past week that some Muslim cashiers at local Targets had declined to scan pork products such as bacon because doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs.
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/09/feds-rul...
Somalis win prayer case at Gold'n Plump: The agreement to permit short prayer breaks and accommodate rules against handling pork could set a precedent," by Chris Serres for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, September 10 (thanks to all who sent this in):
In a landmark settlement that could change the way Muslims are treated in the workplace, St. Cloud-based Gold'n Plump Inc. has agreed to allow Somali workers short prayer breaks and the right to refuse handling pork at its poultry processing facilities.
The federally mediated agreement is among the first in the nation that requires employers to accommodate the Islamic prayer schedule and the belief, held by many strict Muslims, that the Qur'an prohibits the touching and eating of pork products.
The salient point flew right over your head: Target has sufficient positions available to accommodate the needs of their Muslim employees. No customer is allowed to be inconvenienced by the Muslim's refusal to perform part of his or her job.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12321 Nov 3, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Reading comprehension is not one of your strengths, is it?
Only when the questions are ambiguous.
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.
The fact that they are legally married to begin with, when they did not have the commitment, or maturity to enter into such a relationship. It would be "bad" based on that, and the legal complication that would entail from dissolving the relationship.
Marriage as an institution that provides benefits to society and to the couples involved.
Yes, marriage, the institution of one man and one woman as husband and wife, the building block of society, the union that produces, and is expected to raise, the next generation. It also provides benefits to the husband and wife as well, benefits that are reinforced by a strong marriage culture that encourages men and women to keep their commitment to each other, and by extension, any children they create.
Benefits that accrue regardless of the genders of the couples or their sexual orientations.
"Sexual orientation" is irrelevant, nor should it matter to the husband AND wife who are committed to each other. Please explain how countless studies conducted on married couples, husband and wife, over the course of the past several decades plus, automatically apply to same sex couples, both male and female?
I never mentioned marriages of more than two in the family.
Never the less, plural marriage, or polygamist families do exist, both in this country, and around the globe. In fact, polygyny, historically is one of the toe primary forms of marriage across time and place. So is insulting on your part to pretend they don't exist?
Are male-male couples legally married in the United States? YES!
Are male male couples legally recognized as married by every state in the Union? NO!
Are female-female couples legally married in the United States? YES!
Are female-female couples legally recognized as married by every state in the Union? NO!
Are opposite sex couples legally married in every state in the Union? YES!
Does Pietro constantly make claims that those couples are somehow not married? YES!
QED
Does Dave constantly make claims that those couples are legally married in every state in the Union? What do you think?
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.
Do they support "marriage equality".....sounds so androgynously Orwellian, or have they simply pandered for campaign funds?
And yet you have yet to make any legally compelling arguments to stop same-sex marriages.
Right now there's still 30 states that didn't redefine marriage.......so maybe that's the compelling arguments.
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.
Yet you argue for the rejection of the sole legal understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. So in essence you are arguing for plural marriage. Where would you draw the line? What other consenting adult relationships, in addition to the long standing monogamous union of husband and wife, should be designated "marriage" , and what should not be, and why?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12322 Nov 3, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The salient point flew right over your head: Target has sufficient positions available to accommodate the needs of their Muslim employees. No customer is allowed to be inconvenienced by the Muslim's refusal to perform part of his or her job.
And if another business did not have sufficient positions available?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#12323 Nov 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Only when the questions are ambiguous.
Hardly ambiguous. It was a simple question.

Brian G alleged that it would be bad for certain couples if they were to enter into a marriage. I simply asked for what would be bad for the couples should they enter into that marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The fact that they are legally married to begin with, when they did not have the commitment, or maturity to enter into such a relationship. It would be "bad" based on that, and the legal complication that would entail from dissolving the relationship.
Who alleged that the couple laked commitment or maturity?

As to divorce, wouldn't the same consequences apply to ALL couples dissolving the relationship? How would it be bad for only certain couples?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes, marriage, the institution of one man and one woman as husband and wife, the building block of society, the union that produces, and is expected to raise, the next generation. It also provides benefits to the husband and wife as well, benefits that are reinforced by a strong marriage culture that encourages men and women to keep their commitment to each other, and by extension, any children they create.
But those benefits to society and to the couples accrue regardless of the genders or the sexual orientation of the couples.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Sexual orientation" is irrelevant, nor should it matter to the husband AND wife who are committed to each other.
I clearly stated that the sexual orientation of the couples did not matter for the benefits to accrue to both the couple and society.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Never the less, plural marriage, or polygamist families do exist, both in this country, and around the globe.
I don't pretend that polygamy doesn't exist. I have clearly stated that if they would like marriage extended to their families, they can make their arguments to the courts, the legislatures and public opinion.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Are male male couples legally recognized as married by every state in the Union? NO!

Are female-female couples legally recognized as married by every state in the Union? NO!
In fact, they are recognized in every state of the union, by the federal government. And that fact will make it increasingly more difficult for the states to hold on to their same-sex marriage exclusions.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Are opposite sex couples legally married in every state in the Union? YES!
Yes, but that issue is not contentious.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Does Dave constantly make claims that those couples are legally married in every state in the Union? What do you think?
See above.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do they support "marriage equality".....sounds so androgynously Orwellian, or have they simply pandered for campaign funds?
Who is 'They'? I cannot answer without know who 'they' are.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Right now there's still 30 states that didn't redefine marriage.......so maybe that's the compelling arguments.
It used to be 50. 100% of the states. You're already down to 60%.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet you argue for the rejection of the sole legal understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. So in essence you are arguing for plural marriage. Where would you draw the line? What other consenting adult relationships, in addition to the long standing monogamous union of husband and wife, should be designated "marriage" , and what should not be, and why?
But husband and wife ARE NOT THE SOLE UNDERSTANDING OF LEGAL MARRIAGE. To state otherwise ignores reality.

And I am NOT arguing for plural marriages. If they are successful in making their case, I'll accept them as legally valid marriages. A courtesy you fail to extend to those same-sex couples that are legally married.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#12324 Nov 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, really! From the link above:
APRIL 2011 ISSUE
THE NO-BABY BOOM
A GROWING NUMBER OF COUPLES ARE CHOOSING TO LIVE CHILD-FREE. AND YOU MIGHT BE JOINING THEIR RANKS.
BY BRIAN FRAZER,
Read More http://www.details.com/culture-trends/critica...
See also:
Take the Quiz! 8 Ways to Know if You Should Stay Childless
The Gay Parent Trap
Great(er) Expectations
The Gay Baby Boom
Are Your Jealous of Your Kid?
Are You Raising a Douchebag Kid?
Would You Let Your Wife Have Another Man's Baby?
.
<quoted text>From the same poll:
Asked about the seven trends, most Americans disapprove of women having children without a man to help raise them. More than four-in-ten are critical of the rising numbers of unmarried couples raising children, of gay and lesbian couples raising children and of people living together without getting married—representing a lower level of concern but still a substantial minority. There is less disapproval of three other increasing trends—mothers of young children working outside the home, childless women and racial intermarriage.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/the...
.
<quoted text>Here's where we differ, I believe that it is now common to have a child outside of marriage is not a good thing. Many same sex marriage policy says having a child at any time is great because we're just like animals or in population control and not having children at all. They fail to make the finer judgement or to encourage morality in their children's behavior. The decision to have children is more important than a minority group's sexual predilection since it affects all of society. Marriage used to precede childbirth in common custom, current trends aren't good.
Wow! You completely missed the whole point. People have children without marriage. Married people often choose not to have children.

You live in the dark ages.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#12325 Nov 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Old enough to realize redefing marriage is not a smart move.
Redefining marriage?

I know, I know. Your definition is ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN.

My definition is two people who love each other and want to spend their time on Earth together. How is that bad, Peter?

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#12326 Nov 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
One thing typical of most marriage is procreation.
No it's not.

Are you stupid? People don't need marriage to procreate, Brian. Never have, never will.

Marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

Strawman
Brian_G wrote:
Many married couples have the characteristic of raising their own children or adopted children.
Many don't. Marriage has nothing to do with children, Brian.

Strawman
Brian_G wrote:
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.
The children that are not adopted are raised with neither.

Marriage has nothing to do with children, Brian.

Strawman
Brian_G wrote:
Motherless and fatherless children aren't good for society.
Holyfuck. What's wrong with you?
Brian_G wrote:
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.
Marriage has nothing to do with children, Brian.

How many strawmen can you build?

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#12327 Nov 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Good for you, Brian. Stand up to the intrusive government.

Build your own roads. Fuckthegovernment. Build your own schools. Fuckthegovernment. Put those black folks back in chains. Fuckthegovernment. Put that woman back in the kitchen where she belongs. Fuckthegovernment.

Dumbass
1 post removed

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#12329 Nov 4, 2013
ah verkligen wrote:
<quoted text>So the word "bastard" really has no meaning for you, and people who think like you,
....is that what you're saying?
While I have often heard the word applied to obnoxious people, I have not heard the term applied to other humans outside of vintage novels. Are you looking to re-popularize the word, and apply it to children?

And you would like to stop gay folks from legally marrying so that their children will be required to carry that label?

You need to argue the facts, only. Children are not required in ANY marriage, and no marriage is required to create children.

A marriage is often the most secure and stable place to RAISE children - and that applies equally to the children with gay parents.

If you disagree, tell us why. Rationally and factually.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12330 Nov 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And if another business did not have sufficient positions available?
Does it seem likely to you that a small corner deli would hire people unwilling to fulfill their customer's orders? Of course, the right wing religious wackos want to force businesses to accommodate people who are unwilling to do their jobs based in religious excuse- making. Meanwhile, they whine about government imposing upon them for insisting that businesses assess employees strictly on performance rather than unrelated personal status and choices.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12331 Nov 4, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Redefining marriage?
Yes
I know, I know. Your definition is ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN.
My definition? Not mine alone, but the definition of marriage throughout the history of Western civilization.
My definition is two people who love each other and want to spend their time on Earth together. How is that bad, Peter?
Not bad at all, but one does not need a license by the state to do that.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12332 Nov 4, 2013
ah verkligen wrote:
<quoted text>So the word "bastard" really has no meaning for you, and people who think like you,
....is that what you're saying?
Given that almost half of children in the US today are born out of wedlock, it apparently has no meaning for a significant portion of the population. And given SCOTUS quite some time ago ruled birth legitimacy a quasi-suspect class for constitutional equal protection law, there's no longer any legal stigma associated with. Presumably because it's wrong to punish someone their entire life because of he actions of their parents. The removal of the legal stigma of illegitimacy likely contributed to the fading of significant social stigma for illegitimacy as well.

So the word "bastard", when meant to describe birth legitimacy is fading from use.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#12333 Nov 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
My definition? Not mine alone, but the definition of marriage throughout the history of Western civilization.
And now western civilization has a history of including same-sex couples in its marriage definition.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not bad at all, but one does not need a license by the state to do that.
If you don't need the state's marriage license if couples 'love each other and want to spend their time on Earth together' then why do opposite-sex couples rush to their government clerk's office to get those marriage licenses?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12334 Nov 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes
My definition? Not mine alone, but the definition of marriage throughout the history of Western civilization.
Not quite. Rome and Greece are part of the history of western civilization. Examples of polygamy exist in the history of western civilization. And your argument that your preferred definition is the only one that has consistently existed across time is irrelevant because it neither accurate describes what marriage is and does across all times and cultures in western civilization, much less the entire world. Since marriage is a fundamental right of all humans, not just those living in the US, the definition of marriage must encompass all possible forms.

Your's simply doesn't and never has.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not bad at all, but one does not need a license by the state to do that.
Neither does a coupling consisting of one man and one woman.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12335 Nov 4, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it seem likely to you that a small corner deli would hire people unwilling to fulfill their customer's orders? Of course, the right wing religious wackos want to force businesses to accommodate people who are unwilling to do their jobs based in religious excuse- making. Meanwhile, they whine about government imposing upon them for insisting that businesses assess employees strictly on performance rather than unrelated personal status and choices.
Not to mention the hypocrisy of demanding accommodation in employment for religious beliefs and practices while also demanding exemptions for businesses/employers from civil laws against non-religious discrimination.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12336 Nov 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not bad at all, but one does not need a license by the state to do that.
Tell me Pete.....why does a man and a woman need a license to love each other and want to spend their time on Earth together, BUT a Same-Sex couple does NOT according to you? What's the difference between the two couples? And if it's just because of the procreation part......THAT'S not good enough to deny one a marriage license and the other NOT a marriage license!!!

Also, try something else besides marriage has ALSO throughout time been just between a man and a woman because that's NOT always been the case either!!!

Try to give me something NEW instead of simply repeating yourself......thanks!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12337 Nov 4, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Redefining marriage?
I know, I know. Your definition is ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN.
My definition is two people who love each other and want to spend their time on Earth together. How is that bad, Peter?
Why only two? Why not three?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12338 Nov 4, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me Pete.....why does a man and a woman need a license to love each other and want to spend their time on Earth together, BUT a Same-Sex couple does NOT according to you? What's the difference between the two couples? And if it's just because of the procreation part......THAT'S not good enough to deny one a marriage license and the other NOT a marriage license!!!
Also, try something else besides marriage has ALSO throughout time been just between a man and a woman because that's NOT always been the case either!!!
Try to give me something NEW instead of simply repeating yourself......thanks!!!
Let's cut through the bullsh!t once and for all. It's the government bennies.

I believe you deserve the same respect and consideration as opposite sex marriages. But let's tell it like it is. If it weren't for the government's perks, threads about marriage equality wouldn't exist.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Notliz 1,643,675
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 4 min Mothra 1,201
News Woman charged with mailing explosives to Obama ... 5 min Rubio s Foam Partays 3
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 5 min Susanm 320,386
News Many Christian conservatives are backing Alabam... 19 min Smackdown2017 205
News Franken's rising political star obscured by gri... 26 min Hypocrites 1
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min Dogen 223,045
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 49 min NotSoDivineMsM 42,521
More from around the web