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.

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.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12339 Nov 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
If it weren't for the government's perks, threads about marriage equality wouldn't exist.
Interesting seeing as for the most part......Gay and Lesbian legally married couples HAVEN'T been getting these federal perks as you claim and some still AREN'T even after the SCOTUS ruling in June......so, obviously you are WRONG!!!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#12340 Nov 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No mention of marriage or "sexual orientation".
then try re-reading the explanation of what the 9th amendment does - i would've thought that you might've understood the explanation, considering it's directed at kids so they can understand the amendment & what it does.

keep re-reading it until you do grasp that it does allow for rights that are not explicitly enumerated within the constitution.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#12341 Nov 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why else do any couples get civilly married if not for the bennies that come with that piece of paper.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#12342 Nov 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Sure it was.
It didn't have your name on it. If you'd like to comment on something I said, go ahead. If it was TL;DR for you, then why should I care? If you have nothing to add, you're welcome to piss off.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12343 Nov 4, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting seeing as for the most part......Gay and Lesbian legally married couples HAVEN'T been getting these federal perks as you claim and some still AREN'T even after the SCOTUS ruling in June......so, obviously you are WRONG!!!
You're getting them now, as you should be. But you're still whining. And angry.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12344 Nov 4, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Why else do any couples get civilly married if not for the bennies that come with that piece of paper.
My point exactly.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12345 Nov 4, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It didn't have your name on it. If you'd like to comment on something I said, go ahead. If it was TL;DR for you, then why should I care? If you have nothing to add, you're welcome to piss off.
Calm down fruitloops. Your post was too wordy. You could have said the same thing twice as well with half the words.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12346 Nov 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're getting them now, as you should be. But you're still whining. And angry.
Really? Do you know something that I obviously don't know? Seems that you are ASSuming something that has NOT been entered in as evidence of you being right.......lol!!!

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#12347 Nov 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why only two? Why not three?
That's not really my thing but OK.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12348 Nov 4, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Really.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12349 Nov 4, 2013
One thing typical of most marriage is procreation.
No it's not.

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.
River Tam wrote:
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
I didn't write marriage is necessary for procreation, I wrote: "One thing typical of most marriage is procreation." Marriage was created to make an appropriate bed for sexual union and a home for the children of that union, with the kids mom and dad. There's a sociobiological reason for male/female marriage; human nature.

.
River Tam wrote:
Many don't. Marriage has nothing to do with children, Brian. Strawman
The exception proves the rule.

.
River Tam wrote:
The children that are not adopted are raised with neither. Marriage has nothing to do with children, Brian. Strawman
There are common terms for children born out of wedlock, they aren't flattering.

I wonder why R.T. believes marriage has nothing to do with children? Would you encourage your children to have kids out of wedlock?

.
River Tam wrote:
Holyfuck. What's wrong with you?
I use real arguments, my opponents words speak for them.

.
River Tam wrote:
Marriage has nothing to do with children, Brian.
How many strawmen can you build?
Not just children, marriage is about keeping male/female differences; women and children to the lifeboats first. Maintaining civilized behavior. I don't want to hear the left's lobby complain "women and children first" is discriminatory.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12350 Nov 4, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
And now western civilization has a history of including same-sex couples in its marriage definition.
Ya don't say......just how long is that "....history of including same sex couples in its marriage definition"? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? Hundred?
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?
A variety of reason, economic, benefits, legal, etc. but we both know the state doesn't issue marriage licenses based on "love", nor require a person to be "in love".
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12351 Nov 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Dopey ad hominem.
uh-huh.... just as I thought. You have no idea.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12352 Nov 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really?
"And in a 2007 Pew survey, just 41 percent of adults stated that children were very important for a successful marriage, down from 65 percent in 1990. Meanwhile, nearly one in five American women now ends her reproductive years without children, up from one in ten in the 1970s."
Read More http://www.details.com/culture-trends/critica...
"When the Pew Research Center asked a sample of Americans in 2010 what they thought about the “growing variety in the types of family arrangements that people live in,” 34 percent responded that it was a good thing, and 32 percent said it made no difference. Having a child outside of marriage has also become common. According to a report by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, 47 percent of American women who give birth in their 20s are unmarried at the time."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sun...
http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/fa...

Sixty-four percent of children ages 0–17 lived with two married parents in 2012, down from 77 percent in 1980.
In 2012, 24 percent of children lived with only their mothers, 4 percent lived with only their fathers, and 4 percent lived with neither of their parents.1

Seventy-four percent of White, non-Hispanic, 59 percent of Hispanic, and 33 percent of Black children lived with two married parents in 2012.2

The proportion of Hispanic children living with two married parents decreased from 75 percent in 1980 to 59 percent in 2012.

Due to improved measurement, it is now possible to identify children living with two parents who are not married to each other. Four percent of all children lived with two unmarried parents in 2012.

Among children living with two parents, 92 percent lived with both of their biological or adoptive parents, and 8 percent lived with a biological or adoptive parent and a stepparent. About 70 percent of children in stepparent families lived with their biological mother and stepfather.3

Six percent of children who lived with two biological or adoptive parents had parents who were not married.
The majority of children living with one parent lived with their single mother. About 14 percent of children living with one parent lived with their single father.

Some single parents had cohabiting partners. Twenty-six percent of children living with single fathers and 11 percent of children living with single mothers also lived with their parent's cohabiting partner. Out of all children ages 0–17, about 5.6 million (8 percent) lived with a parent or parents who were cohabiting.

Among the 2.6 million children (4 percent of all children) not living with either parent in 2012, about 55 percent (1.5 million) lived with grandparents, 22 percent lived with other relatives only, and 22 percent lived with nonrelatives. Of children in nonrelatives' homes, 33 percent (193,000) lived with foster parents.

Older children were less likely to live with two parents: 65 percent of children ages 15–17 lived with two parents, compared with 67 percent of children ages 6–14, and 72 percent of those ages 0–5. Among children living with two parents, older children were more likely to live with a stepparent and less likely to live with cohabiting parents.3

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#12353 Nov 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Calm down fruitloops. Your post was too wordy.
Then SKIP IT, Captain Crunch. It was addressed to Pietro, and was perfectly sized for the conversation WE were having. I never requested a copy of your Guide To Ideal Post Length.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You could have said the same thing twice as well with half the words.
You could've read 100% less if you'd SKIPPED IT. Why should I care that you were bothered by what you chose to stick your nose into?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12354 Nov 4, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Then SKIP IT, Captain Crunch. It was addressed to Pietro, and was perfectly sized for the conversation WE were having. I never requested a copy of your Guide To Ideal Post Length.
<quoted text>
You could've read 100% less if you'd SKIPPED IT. Why should I care that you were bothered by what you chose to stick your nose into?
Long posts make him acutely aware of his many learning disabilities.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12355 Nov 4, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
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
[QUOTE]

Procreation has nothing to do with SSM, but a great deal to do with marriage.
Snowman.

[QUOTE]
Many don't. Marriage has nothing to do with children, Brian.
Strawman
[/AUPTE]

SSM has nothing to do with with children, marriage, conjugal, does, Tam

[QUOTE]
The children that are not adopted are raised with neither.
Marriage has nothing to do with children, Brian.
Strawman
<quoted text>
Holyfuck. What's wrong with you?
<quoted text>
Marriage has nothing to do with children, Brian.
How many strawmen can you build?
Children have a great deal to with marriage, the conjugal as in husband and wife, version.

The first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 103 (1859).

The procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law is one of the two principal ends of marriage.Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1 (1888)(quoting Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 103.â

Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation.” Davis v. Davis, 106 A. 644, 645 (N.J. Ch. Div. 1919).

The great end of matrimony is ... the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father. Laudo v. Laudo, 197 N.Y.S. 396, 397 (App. Div. 1919); Poe v. Gerstein, 517 F.2d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 1975) Procreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage....; Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. App. 1974)

[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race); Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (Minn. 1971), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)

(The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.); Heup v. Heup, 172 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Wis. 1969)

(Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.) Zoglio v. Zoglio, 157 A.2d 627, 628 (D.C. App. 1960)(ONe of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.; Frost v. Frost, 181 N.Y.S.2d 562, 563 (Supr. Ct. New York Co. 1958)(discussing one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species.)

Ramon v. Ramon, 34 N.Y.S. 2d 100, 108 (Fam. Ct. Div. Richmond Co. 1942)(The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order.)

Stegienko v. Stegienko, 295 N.W. 252, 254 (Mich. 1940)(stating that procreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony)

Gard v. Gard, 169 N.W. 908, 912 (Mich. 1918)(It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.

Lyon v. Barney, 132 Ill. App. 45, 50 (1907) The procreating of the human species is regarded, at least theoretically, as the primary purpose of marriage ...

Grover v. Zook, 87 P.638, 639 (Wash. 1906)(One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.); Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 1980), d 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)(observing that a “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the race

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#12356 Nov 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ya don't say......just how long is that "....history of including same sex couples in its marriage definition"? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? Hundred?
Doesn't matter how long. The fact that same-sex marriages are legal and recognized today in Westrn Civilization disproves your claim that male-female is "THE definition of marriage throughout the history of Western civilization."
Pietro Armando wrote:
A variety of reason, economic, benefits, legal, etc. but we both know the state doesn't issue marriage licenses based on "love", nor require a person to be "in love".
Yes, but you had implied that non-licensed marriage would be enough to satisfy the needs of same-sex couples. Wouldn't the same satisfy the needs of opposite-sex couples? But you correctly pointed out why civil marriage is important. It's those "economic, benefits, legal, etc" reasons why that marriage license issued by the state is also important to same-sex families.

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 If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 4 min USA 9,673
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 min Woj 216,458
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min An NFL Fan 1,394,436
News The Republican Party is dead 7 min VorenusI 1,718
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 8 min crucifiedguy 4,328
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 13 min VorenusI 387,792
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 14 min Memo From Turner 2,959
News Trump hits 'hostile' media, 'rogue' Scarborough... 1 hr Bad Ass Cowboy 260
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 2 hr M Wilson 77
News Rebellious Democrats disrupt House, stage protest 3 hr Cat74 224
More from around the web