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

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#14255 Dec 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The problem with that is, "gays" didn't exist until the early 20th century.
Sure they did. They were just called other names. There have always been people attracted to others of the same sex, small Peter. Your conned linguistic gymnastics will never change that fact.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Only stupid people with a political agenda would interject into the past, contemporary concepts of sexuality and other behaviors, that would be alien to the time and place, into which their being interjected.
Whining about historical fact doesn't change it, small Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or maybe the behavior was on the fringes of society, and said society never felt a need to mainstream it.
No one has ever demanded that the majority practice the behavior, stupid Peter. They're just asking not to be punished and discriminated against based on what we now know is an innate and normal variant of human sexual orientation. Now that we know better, it's past time to stop the discrimination started by ignorant people in the past.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#14256 Dec 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with that is, "gays" didn't exist until the early 20th century.
Not true......Gays and Lesbians have been around since the beginning of time!!!

The labels are what have ONLY existed since the 19th century!!!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#14257 Dec 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
More like two thousand years. New in American history, English common law from which our concept of marriage is taken, and certainly new in Western Civilization.
If it's such a hot idea, crucial to societal stability and survival, why hasn't it sustained itself from ancient times, until now?
Beating, threatening and shaming gay people into silence and marginalization has been the hot idea that has sustained itself since ancient times.

Are you arguing that this should continue, and be promoted as the correct way to do things?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#14258 Dec 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, because it was deemed a "fundamental right" by all societies preceding ours......oh madone!
It's not my problem you continue to mischaracterize the legal accomplishment of the fundamental right of marriage (establishing kinship between previously unrelated parties) and conflate restrictions on the right (number and gender make up of participants) with the definition of the right. Your "definition" of one man and one woman has NEVER encompassed all forms of marriage across cultures and times either so spare us your whining hypocrisy.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#14259 Dec 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with that is, "gays" didn't exist until the early 20th century.
<quoted text>
Only stupid people with a political agenda would interject into the past, contemporary concepts of sexuality and other behaviors, that would be alien to the time and place, into which their being interjected.
Or maybe the behavior was on the fringes of society, and said society never felt a need to mainstream it.
If that is true, that gays didn't exist until the early 20th century, how would you know. By your reasoning and use of semantics, YOU did not exist prior to 12 May 2012 when your avatar came into being.

Now go away and play with you dulpo blocks like a good 18 month old and leave the adult discussions to your elders.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#14260 Dec 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
As was previous stated to you.....marriage for Same-Sex couples is NOT a new thing just in the last century or this one.....but Brian KNOWS this already and still wants to ignore it.....go for it Brian, you still are losing this battle!!!
And we all agree, no copy of same sex marriage law exists in writing before Y2K, right? Same sex relationships have always existed, their are historic examples in art and law. But same sex marriage law is a new thing, less than 14 years old.

If I'm wrong, just cite the law. The Theodosian Code refers to same sex marriage to make it illegal punishable with death by torture. That's no legal argument for same sex marriage and if you're gay or in a long term same sex relationship, a good reason to keep marriage one man and one woman.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#14261 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
And we all agree, no copy of same sex marriage law exists in writing before Y2K, right? Same sex relationships have always existed, their are historic examples in art and law. But same sex marriage law is a new thing, less than 14 years old.
Brian, slavery was legal until 1864. Does when it was outlawed have any bearing upon the validity of the law barring it? Of course not. Only an imbecile would imply that a relatively recent law is any less valid than a law that has been on the books for years.

Grow a big boy argument, Brian. Your current broken record chant is an irrelevant obfuscation.

How's that hunt for a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex individuals rom marrying another, which would render such a restriction constitutional and render your argument valid, going?

Once again, you make yourself look like an idiot.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#14262 Dec 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The old "eye for an eye?"
I would just re-wire them. ;)
OK, that was my anger talking. I guess they will get theirs inside; plus the other children were taken away, let's hope they have a chance now.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#14263 Dec 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
How's that same sex marriage ban working out for you Brian? Same sex marriage is now the law in Australia. Do you feel threatened?
Well, I'm keeping my fingers crossed on Canberra.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#14264 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>And we all agree, no copy of same sex marriage law exists in writing before Y2K, right? Same sex relationships have always existed, their are historic examples in art and law. But same sex marriage law is a new thing, less than 14 years old.
If I'm wrong, just cite the law. The Theodosian Code refers to same sex marriage to make it illegal punishable with death by torture. That's no legal argument for same sex marriage and if you're gay or in a long term same sex relationship, a good reason to keep marriage one man and one woman.
Very good, Theodosius.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14265 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>And we all agree, no copy of same sex marriage law exists in writing before Y2K, right? Same sex relationships have always existed, their are historic examples in art and law. But same sex marriage law is a new thing, less than 14 years old.
If I'm wrong, just cite the law. The Theodosian Code refers to same sex marriage to make it illegal punishable with death by torture. That's no legal argument for same sex marriage and if you're gay or in a long term same sex relationship, a good reason to keep marriage one man and one woman.
You mean this state of the art in thinking from 392 CE?

Theodosian Code 9.8.3: "When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion (quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam), what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment."

It was actually the first law passed to prohibit same sex legally recognized marriages anywhere and in 1600+ years you haven't gotten all that much better at it. It was around the same time when same sex sex was declared a sin and prohibited under the same codes. The Church/State did however continued to benefit from the continued practice. Male prostitutes were taxed for another century.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#14266 Dec 6, 2013
If you believe "exquisite punishment" might be interesting, this same sex marriage was a capital offense, they were serious.

#3 Reason for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival

Don't let history repeat itself, think first.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#14267 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you believe "exquisite punishment" might be interesting, this same sex marriage was a capital offense, they were serious.
#3 Reason for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival
Don't let history repeat itself, think first.
Brian, just when I think you can't make yourself look any dumber, you come up with a post like this.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#14268 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you believe "exquisite punishment" might be interesting, this same sex marriage was a capital offense, they were serious.
#3 Reason for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival
Don't let history repeat itself, think first.
It seems that if we decide not to kill people for being gay, or for marrying someone of their same gender, then survival won't be an issue.

Don't let history repeat itself, think first. Don't make consensual acts between adults into capital offenses.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#14269 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you believe "exquisite punishment" might be interesting, this same sex marriage was a capital offense, they were serious.
#3 Reason for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival
Don't let history repeat itself, think first.
You advocate burning people @ the stake, that was your "exquisite punishment". It's also the origin of the expression f****t, originally the wood used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burning_of_...

You should be proud.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#14270 Dec 6, 2013
I've never advocated capital punishment or criminalizing same sex marriage. Consensual acts between adults isn't the same as state sanctioned sex segregated marriage. Two men or two women were never legally recognized as married in written law, anywhere in the world, before Y2K.

All I'm saying, let's go slow because survival is at stake. See the Theodosian Code for proof.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#14271 Dec 6, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
You advocate burning people @ the stake, that was your "exquisite punishment". It's also the origin of the expression f****t, originally the wood used.[URL deleted] You should be proud.
^^^This is untrue, I've never advocated the use of violence except in self defense. R.W. misunderstands the argument, I argue for life, keeping marriage law as is, male/female.

I oppose acts of barbarism and I recognize life for what it is. Some places on Earth are barbaric. We should fight that battle first, for life not marriage; for our common survival.

Reason number three for keeping marriage one man and one woman, survival.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14272 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Don't let history repeat itself, think first.
You mean like when the Christian Church required sex before marriage and blessed the unions of same sex couples?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#14273 Dec 6, 2013
No, keeping marriage one man and one woman means a society considers sex and marriage a natural union. I bless the union of same sex couples too, I just don't want to rewrite marriage law, it has nothing to do with how I feel about the individuals, just best for the civilization.

One man and one woman marriage is perfect affirmative action, integration and diversity; considering two men or two women as if married licenses sex segregation in marriage. That's never been seen in written law before Y2K.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#14274 Dec 6, 2013
Same sex marriage licenses sterile marriages. I don't think that's a good thing for population growth.

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
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 min Earthling-1 50,358
Obama Calls for Two Years of Free Community Col... 34 min stoner 811
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 41 min Blitzking 142,039
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 47 min Brian_G 307,963
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr wojar 183,807
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Brian_G 51,364
State of the Union spoilers: Obama's proposal f... 2 hr WelbyMD 169
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr Jay 168,230
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr THE DEVIL 1,173,024
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 hr Quirky 304,808
Obama: Racism, bias in US will take time to tackle 4 hr serfs up 2,358
Scott Walker has no college degree. That's norm... 6 hr mjjcpa 658
More from around the web