Gay Marriage Debate - Chicago, IL

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Chicago, IL.

Do you support gay marriage?

Chicago supports
Support
 
1,103
Oppose
 
306

Vote now in Chicago:

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2065 Jan 10, 2013
Keeping marriage gender diverse is good because it forces married people toward integration. Same sex marriage is bad because segregation keeps people ignorant and bigoted.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2066 Jan 10, 2013
If you don't want your church treated like the Westboro Baptist Church, keep marriage male/female.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2067 Jan 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>By definition; same sex marriage is gender segregation marriage. It's like the separatists who don't want blacks to marry whites - it removes the gender integration requirement from marriage.
.
<quoted text>The true consequence of same sex marriage is to allow "every two person marriage" including incest marriage, pedophile marriage, and forced contract marriage. Same sex marriage is the road to anarchy.
.
<quoted text>Gay people have always enjoyed the right to marry under the same laws as everyone else. They don't want equal rights but instead desire special rights to redefine marriage for everyone.
More irrational fear of the future coupled with irrational appeal to emotion, relying on misuse of terminology.

Allowing gay couples to participate under the laws currently in effect does not change any of those laws beyond allowing gay couples to participate.

It is irrational to believe allowing gay couples to participate under the laws currently in effect will lead to legalizing relationships that have clearly been shown to be harmful. This is just more unsupported, unsupportable, irrational fear mongering.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2068 Jan 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>They will accuse your church of 'hate crimes' if same sex marriage becomes law; and publish your names in newspapers as if you belonged to the KKK.
More irrational fear of the future coupled with irrational appeal to emotion.

Same sex marriage is already law in many jurisdictions.

Opposition to marriage equality is not a hate crime. Again, hate crimes are enhancements of crimes already on the books. They do not criminalize speech, even when that speech is hateful.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2069 Jan 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you don't want your church treated like the Westboro Baptist Church, keep marriage male/female.
More irrational fear of the future coupled with irrational appeal to emotion.

If you don't want to be treated like Westboro, don't act like them.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2070 Jan 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Keeping marriage gender diverse is good because it forces married people toward integration. Same sex marriage is bad because segregation keeps people ignorant and bigoted.
More irrational appeal to emotion, relying on misuse of terminology.

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting from her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." (Coretta Scott King)
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#2071 Jan 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Keeping marriage gender diverse is good because it forces married people toward integration. Same sex marriage is bad because segregation keeps people ignorant and bigoted.
So you are saying that a ssm are ignorant and bigoted.... How.... I am begiinning to wonder if you know what bigoted even means. Oh btw how many threads did you cut and paste this inane comment on... I know of at least 3.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2072 Jan 10, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
More irrational fear of the future coupled with irrational appeal to emotion, relying on misuse of terminology.
You keep saying this about gender segregation marriage but never explain how it's an "irrational appeal to emotion".

It's very simple; A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State[Illinois]. Same sex marriage would create a new law allowing gender apartheid marriage. Illinois stands for diversity and integration; same sex marriage isn't allowed.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Allowing gay couples to participate under the laws currently in effect does not change any of those laws beyond allowing gay couples to participate.
Homosexual have always participated under laws currently in effect; there is no orientation test for a marriage license. What you want is the special right to redefine marriage to accommodate sexual predilection.

There are no couples rights in state or federal law.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
It is irrational to believe allowing gay couples to participate under the laws currently in effect will lead to legalizing relationships that have clearly been shown to be harmful. This is just more unsupported, unsupportable, irrational fear mongering.
How is adult brother/sister marriage harmful? Do you believe those cultures that permit polygamy cause harm? What evidence do you have?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2073 Jan 10, 2013
Coretta Scott King practiced traditional marriage; if she had practiced same sex marriage she wouldn't be a celebrity.

Reverend Martin Luther King always preached marriage as one man and one woman.
just an observation

Bolingbrook, IL

#2074 Jan 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Coretta Scott King practiced traditional marriage; if she had practiced same sex marriage she wouldn't be a celebrity.
Reverend Martin Luther King always preached marriage as one man and one woman.
Funny you should bring up MLK.
A) It is a fact that MLK never spoke publically on the issue of homsexuality... so for you to insunate he would be against it if fabricated at best...
B) His wife, someone who knew him MUCH better than you had spoken publicly on more than one occasion about the need for justice for homosexuals, claiming that her husband would have been in favor for the rights of homosexuals to marry.

So once again you misspeak

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2075 Jan 10, 2013
Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. performed marriage ceremonies; he never supported same sex marriage.

Gay rights are human rights; to live along with everyone in dignity. Not the special right to change marriage for everyone.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#2076 Jan 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. performed marriage ceremonies; he never supported same sex marriage.
Gay rights are human rights; to live along with everyone in dignity. Not the special right to change marriage for everyone.
"Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. performed marriage ceremonies; he never supported same sex marriage"

I want to be respectful as best I can...how ever when such utterly stupid statements are made... I can not call them anything other than stupid

Going by what you said...one can also say that
George Washington sent messages via horse back riders, and othe methods of the time... so he never supported the telegraph
Lincoln used the telegraph and pony express... so he never supported the telephone.
FDR used stoves to heat things up... so he never supported microwave ovens....

Homosexuals, while around in time of MLK were not public. So how could he support something that never was in existence while he was alive?.

"Gay rights are human rights; to live along with everyone in dignity. Not the special right to change marriage for everyone."

Cut and paste #9... asked and disproven time and time again

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2077 Jan 11, 2013
Since George Washington considered marriage male/female; same sex marriage supporters would call him a bigot and a homophobe.

Homosexuals have always existed and people in earlier times knew that fact.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#2078 Jan 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Since George Washington considered marriage male/female; same sex marriage supporters would call him a bigot and a homophobe.
Homosexuals have always existed and people in earlier times knew that fact.
where did you read that?.... oh anothe lie

Never said it didnot exist. What I said was it was not open... ssm did not exist as a thought or practice.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2079 Jan 11, 2013
come on now wrote:
where did you read that?.... oh anothe lie
Never said it didnot exist. What I said was it was not open...
Where did you get that? Homosexual relationships have always existed in every culture and time; some were quite open.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no reason to radically redefine the fundamental cultural institution of marriage.

.
come on now wrote:
ssm did not exist as a thought or practice.
Same sex marriage never existed in written law, but many cultures recognized same sex unions. There's no penalty for consensual adult same sex relationships in the USA.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2080 Jan 11, 2013
I've seldom read a same sex marriage supporter write any there is any reason for protecting marriage other than bigotry and homophobia. If I'm wrong, tell us which arguments for protecting the one man and one woman definition of marriage is rational.

If you can't understand your opponents; your going to lose the argument. I know most same sex marriage supporters are good people, either afraid of conservatives or sympathetic to the unfairness of gay couples being unable to meet the standards of marriage.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2081 Jan 11, 2013
By James A. Lopata :

"In the book Lost Prophet: The Life and Times of Bayard Rustin, historian John D'Emilio portrays King — even in defiance of his other advisors — as one who always backed the out homosexual Rustin.
In one poignant example of King's support, D'Emilio describes a critical moment in the planning for what would become known as the Great March on Washington of 1963 where King would deliver his immortal "I Have a Dream" speech.

The planners had just decided as a group that despite Bayard Rustin's superior activist and organizational abilities, they would not make him director of the March.

Instead, they asked A. Phillip Randolph, a man renowned for his labor activism on behalf of African-Americans — in fact, a seated statue of him in the waiting area to the Back Bay commuter and railway station in Boston commemorates his efforts as the first president of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.

Randolph immediately said he would decline the director position unless he would be allowed to appoint his deputy, and that that deputy would be Bayard Rustin.

Rustin was a risky choice, and not just because King's advisors were uncomfortable with his homosexuality. Rustin had been convicted in 1953 of "sex perversion," which, at the time, was criminal activity known as consensual sodomy.

U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina, a powerful voice opposing African-American social justice work, made good fodder of Rustin’s conviction, attempting to discredit the entire Civil Rights movement on the floor of the U.S. Senate by tying it to the work of a “sexual pervert,” i.e. Rustin.

With so much at stake, it would have been easy for Randolph, King, and the other planners to simply dismiss the “sexual pervert” Rustin from any active participation.

Randolph, fully understanding the hazards, turned to Martin Luther King, Jr., and asked directly if King supported Rustin as deputy director of the important March. King said:

"I vote yes."

With those three words, even the most reluctant of the group acquiesced.

Gay people like me may not be blood relatives of Martin Luther King, Jr., but many of us count ourselves as sons and daughters in his family of justice.

Clearly, I side with Coretta Scott King in her assessment of King's support of LGBT rights. I know in my sanctified heart that King put his life at stake for social injustice everywhere.

I believe that if King were asked today if he supported gender identity expression rights, civil marriage for same-sex couples, and sexual orientation non-discrimination legislation, he would say:

"I vote yes."

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bostons...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2082 Jan 11, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
...Gay people like me may not be blood relatives of Martin Luther King, Jr., but many of us count ourselves as sons and daughters in his family of justice.
Gay rights are human rights, to be treated the same as any other individual.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Clearly, I side with Coretta Scott King in her assessment of King's support of LGBT rights. I know in my sanctified heart that King put his life at stake for social injustice everywhere.
Coretta Scott King wasn't ordained by a church, she was married to a heroic religious leader. Her only celebrity comes from who she married, not what she did. Coretta Scott King might say one thing but she practiced marriage as one man and one woman.

Actions speak louder than words.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
I believe that if King were asked today if he supported gender identity expression rights, civil marriage for same-sex couples, and sexual orientation non-discrimination legislation, he would say:
"I vote yes."
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bostons...
Same sex marriage isn't the same as being treated equally under the law; it's about changing the law for the special 'right' to redefine marriage for everyone. I think Reverend King would have voted for keeping marriage one man and one woman.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#2083 Jan 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I've seldom read a same sex marriage supporter write any there is any reason for protecting marriage other than bigotry and homophobia. If I'm wrong, tell us which arguments for protecting the one man and one woman definition of marriage is rational.
If you can't understand your opponents; your going to lose the argument. I know most same sex marriage supporters are good people, either afraid of conservatives or sympathetic to the unfairness of gay couples being unable to meet the standards of marriage.
If I'm wrong, tell us which arguments for protecting the one man and one woman definition of marriage is rational."

Could be because there is no rational reason. You have posted many inane reasons... all of which have been shown to be false or moot. There is absolutely no reason why two u.s. citizens of the same sex should not be allowed to enter into the civil contrract of marriage and enjoy all the benifits there of.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2084 Jan 11, 2013
Same sex marriage is gender segregation marriage. When marriage has always been gender integrated; same sex marriage is a backward step toward antebellum morality and apartheid.

They can't understand our arguments because they don't base their beliefs on understanding and reason; instead they are motivated by emotions like sympathy for gays and fear of conservatism.

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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Abby 10-31 16 min edogxxx 3
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 19 min fetch almighty 1,129,420
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 19 min STEFANO COLONNA 70,159
Abby 10-30 20 min edogxxx 19
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 26 min grave digger 47,599
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 43 min gimpyolman 50,786
Chicago Ridge man is charged with drug possessi... (Oct '08) 1 hr Ghiberti 6
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Learn to Read 179,685
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr edogxxx 98,565
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]