Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Illinois clergy endorse gay marriage bill
Chicago Tribune ^ | December 24, 2012 | Manya A. Brachear

Posted on 12/28/2012 5:11:18 AM PST by 1010RD

Edited on 12/28/2012 5:14:39 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

More than 250 Illinois clergy most of them in the Chicago area have endorsed a gay marriage bill that could come up for a vote in Springfield before Jan. 9.

On Sunday, rabbis and pastors from denominations that support gay rights in varying degrees unveiled a declaration supporting equality for same-sex couples. Fostering faith, justice and compassion is a key component of their jobs, they said.


(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: celebraterperversity; celebratesin; chicago; cultureofcorruption; homosexualagenda; religiousleft; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: Flavious_Maximus

Follow the money to Soros?

Neither Beck nor Gingrich is of the mindset and circumstance to endorse gays.

Both are married and deidcated to their respective religions, Beck — Mormon (but a former Catholic) and Gingrich — a convert to Catholicism.


41 posted on 12/28/2012 8:28:40 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Flavious_Maximus

Follow the money to Soros?

Neither Beck nor Gingrich are of the mindset and/or circumstances to endorse gays.

Both are married and deidcated to their respective religions, Beck — Mormon (but a former Catholic) and Gingrich — a convert to Catholicism.


42 posted on 12/28/2012 8:29:15 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Flavious_Maximus

Follow the money to Soros?

Neither Beck nor Gingrich are of the mindset and/or circumstances to endorse gays.

Both are married and deidcated to their respective religions, Beck — Mormon (but a former Catholic) and Gingrich — a convert to Catholicism.


43 posted on 12/28/2012 8:30:25 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER

After Oregon voted to ban gay marriage in its constitution, the Dimocrats pushed through a bill to grant domestic partnerships. I watched the hearings. When the Ctholic church testified, they asked for a couple of language tweaks (for church protection). But when referencing the bill as a whole, the lobbyist said, “The Catholic Church is not in the business of discrimination, therefore we take no position on the bill.” It sailed through.


44 posted on 12/28/2012 8:37:00 AM PST by aimhigh ( Guns do not kill people. Planned Parenthood kills people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

I wonder which god they serve?

Paul and Moses were pretty clear on homosexuality.


45 posted on 12/28/2012 8:57:11 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USAF80
"The homo crowd are quick to bring up the fact that the elderly get married and that they usually have no potential for offspring."

The legal standard is not "How likely is it that pregnancy will occur?" but "Can they perform the procreative (marital) act?"

The likelihood of pregnancy could only be determined by ongoing physiological testing and surveillance, which is clearly way, WAY outside of the competence of the government. Plus, people who think they can't conceive, often do; and people who think they will conceive, often don't.

I read that in the USA there's about 180-200 births per year reported among mothers over age 50, with a third of them being over 55.

And of course, some young and ostensibly healthy couples have natural, normal (i.e. uncontracepted) intercourse for years without successfully achieving pregnancy.

So the only non-privacy-invading criterion the state can properly act upon, is "Can they do the procreative act?" Which is "Are they a male and a female capable of intercourse?"

The procreative act is "the marital act," the only act which can "consummate" marriage; to be precise, an act which deposits the semen of the male in the genital tract of the female. If you can't or won't do that, then even in civil law as I understand it, the marriage is considered as not having been consummated, and so can be annuled. It never "happened."

Two men or two women can't perform the marital act. Trannies can't either (there's either a trans-"male" with no sperm, or a trans-"woman" with no genital tract.) They can't consummate a marriage.

Q.E.D.

46 posted on 12/28/2012 9:28:13 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you, May the Lord keep you, May He turn to you His countenance and give you peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

What about the... “We can always adopt kids”... angle?


47 posted on 12/28/2012 9:59:11 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

When you say “it” do you mean same-sex attraction or the person suffering from same-sex attraction?


48 posted on 12/28/2012 11:18:11 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER

You actually agree. It is a choice, a naturally occurring event like heterosexuality. We choose to act on it. Right now the best evidence is that it is a mental illness caused by epigenetic activity in the womb or by a child’s environment.


49 posted on 12/28/2012 11:23:11 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

My exact point and it also may be correctable even if it is caused by environment. There are plenty of people who’ve “changed”. It’s why they want to outlaw the therapy.


50 posted on 12/28/2012 11:25:13 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: USAF80
The whole purpose of adoption --- properly speaking --- is to help a kid who needs a mom and dad. It is there to serve the child's needs, not the adults' desires.

For that reason alone, pseudomarrieds should not be adopting kids: because by definition they are, deliberately and long-term, depriving him either of a father or of a mother. It is not in the best interest of children to be thrust without his consent into the household of a sexually- unbalanced couple.

And by "unbalanced" I mean "failing to provide the standard natural balance of male and one female." (Grrr, whatever happened to 50/50 gender quota where you really need it??)

The same goes for the commercial human-breeding technologies: males hiring a woman to produce a baby for them (reproductive concubinage). Or, on the other hand, donor-insemination (more accurately: vendor-insemination) where a woman or a couple of women buy the component they fancy (a few mililiters of seminal fluid) and ditch the component they don't fancy (the man himself--- the baby's father) ---

The state's "public interest" in human reproduction should be solely to secure the rights of the dependent child. A child's first natural right is to have a bond with his natural fathers and mother. If the natural father and mother are strictly unable to personally secure the child's right, then the child at least as a right to a man and a woman who can act as father and mother. Anything that deliberately obstructs that end--- that blocks the functional equivalent of a natural family --- should be curbed by law. Or a least not legalized, valorized, incentivized and subsidized.

51 posted on 12/28/2012 12:11:01 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child that's got his own." Billie Holiday / Arthur Herzog Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: USAF80
The whole purpose of adoption --- properly speaking --- is to help a kid who needs a mom and dad. It is there to serve the child's needs, not the adults' desires.

For that reason alone, pseudomarrieds should not be adopting kids: because by definition they are, deliberately and long-term, depriving him either of a father or of a mother. It is not in the best interest of children to be thrust without his consent into the household of a sexually- unbalanced couple.

And by "unbalanced" I mean "failing to provide the standard natural balance of one male and one female." (Grrr, whatever happened to the demand for a 50/50 gender quota where you really need it??)

The same goes for the commercial human-breeding technologies: males hiring a woman to produce a baby for them (reproductive concubinage). Or, on the other hand, donor-insemination (more accurately: vendor-insemination) where a woman or a couple of women buy the component they fancy (a few mililiters of seminal fluid) and ditch the component they don't fancy (the man himself--- the baby's father) ---

The state's "public interest" in human reproduction should be solely to secure the rights of the dependent child. A child's first natural right is to have a bond with his natural fathers and mother. If the natural father and mother are strictly unable to personally secure the child's right, then the child at least as a right to a man and a woman who can act as father and mother. Anything that deliberately obstructs that end--- that blocks the functional equivalent of a natural family --- should be curbed by law. Or a least not legalized, valorized, incentivized and subsidized.

52 posted on 12/28/2012 12:12:10 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child that's got his own." Billie Holiday / Arthur Herzog Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GWfan
"Here is a gay friendly list but this list is linked to the gay marriage article.
http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/united_states/us_illinois.htm" I surely hope that even if a Christian Church is "gay friendly" that they are adamantly opposed to "gay marriage".
53 posted on 12/28/2012 12:34:31 PM PST by NoRedTape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Flavious_Maximus

When did Beck endorse “queer marriage”? I’m shocked to see this?


54 posted on 12/28/2012 12:35:10 PM PST by miele man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NoRedTape

“I surely hope that even if a Christian Church is “gay friendly” that they are adamantly opposed to “gay marriage”.

I would suggest you take a look at the Episcopal Church. This increasingly apostate church not only is “gay friendly” but is leading the parade toward perdition with its secular progressive agenda of “blessing of same sex marriages” among other things.


55 posted on 12/28/2012 12:52:14 PM PST by miele man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

The Word states the reason for homosexuality and the acts practiced by all who have similar perverted interests. It tells us it is shame to even speak of them; much less “ treat them lovingly. To wish them well or enable them is to partake with them. Liberals always change our devinely sanctioned rights to flee and avoid evil into “descrimination”.

What The Creator labels an abomination is just that and those who practice, support or condone it can’t call themselves believers. They have held the words of The Almighty of no account.


56 posted on 12/28/2012 4:11:23 PM PST by Aleya2Fairlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

I could see some having no issue with man’s law permitting this but to CELEBRATE sin is a perversion of the cloth.


57 posted on 12/28/2012 5:12:15 PM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER

Also we are born naked. The determination of APPROPRIATE clothing is determined by cultural norms of society.

The DESIRE to wear the clothing of the OPPOSITE sex is purely mental, not physical. No genetic component.


58 posted on 12/28/2012 5:19:17 PM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: miele man

The Episcopal church hasn’t been Christian in a very long time.


59 posted on 12/28/2012 5:24:30 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Yes, you are so right. I left “it” (normally I would say “her”)in 1987. I was asked to come back to fight one more battle so I did in ‘89. That lasted about 7 months. Haven’t been back since. I attend a very traditional and orthodox Anglican parish that uses the old Prayer Book (1929 BCP)


60 posted on 12/28/2012 7:49:52 PM PST by miele man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson