Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17555 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.

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5357 Jul 8, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Fallacy. SSM will have no impact on families in that regard.
It's already had an effect on NOM's donors, there names were illegally leaked by SSM supporters in the IRS, to the HRC, a SSM advocacy group. The horse is out of the barn, too late to close the doors now. We'll put together a posse and go after the thieves instead.

.
WasteWater wrote:
Why do you hate children who are raised in same sex families?
Why do you hate those children's mothers and fathers? Is it because the parent that deceived and deserted the first marriage has a new spouse now? Do you hate single parents and don't care if a child is raised by his own mom and dad?

Remember, every child raised by a gender segregated couple is raised without a mother or a father.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5358 Jul 8, 2013
barry wrote:
so if what is "accepted by every state in the union" is the accepted standard, than why should there be ssm when every state in the union was against it not so long ago?
Is this an attempt at logic? If so, you have failed horribly, and publicly.

Since marriage is afforded by every state in the union to two people, and the US Constitution mandates that states provide all persons within there jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, and there is no compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, it follows that same sex marriage is a logical and constitutional remedy to the existing void of equality.

What state's held some time ago is irrelevant. Just as the fact that slavery was once legally allowed in this country is now irrelevant.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5359 Jul 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It's already had an effect on NOM's donors, there names were illegally leaked by SSM supporters in the IRS, to the HRC, a SSM advocacy group. The horse is out of the barn, too late to close the doors now. We'll put together a posse and go after the thieves instead.
Still trying to pitch this lie, are you Brian?
NOMs Form 990 Schedule B is public information because NOM is a political organization. Actually, it is an UnAmerican hate group dedicated to maintaining a classification of second class citizenship with less than equal protection of the law for homosexual US Citizens.

They are hateful. They are irrational. They are UnAmerican, as are you for that matter. And their mission will soon be done and they will collapse when they lose. Ultimately, people don't give money to causes that have been proven to fail to get results. NOM is failing to deliver the goods, and they will never be able to follow through, because a majority of the people support marriage equality.
Brian_G wrote:
Why do you hate those children's mothers and fathers? Is it because the parent that deceived and deserted the first marriage has a new spouse now? Do you hate single parents and don't care if a child is raised by his own mom and dad?
Remember, every child raised by a gender segregated couple is raised without a mother or a father.
As is every child being raised by a single parent.

Procreation and child rearing have nothing to do with equality under the law, and there is no state interest in a child being raised by opposite sex parents, whether biological or otherwise.

What is more, you ineptly cannot produce any evidence to prove that homosexual parenting produces any worse outcomes that opposite sex parenting, or single parenting. In fact, you don't even so much as attempt to do so. There is no data that supports your conclusions.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5360 Jul 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What puzzles me, is the opposition some SSM advocates have toward polygamy.
Yawn. Please demonstrate this "opposition" that you speak of, and then demonstrate the supposed polygamy movement you keep talking about.

Waiting....

waiting....

Waiting....

You're routine is so tired.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5361 Jul 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I know a few married men who are bisexual....
Of course you do. Tell me, did their sexual orientation come up in conversation, or is asking people their sexual orientation simply part of your "getting to know you"?
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
they only have sex twice a year! Baaaah..bump...bump.:)
\
What? No irrelevant mention of polygamy?

You're slipping.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5362 Jul 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so I misunderstood what you meant, my bad. You do believe bisexuals should be able to marry one of both sexes.
You seem to have an incredible need to put words into other people's mouths. For most people that is a sure sign of deceitfulness.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5363 Jul 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
NEWSFLASH: Gays HAVE THE RIGHT to marry, as does any other citizen, it's just that they do not wish to exercise that right like any other citizen does.
<quoted text>
As have you my friend Joh-née, as have you.
<quoted text>
Apparently you can't tell the difference between men and women. BTW, gay people HAVE entered the ver same institution, the monogamous union of husband and wife. They have accepted a member of the opposite sex as their respective legally recognized husband or wife, created a home with them, fathered children or given birth to children father by them, exchanged "I love you's", etc. All the things that husband and wives do. Also some gay/bisexual people still do that.
<quoted text>
They never had a chance until SSM broke the monogamous conjugal ceiling. Now they have, not one, but two reality shows.
<quoted text>
Actually there's two additional ones. We have the monogamous conjugal union of husband and wife. The lesbian one with, as the evidence suggest so far, a higher dissolution rate than their gay male couple counter parts, and the "monogamish" gay male marriage institution.
So yes Virginia, there are three institutions.
Like I said, he's an idiot.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5364 Jul 8, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you have finally admitted that the two issues are distinct. Perhaps, after 5000 comments on this tread alone, progress is occurring.
Hey look everybody Jeffy is talking to me again. Very clever that first line, nice try though. They're both part of the debate as to how we define marriage. SSM seeks to remove the conjugality, but maintain monogamy, polygamy seeks to maintain the conjugality, but remove the monogamy. So u see, they are not that distinct.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5365 Jul 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hey look everybody Jeffy is talking to me again. Very clever that first line, nice try though. They're both part of the debate as to how we define marriage. SSM seeks to remove the conjugality, but maintain monogamy, polygamy seeks to maintain the conjugality, but remove the monogamy. So u see, they are not that distinct.
Actually, yes, they are. You have just illustrated as much.

You truly aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

By the way, same sex marriage doesn't remove "conjugality", although it does not include procreation. It is really wise to know the meaning of a word before one starts using it.

Conjugal (adjective): of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations : connubial <conjugal happiness>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/con...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5366 Jul 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It's already had an effect on NOM's donors, there names were illegally leaked by SSM supporters in the IRS, to the HRC, a SSM advocacy group.
1) There is a difference between "there" and "their". You should learn it so that you sound at least partially educated.

2) What law was broken making these "leaks" illegal?

Waiting....

Waiting....

Waiting....

Brian_G, you wandering Village Idiot, you might want to take the afternoon and actually read about non-profit organizations and how their (notice the correct usage?) tax filings work.

But since you brought it up, let's make sure everyone understands about NOM. NOM claims to be a grass roots organization, collecting funding for the purpose of denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. Supposedly they receive donations from millions of supporters who all agree with their message. But in the end, 90.5% of all their "donations" come from only 10 sources. Hardly "grassroots". It's actually a wonderful example of wealthy bigotry at its finest. Thanks for bringing them up Brian_G. Demonstrating NOM's deceitfulness exposes yours at the same time. Not that was necessary.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
The horse is out of the barn, too late to close the doors now.
By the horse, I trust you are speaking of marriage equality. And yes, it's too late to close the doors. Sucks for you and your ilk.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you hate those children's mothers and fathers?
You mean the mothers and fathers that abandoned them?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it because the parent that deceived and deserted the first marriage has a new spouse now?
Um, if you are going to ask a question, you should be kind enough to allow someone to answer. Supplying your own answer merely demonstrates the deceitfulness of the original question.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you hate single parents and don't care if a child is raised by his own mom and dad?
We only care that children are raised by loving and supportive parents. Too bad you and your ilk couldn't do the same. But then, your posts continually demonstrate that your concern isn't about the children at all.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember, every child raised by a gender segregated couple is raised without a mother or a father.
Lots of children are raised without a mother or father unfortunately. And lots are raised by bad mothers and fathers unfortunately.

Your "gender segregated couple" is dismissed for the utter nonsense that it is. You might want to buy a dictionary. Not only can you learn the difference between "there" and "their", but you can also look up the meaning of the word "segregation". It's obvious from your posts that you currently don't know how to employ it properly.

Thanks for the post. Nothing brings a smile to my face on a Monday morning more then you foolishly clucking away demonstrating how stupid you are.

Brian_G = Village Idiot
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5367 Jul 8, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this an attempt at logic? If so, you have failed horribly, and publicly.
Since marriage is afforded by every state in the union to two people, and the US Constitution mandates that states provide all persons within there jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, and there is no compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, it follows that same sex marriage is a logical and constitutional remedy to the existing void of equality.
What state's held some time ago is irrelevant. Just as the fact that slavery was once legally allowed in this country is now irrelevant.
but you and i know that you are changing the wording of situation. marriage was afforded by every state in the union of a husband and a wife, a man and a women. so again i ask if it is based on what was "accepted by every state in the union" and ssm was rejected by every state in the union, but somehow it was ok to change that, what basis is there for now arguing against poly-marriages?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5368 Jul 8, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
But this post of yours PROVES that same-sex couples marrying is a BENEFIT to society. Allowing access to civil marriage with all of its rights, benefits and responsibilities keeps more individuals off of these public assistance roles.
until they have no children or grandchildren to take responsibility for them when they become old.

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5369 Jul 8, 2013
lides wrote:
Still trying to pitch this lie, are you Brian?
NOMs Form 990 Schedule B is public information because NOM is a political organization.
NOM is a 501(c)(4). Donor information isn't public, this is one of those Super PACs that won a Supreme Court victory to keep donor information private.

"501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly."
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

.
lides wrote:
Actually, it is an UnAmerican hate group dedicated to maintaining a classification of second class citizenship with less than equal protection of the law for homosexual US Citizens. They are hateful. They are irrational. They are UnAmerican, as are you for that matter.
^^^That's just defamation of your political opponents; I'm ashamed of your level of argument. I've listed thousands of reasons why same sex marriage is a bad idea next to traditional marriage, and all I get are insults. Hardly worth my time.

.
lides wrote:
And their mission will soon be done and they will collapse when they lose. Ultimately, people don't give money to causes that have been proven to fail to get results.
Intimidating donors by publishing their names in the press after leaking them to the HRC is another way to suppress votes. I oppose corruption and illegal disclosure of citizen's private tax filings.

.
lides wrote:
NOM is failing to deliver the goods, and they will never be able to follow through, because a majority of the people support marriage equality.
They won Proposition 8 at the voting booth, looks like lides was wrong.

.
lides wrote:
As is every child being raised by a single parent.
True, same sex marriage is easily as bad as single parenthood. Good point.

.
lides wrote:
Procreation and child rearing have nothing to do with equality under the law, and there is no state interest in a child being raised by opposite sex parents, whether biological or otherwise.
There's a state interest in a child being raised by its own mother and father in a stable marriage. The welfare state with financial incentives for single motherhood has destroyed the black family. They want to destroy your family next.

.
lides wrote:
What is more, you ineptly cannot produce any evidence to prove that homosexual parenting produces any worse outcomes that opposite sex parenting, or single parenting. In fact, you don't even so much as attempt to do so. There is no data that supports your conclusions.
Here's a thought experiment, was there anything your mother taught or way she comforted you that your father didn't? Also think to your father, was there anything he taught you that your mother couldn't? Ask yourself, which would you prefer to have had, two fathers, two mothers or a mother and father?

Same sex marriage is bad because we honor our mother and father.

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5370 Jul 8, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
1) There is a difference between "there" and "their". You should learn it so that you sound at least partially educated.
2) What law was broken making these "leaks" illegal?
Waiting....
Waiting....
Waiting....
The willful unauthorized public disclosure of NOM’s 2008 Schedule B by the IRS or its employees is a violation of federal law, 26 U.S.C.§ 6103. Indeed, it is a serious felony punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to five years in federal prison, penalties that apply both to IRS and other government employees and third parties. 26 U.S.C.§ 7213(a)(1),(3).
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/e...

.
Jonah1 wrote:
Brian_G, you wandering Village Idiot,...Sucks for you and your ilk....deceitfulness ... stupid you are. Brian_G = Village Idiot
^^^I don't have time to deal with name-calling. If you believe ad hominem is rational argument, join Jonah1.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5371 Jul 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>NOM is a 501(c)(4). Donor information isn't public, this is one of those Super PACs that won a Supreme Court victory to keep donor information private.
NOM has NEVER won a case to keep their Donor List private.......they have lost these cases in several States and at SCOTUS as well!!!

By the way Brian.......you obviously haven't gotten the memo.......DOMA SECTION 3 has been tossed and is NO LONGER breathing.......Prop 8 is also gone and it matters not that you believe a child should be raised by a mother and father because Same-Sex Couples are raising children!!!
Lamer

Hopkins, MN

#5372 Jul 8, 2013
Still waiting on this backlash....

Silly churches

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5373 Jul 8, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
NOM has NEVER won a case to keep their Donor List private.......they have lost these cases in several States and at SCOTUS as well!!! By the way Brian.......you obviously haven't gotten the memo.......DOMA SECTION 3 has been tossed and is NO LONGER breathing.......Prop 8 is also gone and it matters not that you believe a child should be raised by a mother and father because Same-Sex Couples are raising children!!!
The issue isn't a court order for NOM to disclose information; the Huffington Post published NOM's 2008 Schedule B donors list after it was processed by the IRS. There's clear evidence, same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked NOM's filing to their political enemies, the HRC. Then, they used that information in the 2012 campaign against Romney.

DOMA sections 1 and 2 are still good, the courts leave the decision to the states.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5374 Jul 8, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>but you and i know that you are changing the wording of situation. marriage was afforded by every state in the union of a husband and a wife, a man and a women. so again i ask if it is based on what was "accepted by every state in the union" and ssm was rejected by every state in the union, but somehow it was ok to change that, what basis is there for now arguing against poly-marriages?
It was also largely rejected at one time that the wife was an equal partner in the marriage, but we somehow found it ok to change that too. The basis for that change was equality. Progress is a wonderful thing.

Those who wish to argue for poly-marriages are free to do so. They are free to present their case. If they can show that they are being discriminated against unconstitutionally, then they can go from there. You sure do seem concerned about poly-marriages. There a big gaggle of people in your area looking to get poly-married?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5375 Jul 8, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>until they have no children or grandchildren to take responsibility for them when they become old.
I see. So is it your belief that gay people are sterile, don't have savings, and have no extended families?

Nah, I'm betting you simply like bringing up that gay couples can't procreate without outside assistance because you think it means something. It doesn't.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5376 Jul 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I've listed thousands of reasons why same sex marriage is a bad idea next to traditional marriage
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Funniest thing you've said today!!!

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.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 6 min Curious Me 48,779
Proof to support the claim that the true Hebrew... (May '13) 20 min real expert 319
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 22 min Mohamed Abdul 1,431,725
Prove to me that the Khoisan/Bushmen people are... (Mar '12) 25 min Wouks pc 288
News Our First Black President (Sep '11) 1 hr Sick of Obama 9
Skin Whitening for Black Skin (May '15) 1 hr frederick 36
Young White Girls and Their Trendy Biracial Babies (Jan '09) 2 hr Bobby T Canada 595
Why did they Nuked Japan but not Germany??? 5 hr Moses 240
What music are you listening to right now? (Sep '08) 6 hr Drilling for the ... 35,236
What Exactly is "SEXUAL HARASSMENT" ??? 7 hr FABULICIOUS 59
More from around the web