Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17553 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.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11013 Oct 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Mr. oh......Terry apparently didn't like the answer.
It didn't actually answer my question since I inquired what dictionary defined lesbians using the word male. But then you have a habit of not answering questions as asked but instead answering questions you apparently make up yourself and attribute to others. If you even bother to respond at all since avoidance of facts seems to be one of your coping mechanisms.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11014 Oct 5, 2013
No Comment wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody said you "have" to, all I'm saying is you're a bigot and a "hater" if you don't, just like YOU say / am for not supporting gay marriage....
Nobody cares what you support. Basic human rights are not something you get to vote for or against. Judges keep driving that point home.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11015 Oct 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why the opposition by SSM advocates, some at least, to polygamy? It seems then the "p word" is mention, some of you folks start ranting and raving. Isn't the objective of the movement, "marriage equality"? Breaking that monogamous conjugal marital standard? Are you afraid that the poly folks will crash the big fat gay wedding?
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhh....Little Terry....first that have to get it decriminalized. Besides the Brown family has gone on record as supporters of SSM.....why not return the favor? It would be nice for some major BLT group to publicly express support for polygamous marriage equality.
I support polygamous marriages.

What do you have against it? Will it harm your children? Will your Bible burst into flames?

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11018 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution doesn't regulate marriage, states do. The laws in each state apply to everyone in that state and therefore are applied equally.
There are only two genders, male and female. You are one or the other without restriction.
The constitution protects fundamental rights of all persons, and marriage is one of those fundamental rights.

When a woman can marry a man but not a woman, that is a restriction on gender. It is absurd to pretend there is no restriction on gender in the states that still restrict it.

Many people travel or move to other states. States that refuse to treat the lawful marriages of ss couples equally to the marriages of os couples from the same jurisdiction are in violation of the 14th.

14th: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11019 Oct 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I asked Pietro:
"What dictionary includes males in the definition of "lesbian"?"
You really should focus more on comprehending what others write if you intend to respond to them.
<quoted text>
His writing isn't about sexual orientation in general or lesbians in particular but rather "love shyness". His book is 30 years old and out of print. The top Google search link for the term "male lesbian" is urbandictionary.com which focuses on slang rather than formal English. That pretty much sums up the relevance of his work to the topic of marriage.
Thank you for that background. I was curious but dismissed it as irrelevant, so hadn't bothered with digging it up, but nice to know and affirm it is irrelevant.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11021 Oct 6, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
<quoted text>...except polygamists and consenting adult relatives...
Constitutional rights may be infringed if doing so serves a compelling governmental interest. Such interests exist regarding polygamists (who actually seek greater protection of the law for three or more people. I don't understand why those half-wits that advance this argument invariably can't count.) and incest.

Can you indicate a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11022 Oct 6, 2013
lides wrote:
Such interests exist regarding polygamists (who actually seek greater protection of the law for three or more people.
There you go again. Everyone knows you're an idiot, no need to keep proving it. I knew two families that had 12 kids. Each family, 14 people. Greater protection? No. Polygamy, greater protection? No. You are ridiculous, JD.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#11023 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again. Everyone knows you're an idiot, no need to keep proving it. I knew two families that had 12 kids. Each family, 14 people. Greater protection? No. Polygamy, greater protection? No. You are ridiculous, JD.
Isnt sunday morning the time you Nazi pigs get together and worship your cults god and find out who else to hate??

RUN OFF TO CHURCH NAZI.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11025 Oct 6, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
Name one.
They seek greater protection of the law for three or more people. Learn to count.
Mr_oH wrote:
No, each individual in those groups are seeking their own person equal protection of law.
Sorry charlie, the union they seek is greater by definition.
Mr_oH wrote:
That's because counting has noting to do with it.
Is three greater than two? If so, counting has everything to do with it, because they seek greater, not equal, protection of the law.
Mr_oH wrote:
Consenting adult incest, by related individuals.
Incest has a demonstrably higher instance of mental illness and birth defects. There is a compelling governmental interest in discouraging such unions.
Mr_oH wrote:
What are you, a parrot?
I am not the one offering irrelevant arguments that have long been settled as a matter of law and have no bering upon the topic at hand.

Do you have a relevant argument applicable to same sex marriage, or are you admitting that you are, in fact, a parrot.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11026 Oct 6, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Isnt sunday morning the time you Nazi pigs get together and worship your cults god and find out who else to hate??
No its the time we pray for ignorant commie fools like you.

RUN OFF TO YOUR COMMIE PARTY MEETING.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11027 Oct 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That long......hmmmmmmm....anything since colonial times?
<quoted text>
How does the survey breakdown among Catholics themselves in terms of regular mass attendance, ethnicity, political affiliation, etc.?
<quoted text>
You continue to ignore the same sex composition, is based on an entirely different understanding of marital law and social structure and therefore not equality but a change for everyone to a new revisionist form of gender irrelevant union.
<quoted text>
As Terri failed to admit, it is hypocritical of him and other SSM advocates to demand the law fundamentally alter the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife for him and other advocates, but no other form of marriage.
<quoted text>
while continuing to ignore that the other restrictions also represent a fundamental change in the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. It is only "irrational" to him, and you, because it is contrary to your desire/need/want. The other "restrictions" can be viewed just as "irrational" to others, as gender is to you.
Again, you can demonstrate no law that diminishes or changes the effect of the law, by removing the gender restriction. All of the same 1,138 federal laws remain in full force and effect for couples, regardless of gender. Legally, they are the same in form and function. All couples are treated equally under all of the same laws. No more, no less, no different.

The social structure of society has not changed. Heterosexual people will continue to form bonds with other heterosexual people, and gay people will continue to form bonds with other gay people.

Again, removing the other restrictions would require changing what those laws of marriage. Social Security is just one example. Would all 100 people in the marriage inherit the social security equally until they all die? What happens when younger people are included in the group marriage? Are all married to each other equally, or just to one man? There are many questions that haven't even begun to be addressed, but they demonstrate removing the number restriction changes what marriage legally means for everyone on a fundamental level. It also restructures society in favor of the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. Removing the gender restriction does none of that.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#11028 Oct 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No its the time we pray for ignorant commie fools like you.
RUN OFF TO YOUR COMMIE PARTY MEETING.
I hate commie as much as I hate you Nazis. Your both traitors. I will stick with freedom equality and the Constitution..WHY DONT YOU TRAITORS MVOE GET OUT OF THIS NATION SINCE YOU HATE FREEDOM./

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11029 Oct 6, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TP39MT577DHK0...
You really should go outside and scream at trees before you throw your little hissy fits on line....
(Start the hysterical judging now,...fool...)
Perhaps you've posted in this thread using multiple ID's but I haven't. Here's a clue: "Terra Firma" and "Neil An Blowme" are two different ID's and in this case also two different people. YOu should pay closer attention to whom you direct your responses before whining about having your errors pointed out.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11030 Oct 6, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
<quoted text>...except polygamists and consenting adult relatives...
Number and incest are very different restrictions, applied to all persons equally, and both have been tested and shown to provide compelling governmental interests. Gender has failed that test.

The incest restriction helps prevent child abuse in addition to the reproductive considerations. Removing the incest restriction would tell children and parents they can train a child from birth to become a spouse. It facilitates and encourages child abuse. Most understand this is just an absurd excuse for maintaining the gender restriction. It also changes marriage for everyone, while removing the gender restriction does not alter marriage for heterosexuals. Most understand this is just an absurd and stigmatizing excuse for maintaining the gender restriction.

We've covered the number restriction, but again, it requires changing the laws to an entirely different set of laws which no one has attempted to explain, as they know doing so would show it is something entirely different, not the same as the laws currently in effect for couples. It also favors the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. It is not equality, but something entirely different for everyone.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#11032 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again. Everyone knows you're an idiot, no need to keep proving it. I knew two families that had 12 kids. Each family, 14 people. Greater protection? No. Polygamy, greater protection? No. You are ridiculous, JD.
You cannot be THAT stupid. The children aren't part of the marriage contract, you dolt.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11033 Oct 6, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Male lesbians...... hahahahahahahaha
You religitards will believe any ol' thing.
I missed why that has anything to do with anything else. They can still get married, regardless of how they see themselves. This does however, demonstrate gender identity is not a simple either/or proposition but a broad range of human traits we try to label as distinctly male or female. Most "male" and "female" traits are simply human traits shared to various degrees by all humans, regardless of sex or gender identity. Removing the gender restriction on marriage makes gender self identity irrelevant to marriage.

Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11034 Oct 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution protects fundamental rights of all persons, and marriage is one of those fundamental rights.
Once again, states regulate marriage. There is nothing in the constitution about marriage.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11035 Oct 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
They seek greater protection of the law for three or more people. Learn to count.
No person can get triple protection, you idiot. Each person has equal protection, singular. What a moron you are.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11036 Oct 6, 2013
lides wrote:
I am not the one offering irrelevant arguments
Everything you say is irrelevant.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#11037 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, states regulate marriage. There is nothing in the constitution about marriage.
Could a state ban religion????

Nope...Know why??? CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.....You Nazi pigs hate that right?

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
My battle with obesity 14 min Sweetheart4 2
Black rulership in Eroupe during the Dark Ages? (Dec '10) 21 min Tony stegall 717
News New Jersey Man Ends Fight Between Black Teens, ... 40 min Sweetheart4 10
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 57 min Injudgement 1,507,798
Crazy Ghetto Names 2 hr Endometriosis 1
News Congressional Black Caucus To Meet with Trump W... 2 hr Dumbass 2
Do Black People Really Matter (Feb '12) 3 hr Damn 16
I'm a married white women having sex with Black... (Jun '10) 3 hr Tomwoodman 200
Are you tired of Blacks? 4 hr Damn 44
White men are the solution for the single black... 7 hr Dan Snow 97
This good ol' boy never meant no harm! 10 hr Ben 1,953
More from around the web