Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,567

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

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11435 Oct 14, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that based on your personal experience in prison? I have no idea what role straight men would take in such situations nor whether the role would be consistent across sexual encounters.
Reminds me of an old movie, Stalag 17 maybe, William Holden, Peter Graves.

http://cinemasights.files.wordpress.com/2010/...
One's behavior is always a choice. To whom you're attracted isn't. Sexual orientation is about attraction, not behavior. One can choose to behave congruently with one's orientation or not It's a common mistake to conflate sexual orientation with sexual behavior.
So it's possible for one who is gay, to be gay, as in happy, with someone of the opposite sex.
Yes, he made a choice that is typically made by heterosexual rather than homosexual men.
Agreed.
The fact many gays in the past married and the came out of the closet after years of marriage already demonstrated that, small Peter. You make it sound like Josh is the first time that's occurred; it's not. In the past, the pressure to conform to societal expectations combined with employment consequences and criminal prosecution (among other threats) played the same role as religion did for Josh.
Josh, considering the tolerance for homosexuality today, could have chosen another path, Little Terry. No, it's it the first time, but clearly, it is unusually unique. Here's an openly self described gay man married to a woman, and have children with her, and he's happy. Odds are there are others, as well as self described lesbian women, married to men. There are even women who once identified as lesbians, no longer do so, and have married men and formed families.
The difference now is gays expect to be able to live their lives openly in congruence with their sexual orientation just as straight people have always done.
Those pesky modern sexual identity labels again.
If a gay person decides to mimic straight behavior at least now they can do so for personal reasons rather than as a result of state sanctioned coercion/threats to their freedom, safety, livelihood or dignity (at least for the most part).
Is it possible, that those that do "mimic straight behavior", odd you would use such wording considering your desire for same sex marriage, which would indicate you too wish to mimic, place less emphasis on their orientation and more on their want for family, including fathering children, or giving birth to children with the respective mother or father?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#11436 Oct 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sorry Petey......but you do want Gays and Lesbians to act just like Josh Weed.......why? Because you repeat his story as if it is some sort of testimonial and it is NOTHING of the sort!!!

There are currently 9 states with lawsuits challenging those bans on allowing Gay and Lesbian couples the right to marry......IF we take all or most.....your 30 goes down to 21........then what?

Eventually all of those states who don't allow Gays and Lesbians the right to marry will succumb either through their legislators, their courts, their ballot box or SCOTUS!!!

Time is NOT on your side of the fight!!!

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11437 Oct 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Reminds me of an old movie, Stalag 17 maybe, William Holden, Peter Graves.
http://cinemasights.files.wordpress.com/2010/...
So you were the "pokee" and dressed in drag during your prison stint?
Pietro Armando wrote:
So it's possible for one who is gay, to be gay, as in happy, with someone of the opposite sex.
Almost anything is possible. Even you might be happy having sex with other men if you had sufficient motivation based on your religious beliefs or a desire to live.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Agreed.
Josh, considering the tolerance for homosexuality today, could have chosen another path, Little Terry.
The Mormon church historically has shown no tolerance for homosexuality, small Peter. Religion can be a powerful motivator.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, it's it the first time, but clearly, it is unusually unique. Here's an openly self described gay man married to a woman, and have children with her, and he's happy. Odds are there are others, as well as self described lesbian women, married to men. There are even women who once identified as lesbians, no longer do so, and have married men and formed families.
There are far more gays and lesbians who tried to live as heterosexual, married, had children and gave up lying to themselves and others. But by all means, hang on for dear life to your delusional fantasy that gays will en masse start emulating Josh, bringing the drive to legally recognize same sex marriage to a grinding halt as moot.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Those pesky modern sexual identity labels again.
Yeah, damn those uppity gays for expecting to live their lives freely and openly in the same manner as their historical oppressors.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is it possible, that those that do "mimic straight behavior", odd you would use such wording considering your desire for same sex marriage
Gays seek the kinship marriage confers with someone congruent with their innate sexual orientation. Wanting to marry isn't mimicking straight behavior, it's exercising a fundamental right, which includes the right to choose with whom they will make such a commitment.
Pietro Armando wrote:
which would indicate you too wish to mimic, place less emphasis on their orientation and more on their want for family, including fathering children, or giving birth to children with the respective mother or father?
Of course gays and lesbians want to form life bonds, have families and raise children. Just because they're attracted to someone of the same sex doesn't make them less human than you.

And they already do. But they also want the to be able to do so as equal rather than second class citizens as guaranteed by the constitution.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#11438 Oct 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
But you advocate discrimination against them by insisting on infringement of fundamental rights targeted at gays and only gays. That's not "support"; it's prejudice.
Where same sex marriage is law, nothing prevents heterosexuals from same sex marriage. The issue isn't homosexuality; the issue is rewriting marriage laws for everyone.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11439 Oct 15, 2013
lides wrote:
You've also illustrated that you don't really understand the US Constitution
How would you know?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11440 Oct 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I just love when they start to change their hometown and screen name in an effort to look as though other people support their point of view. It must be lonely, despite their multiple personalities.
It's interesting that you would say that to Mona, Rose and Neil.
BWAHAHAHAHA! You still make me laugh.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11441 Oct 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Where same sex marriage is law, nothing prevents heterosexuals from same sex marriage. The issue isn't homosexuality; the issue is rewriting marriage laws for everyone.
Brian, unless you can offer a way in which allowing same sex couples to marry adversely impacts you are your rights, you are still an idiot.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11442 Oct 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Where same sex marriage is law, nothing prevents heterosexuals from same sex marriage. The issue isn't homosexuality; the issue is rewriting marriage laws for everyone.
No, the issue is why existing marriage laws unconstitutionally infringed the fundamental right of marriage for gays. Correcting that is no more "rewriting marriage laws for everyone" than it was when anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11443 Oct 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian, unless you can offer a way in which allowing same sex couples to marry adversely impacts you are your rights, you are still an idiot.
'you are your rights' and you say he's the idiot. HAHAHAHA, keep it up, I like to laugh.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11444 Oct 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the issue is why existing marriage laws unconstitutionally infringed the fundamental right of marriage for gays. Correcting that is no more "rewriting marriage laws for everyone" than it was when anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional.
Yet there are openly self described gay men and lesbian women, who either still profess such a description or once self described as such, who have exercises their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.

The purpose of anti miscengenation laws was to prevent the mixing of the whites and non whites so as to maintain white supremacy, and the "purity of the white race". So you use laws against racial integration within marriage to argue for gender segregation within marriage? Bizarre.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11445 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet there are openly self described gay men and lesbian women, who either still profess such a description or once self described as such, who have exercises their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
The purpose of anti miscengenation laws was to prevent the mixing of the whites and non whites so as to maintain white supremacy, and the "purity of the white race". So you use laws against racial integration within marriage to argue for gender segregation within marriage? Bizarre.
Pietro, just how dumb and racist would you like people to believe that you are?

Have you come up with a big boy argument against equality under the law for same sex couples yet?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11446 Oct 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, just how dumb and racist would you like people to believe that you are?
Have you come up with a big boy argument against equality under the law for same sex couples yet?
You're the one arguing that bans on legally sanctioned interracial marriage are unconstitutional to advocate for legally sanctioned gender segregated marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11447 Oct 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Pietro, can infertile heterosexual couples legally marry? If so, then your argument is physically proven to be incorrect.
[/QQUOTE]

Sorry Liddie, can infertile me and women legally marry? Yes they can, as they have always been allowed to marry.

[QUOTE]
Pietro, unless you have managed to find a compelling state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between opposite sex couples, then this argument also is similarly debunked. It appears that you can't remotely defend the arguments that you are advancing.
Can you find a compelling state interest in granting legal protections of marriage to the relationships other than the union of one man and and one woman as husband and wife?
Congratulations, you have just made an excellent argument for same sex incest.
Oh don't congratulate me.....SSM advocates actually made the argument.
You have not made a valid argument against same sex marriage.
There's not one for it.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11448 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet there are openly self described gay men and lesbian women, who either still profess such a description or once self described as such, who have exercises their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
The fact members of a discriminated against class have historically complied with a law that infringes their fundamental right doesn't negate the unconstitutionality of the law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The purpose of anti miscengenation laws was to prevent the mixing of the whites and non whites so as to maintain white supremacy, and the "purity of the white race". So you use laws against racial integration within marriage to argue for gender segregation within marriage? Bizarre.
You're in rare form of stupidity today, small Peter.

What you fail to grasp is the racial and gender requirements are both restrictions on how an individual may exercise their fundamental right to marry. In the case of anti-miscegenation laws, it was government mandated racial segregation which was deemed unconstitutional. In case you haven't noticed, most people still marry within their race; such voluntary segregation isn't unconstitutional because it's a result of an individual's free choice.

The gender restriction is likewise government mandated "integration" (to follow your train wreck of thought). The fact most people would freely choose gender "integration" doesn't negate the fact there is a minority who would freely choose gender "segregation". In the absence of a compelling government interest otherwise, a government mandate that restricts how individuals may exercise their fundamental right is unconstitutional. And none of the "interests" you've asserted to date qualify as compelling.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11449 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
You're the one arguing that bans on legally sanctioned interracial marriage are unconstitutional to advocate for legally sanctioned gender segregated marriage.
Wow, you must want people to think you are pretty dumb. I have made no such argument. I have argued that there is no state interest in the gender composition of a married couple.

Your misstatements of my argument tend to imply that you lack basic reading comprehension skills.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Can you find a compelling state interest in granting legal protections of marriage to the relationships other than the union of one man and and one woman as husband and wife?
I don't need to, because a compelling state interest is needed to infringe upon rights, not to grant them. Thank you, for illustrating concretely that you do not understand the legal concepts that you parrot.
However, that said, yes, I can. Read the 14th Amendment. It mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Wasn't that easy?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh don't congratulate me.....SSM advocates actually made the argument.
No, Pietro, they haven't. Only bigoted morons with no valid argument against same sex marriage have crafted this inept argument. Congratulations, for making a compelling argument for same sex incest. Your mother must be so proud. So must your brother for that matter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's not one for it.
There is that little matter of the 14th Amendment and its guarantee of equal protection.

Congratulations, not only are you a ignorant, but you are ignorant and bigoted.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11450 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one arguing that bans on legally sanctioned interracial marriage are unconstitutional to advocate for legally sanctioned gender segregated marriage.
No, stupid Peter, Lides and I have correctly pointed out that a government mandated restriction on exercising a fundamental right is unconstitutional. At issue is the restriction MANDATED without a compelling state interest, not the result of freely made choices of the individuals in the absence of such a restriction.

You really need to invest time in a good constitutional law class because all you ever demonstrate is your abject stupidity on the topic.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#11451 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
One is either the dominant or the submissive, "poker", or "poker".
Men are capable of being both, you simple-minded dolt.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#11452 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you find a compelling state interest in granting legal protections of marriage to the relationships other than the union of one man and and one woman as husband and wife?
<quoted text>
Oh don't congratulate me.....SSM advocates actually made the argument.
<quoted text>
There's not one for it.
Well, honey.... OBVIOUSLY there IS one or it wouldn't be legal.

I just LOVE how low IQ, religious Rethuglican types are able to so easily deny reality. Probably because the basis of their entire belief system is based on nothing but wishful thinking, and they don't have the intellect to know any better.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#11453 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet there are openly self described gay men and lesbian women, who either still profess such a description or once self described as such, who have exercises their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
The purpose of anti miscengenation laws was to prevent the mixing of the whites and non whites so as to maintain white supremacy, and the "purity of the white race". So you use laws against racial integration within marriage to argue for gender segregation within marriage? Bizarre.
The purpose of anti-gay marriage laws was to maintain the theory of heterosexual supremacy. Even the Courts recognize THAT obvious fact.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11455 Oct 15, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
The purpose of anti-gay marriage laws was to maintain the theory of heterosexual supremacy. Even the Courts recognize THAT obvious fact.
Well, we are superior. We see to it that mankind doesn't end.
You and your partner can't do that.

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 Ancestors History !! Nicca Fantasy Debunked !! 3 min Be_Real_Fool 4
[Click Here] A white woman's message to the bla... 6 min Cloud Dancer 1
Are whites taller than us. 6 min gargantos 76
The Seven Black Presidents Before Barack Obama (Aug '12) 13 min Dexter Bateman 48
Random thoughts... (Sep '07) 21 min gargantos 80,538
while white guys are angry black men are impreg... 26 min iamsomebody 7
Truthseeker 28 min Barry 1
why is the most popular male porn star white? 29 min Obsidian2xxx 202
Per Capita Blacks commit 440% more crime thanWh... (May '12) 38 min Jason 263
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 1 hr JOHNS ON TOP OF IT 98,952
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 3 hr African AE 29,068
More from around the web