Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,568

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

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#4172 May 16, 2013
Quest wrote:
Same sex marriage opponents in the Bush Administration lied about the presence of WMD in Iraq.
That's your excuse, two wrongs make a right?

.
Quest wrote:
And neither problem has anything to do with gay folks marrying.
It's all about same sex marriage; The National Organization for Marriage was targeted and Obama's IRS leaked donor information to same sex marriage supporters. This scandal is about targeting political opponents for illegal harassment by the Obama administration.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#4173 May 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's your excuse, two wrongs make a right?
.
<quoted text>It's all about same sex marriage; The National Organization for Marriage was targeted and Obama's IRS leaked donor information to same sex marriage supporters. This scandal is about targeting political opponents for illegal harassment by the Obama administration.
LOL!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!

OMG!! You actually believe that insanity, don't you??

Too funny, dude. Hilarious!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#4174 May 17, 2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/...

Traditional marriage group says IRS leaked its confidential files too

A traditional-marriage organization said Wednesday that it was a victim of political abuse by the Internal Revenue Service and called for a congressional investigation into the matter.
The IRS “not only harassed conservative groups, it went so far as to release confidential and sensitive information to their liberal opponents in a presidential election year,” said Brian Brown, president of the nonprofit National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

“Only the unique powers of Congress to subpoena, question and investigate will help us expose the truth” about how the pro-gay Human Rights Campaign (HRC) came into possession of a nonpublic tax document that NOM had to file with the IRS, said Mr. Brown.
On March 30, 2012, HRC posted online the Schedule B of NOM’s 2008 Form 990. All nonprofits must file Form 990s, and part of it is public. But the Schedule B in a Form 990 is confidential because it contains identifying information about donors and their donations.
HRC used the leaked NOM form to denounce Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for making a $10,000 donation to NOM to support California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The donation was made through a political action committee and had not been reported elsewhere, HRC and other Romney critics said.
HRC President Joe Solmonese had been recently named national co-chairman of the campaign to re-elect President Obama, NOM officials noted.
The Huffington Post, which also posted NOM’s private tax information March 30, 2012, said it received the document from HRC and that HRC got it “via a whistleblower.”
Square Peg No Hole

Minneapolis, MN

#4177 May 17, 2013
The Exterminator 6 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you mean like a mom an her 10 year old son? Or, did you mean a father and his 18 year old son? Do you expect us to see your so-called love differently from theres? The issues are simply about children, you, who never learned boundaries.
STFU already.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#4179 May 17, 2013
The Exterminator 6 wrote:
Do you mean like a mom an her 10 year old son? Or, did you mean a father and his 18 year old son?
Never heard of anyone like that. Where are the MILLIONS of people like that, fighting for their rights? Where is their advocacy headquarters located? What is the URL of their website? When do they hold their parades? How do I get a bumper sticker or a T-shirt?

If you have to invent "scare scenarios", to make your point, then you don't have a valid one. The rare incestuous situation that some individuals might find themselves in has nothing to do with the world-wide movement of same-sex oriented people fighting for their rights.

No one is "incestuously oriented". You won't find people who are only capable of expressing love when there's a relative around. All people are still oriented toward either male or female (or both). They should have the right to bond with a partner for life, with all the legal protections that make them into family. People who are ALREADY family have no need of this.

Besides, take 2 minutes and go Google the current incest marriage laws in this country. They're remarkably lax.
The Exterminator 6 wrote:
Do you expect us to see your so-called love differently from theres?
If you have a brain, a sense of compassion, and an understanding of human beings, then yes.
The Exterminator 6 wrote:
The issues are simply about children, you, who never learned boundaries.
I know all about boundaries. Why are you making assumptions? Do you think people are gay because they didn't learn boundaries? Do you know nothing of consent? What do boundaries have to do with anything?

And I don't see how this is "simply about children". Children may be one consideration, but they are not the only one. And the children being raised by gay couples should be taken into account also. The focus of marriage is the couple who actually gets married. Children's names do not appear on the marriage license, they are not involved. The absence of children do not invalidate a marriage, and the presence of children do not mandate one. Some children are going to grow up and realize that they're gay, and they're going to want to participate in the full social experience.

You don't simply get to DECLARE who you want this to be about, just so you can exclude whomever you choose. This is about a LOT of people, not simply children.
check it out

Pekin, IL

#4180 May 17, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Never heard of anyone like that. Where are the MILLIONS of people like that, fighting for their rights? Where is their advocacy headquarters located? What is the URL of their website? When do they hold their parades? How do I get a bumper sticker or a T-shirt?.
You really can't fuction rationally, can you?

You have no 'right' to disenfranchise others in the legal definition of marriage, and you have positively no rational arguement for doing so.

Did you forget that all the nonsense you post has been exposed as fraud?

Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.

It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.

Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?

You have failed to refute even one of the points above, yet endlessly Spam us with refused nonsense1

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#4181 May 17, 2013
check it out wrote:
You really can't fuction rationally, can you?
You have no 'right' to disenfranchise others in the legal definition of marriage, and you have positively no rational arguement for doing so.
Did you forget that all the nonsense you post has been exposed as fraud?
Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
You have failed to refute even one of the points above, yet endlessly Spam us with refused nonsense1
Talk about "spam", I could've read that with my eyes closed. You never say anything different, you broken record.

When and where was I "exposed"? Was it printed somewhere? Did I miss the announcement on CNN? You haven't exposed anything or anyone.

And I still have no idea how you're "disenfranchised". Have you lost your ability to build a wall of division between yourself and the icky gays? That's not a right you truly ever had. You haven't been disenfranchised. You're just cuckoo.

If you like marriage, go get married. Don't presume to steal it away from anyone else that wants to enjoy it. Go destroy your own family, keep your mitts off of other people's families.
strange bedfellows

Chicago, IL

#4184 May 17, 2013
Blacks vote for democrats, democrats support gay marriage...now blacks are angry that their elected leaders are pushing gay marriage, well that's what you get for voting liberal when you have conservative beliefs. You made your bed, time to sleep in it.
lets be honest

Chicago, IL

#4186 May 17, 2013
disaster in the making wrote:
Pass of fail will the gay community in Chicago follow through with forcing the government to remove there tax exempts for violations in the separation of church and state

The gay community has 0 power to force the government to do anything. Gay community didn't even have the power to get gay marriage passed.

Straight people are the ones that are providing the real numbers and power behind passing gay marriage laws, without the support of all those progressive straight people the gay community would be just as helpless as they've always been.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#4188 May 17, 2013
eJohn wrote:
LOL!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!! OMG!! You actually believe that insanity, don't you?? Too funny, dude. Hilarious!!
Haven't you been paying attention to the news? Obama's IRS has been targeting conservative groups for harassment.

If you don't want to be audited, keep marriage one man and one woman.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#4189 May 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you like integration and diversity, keep marriage male female and reject gender apartheid marriage. We don't want our marriage laws tarnished by segregation.
Stupid, gay marriage isn't gender apartheid marriage.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#4190 May 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies, I prefer reason.
Keeping marriage male/female maintains marriage's diversity and integration standards.
You divorced, and got rid of your male/female marriage.
LOL.
BTW, gay marriage doesn't get rid of male/female marriage, so you don't have a point.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#4191 May 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I approve of the mongamous standard of husband and wife be maintained as the exclusive legal definition of marriage. I beleive a civil union relationship structure should be allowed for SSCs. Why is there a need to call an apple and orange?
The whole analogy thing is beyond you, huh?

Pietro Armando wrote:
This the part that I find baffling.
Anything that involves logic.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSMers want to break the legal marital standard of one man and one woman as husband and wife, for themselves, but for no one else. I would think you would welcome alternative intimate consenting adult relationships into the fold.
Look up "red herring" fallacy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Once that standard is discarded, as it has been in several states, why does it matter, that it's changed again? Why does polygamy scare you that much?
Look up "slippery slope" fallacy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, I'm a pro conjugal marriage advocate. If a gay opposite sex couple, or a mixed orientation opposite sex couple wish to marry, I fully support that.
<quoted text>
Jerald
We discussed this issue from various perspectives and angles, I disagree, obviously, but I respect your desire to argue for what you beleive in. All jokes, "homophobe" and "anti-gay" allegations, smart aleck, etc., responses aside. Please answer this question. If marriage, as defined in law, is no longer an exclusive mongamous union of husband and wife, why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?
LOL. Non sequitur

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#4192 May 18, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
What rational basis exists to create a "separate but equal" legal construct for establishing kinship between unrelated adults when a perfectly suitable one already exists: civil marriage?
The answer: none.
<quoted text>
What... that no one buys your red herring?
<quoted text>
It doesn't. Admit it, you're the one who's scared by it. It scares you.
Changing the number of people that one can marry isn't my issue.
Then quit bringing up polygamy.
Jerald wrote:
<
I'm not arguing for it or against it. I don't care. If pro-polygamy people want to argue for it and make their case, let them.
Apparently, you believe that the two arguments -- marriage limitations based on sex and limitations based on number -- are the same.
But you're wrong. Logically, one is not contingent or dependent on the other. Number and sex are not the same.
That's your problem, not mine.
<quoted text>
You clearly believe that some limitations on civil marriage are reasonable. So do I. I just haven't heard one good rational, logical argument in favor of the limitation based solely on the sex of the partners.
There has got to be a forum somewhere on the internet about the topic...
Jerald wrote:
<
Your arguments are illogical, in that they are endlessly circular. Your conclusions are inevitably contained in your premises.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#4193 May 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
First, marriage exists to join a man and a woman together as husband and wife, hence the pronouncement by the marriage officiating agent, "I now pronounce you husband and wife".
That's not legally required.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Second, SSM is a graft on to the preexisting structure marital union husband and wife, but without use of those terms, and the corresponding language referencing their sexual relationship. Language such as "consummation", which in some states, failure to do so, is grounds for a annulment, "marital relations", etc. Even the concept of "presumption of paternity", is contains an implied sexual reference. So yes, SSM is seperate and "unequal" as in not the same.
Lastly, first cousins can marry in several states so your "unrelated adults" claim is false.
<quoted text>
However it is delicious over pasta. Nice dodge.
<quoted text>
You're the one who dodged the question.
<quoted text>
Why not answer the question?
<quoted text>
Apparently you are dodging the question and this a same sex pair is the same as an opposite sex relationship, monogamous or polygamous.
<quoted text>
Exactly, two of a kind does not trump king AND queen.
<quoted text>
Marriage is a union of both sexes, remove one, and you no longer have marriage, something else has been created.
<quoted text>
Dodger
Hey, when you come to an actual point...wake us, OK?
Frank

Detroit, MI

#4194 May 18, 2013
Good to know that SOME Christians are sincere about the Word of God.

Orthodox Christians break up gay rally in Tbilisi in Georgia - Daily Mail



Published on May 18, 2013

Excerpt: "The Daily Mail covered yesterday's demonstration in Georgia and clashes between the anti-gay protesters and those individuals marking the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

'Thousands of anti-gay protesters, including Orthodox priests, picketed a gay pride parade in Georgia, with some threatening to lash homosexual activists with stinging nettles.

Police in Tbilisi guarded several dozen gay activists and bused them out of the city center shortly after they arrived at the gathering.
In extraordinary scenes that saw chaos spread through the capital, those occupying the street held posters reading 'We don't need Sodom and Gomorrah!' and 'Democracy does not equal immorality"

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#4195 May 18, 2013
Frank wrote:
Good to know that SOME Christians are sincere about the Word of God.
Orthodox Christians break up gay rally in Tbilisi in Georgia - Daily Mail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =88rZmfC8_KUXX
Published on May 18, 2013
Excerpt: "The Daily Mail covered yesterday's demonstration in Georgia and clashes between the anti-gay protesters and those individuals marking the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.
'Thousands of anti-gay protesters, including Orthodox priests, picketed a gay pride parade in Georgia, with some threatening to lash homosexual activists with stinging nettles.
Police in Tbilisi guarded several dozen gay activists and bused them out of the city center shortly after they arrived at the gathering.
In extraordinary scenes that saw chaos spread through the capital, those occupying the street held posters reading 'We don't need Sodom and Gomorrah!' and 'Democracy does not equal immorality"
How can an adult believe that "Sodom and Gomorrah" story?
Frank

Detroit, MI

#4196 May 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
How can an adult believe that "Sodom and Gomorrah" story?
Easy. A similar event occurred during World War II in Nagasaki and Hiroshima!

Genesis 19:28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.
----------

That sounds like a nuclear bomb!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#4197 May 18, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Easy. A similar event occurred during World War II in Nagasaki and Hiroshima!
Genesis 19:28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.
----------
That sounds like a nuclear bomb!
Nobody had a nuclear bomb back then.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#4198 May 18, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Easy. A similar event occurred during World War II in Nagasaki and Hiroshima!
Genesis 19:28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.
----------
That sounds like a nuclear bomb!
are you saying that the proven mythical god of the bible had nukes? man, that is stretching the myth a little too far...

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 10 min Long Stream 49,934
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 28 min WasteWater 25,037
It Takes 7 Police Agencies to Break Up Wedding ... 28 min factcheck 23
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 1 hr Pre1948 Palestini... 57
Pope chooses a moderate for Chicago archbishop 1 hr Fundie Taliban 16
Young, Evangelical, and Pro-GayBy Gene Robinson 2 hr eJohn 10
Efforts underway to change GOP on gay marriage 3 hr Jonah1 38
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••