Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments (Page 265)

Showing posts 5,281 - 5,300 of17,524
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5515
Jul 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barry wrote:
<quoted text>you are shifting the topic again.
the other two, did they have children outside of wedlock, did they simply chose not to or where they actually infertile and could not?
And the answer would be relevant, why? Your interest is creepy.

[QUOTE who="barry"]<quot ed text>
in the question of homosexuals the answer would be 100%, they could not.
Again, the relevance of this what?

You seem to be under the impression that the fact that gay couples can't mutually procreate has some importance. It doesn't.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5516
Jul 11, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The definition of marriage, a legally recognized union of husband and wife, applies to all. All men, and all women. Whether or not it "works" is a matter for discussion.
<quoted text>
Please cite any state law that specifically states this. What state requires a statement of orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license?
that's already been covered and stated in other threads. go back and read them. i won't repeat myself.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5517
Jul 11, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>there is the question of generational responsibility. homosexual relationships by their physical nature can not provide for the responsibility of taking care of future and past generations. by their very nature they will have to largely depend on society and government welfare. so yes, there is a compelling state interest.
Or, you could observe that the human race is in no danger of dieing out due to lack of procreation. And then you might note that those same-sex couples either adopt otherwise unwanted children, or they have no children at all. Hence same-sex couples contribute to the wealth of our society without burdening it with children of their own.

Since: Jul 11

Columbia, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5518
Jul 11, 2013
 
"Following someone with a LOADED WEAPON shows intent to do something! He wasn't trying to make friends or show Trayvon his "cool" gun, now was he?"

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5519
Jul 11, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you are shifting the topic again.
I have not shifted the topic at all. You brought up that childless married couples are rare. I merely pointed out that you are incorrect.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5520
Jul 11, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You DON'T get it.......IT DOESN'T MATTER WHY AN OPPOSITE-SEX DOESN'T HAVE CHILDREN......see, procreation ISN'T required in order to get married and there are more heterosexual married couples out their who SIMPLY don't want children or CAN'T have them!!!
PROCREATION DOESN'T NEED TO BE REQUIRED....sex happens.... Babies are made. Two go to bed, but three get up. Radical as this sounds.... Marriage is about the sexes, husband ABD wife, accepting each other as such.....annnnnnnnnd engaging in "marital relations". "What does that mean boys AND girls? You there....last seat....multicolored shirt....Jonah is it?....Did u say sex? That's right!.....you get a gold star".

Quite simple. One man one woman who accept each other as husband and wife. It all starts from that. There are umpteen marital law legal volumes of both statutory and case law filling law libraries acroos the country that reference the union of husband and wife.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5521
Jul 11, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
PROCREATION DOESN'T NEED TO BE REQUIRED....sex happens.... Babies are made. Two go to bed, but three get up. Radical as this sounds.... Marriage is about the sexes, husband ABD wife, accepting each other as such.....annnnnnnnnd engaging in "marital relations". "What does that mean boys AND girls? You there....last seat....multicolored shirt....Jonah is it?....Did u say sex? That's right!.....you get a gold star".
Quite simple. One man one woman who accept each other as husband and wife. It all starts from that. There are umpteen marital law legal volumes of both statutory and case law filling law libraries acroos the country that reference the union of husband and wife.
Can you indicate a compelling state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constititional?

If the restriction isn't proven to be constitutional, it will be struck down.

Don't worry too much, if same sex couples are allowed to marry, it will have no impact upon your life, save for removing your life's work ineptly arguing against marriage equality on Topix.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5523
Jul 11, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
PROCREATION DOESN'T NEED TO BE REQUIRED....sex happens.... Babies are made. Two go to bed, but three get up. Radical as this sounds.... Marriage is about the sexes, husband ABD wife, accepting each other as such.....annnnnnnnnd engaging in "marital relations". "What does that mean boys AND girls? You there....last seat....multicolored shirt....Jonah is it?....Did u say sex? That's right!.....you get a gold star".
Quite simple. One man one woman who accept each other as husband and wife. It all starts from that. There are umpteen marital law legal volumes of both statutory and case law filling law libraries acroos the country that reference the union of husband and wife.
Sex does happen, procreation DOESN'T always follow though!!!

Sorry, but 2 go to bed and not always does 3 get up and if a baby is created......it will be 9 months before it "get's up"!!!

Actually marriage is about accepting the responsibility for another's well being......if children become a part of the family unit.....then so be it and the adults become responsible for the children......plain and simple!!!

Marital relations is NOT strictly about the sex.....but about all the other aspects that go into taking care of another person......you taking care of your spouse and your spouse taking care of you........that ISN'T based solely on the gender's but the couple!!!

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5524
Jul 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Jonah1 wrote:
Stop pretending your hate group is a victim. The only victims are those affected by the evil that NOM has perpetuated.
Quit pretending NOM is a hate group, or provide a quote from their website that shows evil and hate.

.
Jonah1 wrote:
But you keep clinging to them Brian while you can. Their doors will be closed very soon. Then you'll have to find something else to blame gays for.
Same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked their 2008 tax filing to their political enemies, the HRC. Quit blaming the victim.

.
Jonah1 wrote:
Funniest line in your post? This one:“The notion that defending traditional marriage doesn’t qualify as a defense of the public good is beyond preposterous." What your precious "Dr." Eastman fails to do is to present the "threat" that traditional marriage is under, and thus explain why it needs "defending". Know why he can't do this Brian? Same reason no one promoting anti-gay causes can. Because the threat doesn't exist. Carry on village idiot.
I believe advocates for same sex marriage are just as interested in the public good as advocates for marriage as one man and one woman. I don't believe my political opponents are evil or hateful; this is where we differ.

BTW, NOM isn't anit-gay; many gays belong to NOM. They are against changing marriage laws, not against homosexuals.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5525
Jul 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

NorCal Native wrote:
Wow Brian, really? I see it's okay for NOM to violate the law, but they don't like it when happens to them.......you are as much a hypocrite as NOM is!!!
I've never said it's OK for NOM to violate law, the leaked tax filing might have come from a sleeper agent inside NOM. If so, investigate the leak and prosecute the guilty.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5526
Jul 12, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
BTW, NOM isn't anit-gay; many gays belong to NOM. They are against changing marriage laws, not against homosexuals.
This is probably one of the funniest posts you have ever made.......NOM is definitely ANTI-GAY, it is listed as a Hate organization on the Southern Poverty Watch List........and they violate Election Campaign laws and have for the last couple of elections......but you want to align yourself with that group......speaks VOLUMES about your character!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5527
Jul 12, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've never said it's OK for NOM to violate law, the leaked tax filing might have come from a sleeper agent inside NOM. If so, investigate the leak and prosecute the guilty.
You are focusing on what the IRS allegedly did and ignoring what NOM ACTUALLY did do and it has been proven that they violated Public Disclosure Laws regarding Campaign Donors!!!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5528
Jul 12, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There are umpteen marital law legal volumes of both statutory and case law filling law libraries acroos the country that reference the union of husband and wife.
And now they're kindling.

That's OK. We need kindling. All is not lost.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5529
Jul 12, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
If I were, who would you think was qualified?
eHarmony?
I’m asking how this is supposed to work. How would a marriage to an opposite-sex person provide benefits and protections for the person I’ve chosen to share my life with?
The same as any other marriage of husband and wife, no more no less.
Pretend you’re describing the concept to a total marriage newbie, a teenager or young adult who was excited to be entering the dating pool and looking forward to building a life with someone.
A GAY teenager.
Do u wish me to describe marriage? As in conjugal?
How would you get a young gay man excited about his “opportunity” to marry a woman?
I didn't realize a program was needed for this.
How would you explain how important this “right” is to him and his loved ones? Tell me how you’d educate him on how this right applies to his life, and how he can expect to take advantage of it.
I could explain to him that there are many rights, not all of which he will want to exercise. Simply because one possess a right, doesn't mean, one has to, or will exercise it, certainly not each and every single one. Perhaps I could arrange for him to meet with gay men who support the definition of marriage as a male female union, yet are still partnered up,.
Now explain it to MILLIONS of such young gay people entering adulthood.
"MILLIONS"? Maybe we could have Dan Savage explain to them the concept of "monogamish", to them
Who makes such a choice? Show me someone who’s done this. A gay person and a straight person of the opposite sex, who CHOSE to marry each other. NOT a gay person who thought they were straight, or who acknowledged they were gay AFTER they married.
Josh Weed

http://www.joshweed.com/
The right to a doomed, crumbling marriage that suits no one involved. OBVIOUSLY a benefit to society, and exactly what anyone should aim for.
Then the state should ban mixed orientation marriages.
A relative? Choosing to become a relative? Not quite sure of YOUR point here. Marriage establishes a kinship which is already inherent in family.
We allow first cousins to marry in some state, and if its an SSM state, ss first cousins. So why bar, at least same sex, siblings from marrying? Two brothers/sisters, can just as easily be "spouses for life", as can first cousins.
That isn’t the ONLY understanding which benefits society. It doesn’t serve any purpose, or make any sense, to deliberately exclude gay people AND THEIR FAMILIES, and put their lives at a disadvantage (complicated by which state they live in).
Gay people are not excluded, they can marry, as society defines marriage.
OF COURSE plenty of people are trying to tell us how to live. Just like the people who have wanted to tell us we can’t be soldiers, or Boy Scouts, or teachers, or clergy, or parents. Plenty of people are happy to tell us we shouldn’t be ALIVE. It’s all part and parcel of the same attitude against gay people.
Live and let live, but part of living in a modern society is establishing acceptable modes of behavior. We both know that, and I doubt u are advocating anything goes.
Which benefits should be different? There are 1,138 of them. Which must be changed? Which won’t function for same-sex couples? List them. Of the ones you’ve identified, what is the state interest in denying them to same-sex couples?
Let's start with the foundation upon which the whole concept of marriage is based, the union of husband and wife. Why change that? You want the benefits, but not the relationship, the name, "marriage", but not that "husband and wife" basis. If all you're looking for is a benefits package, explain why a benefits package in other name is either unacceptable, or won't work?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5530
Jul 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Quit pretending NOM is a hate group, or provide a quote from their website that shows evil and hate.
I wasn't pretending. And I'll stop referring to them as such at the same time you stop calling people that haven't been committed of a crime as criminals.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelli...

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/15/1453...

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/04/03/1815...
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked their 2008 tax filing to their political enemies, the HRC. Quit blaming the victim.
NOM has overstepped its bounds, and now they are paying for it. Don't blame gays and the IRS and the HRC for that nitwit. They will be closed in no time. The 10 people that really fund their efforts are not going to continue to "donate" to an organization that continually fails. Hug them while you can dear.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe advocates for same sex marriage are just as interested in the public good as advocates for marriage as one man and one woman. I don't believe my political opponents are evil or hateful; this is where we differ.
Yawn. No, we differ because your a bigot who searches and searches and searches and searches to find one single reason to justify his prejudices.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, NOM isn't anit-gay; many gays belong to NOM.
Oh, and we differ because you are bold and proud deceitful liar. NOM isn't anti-gay? LOL!!!! Spin me another one you fool.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/04/03/1815...
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
They are against changing marriage laws, not against homosexuals.
They are about hoping that others will demonize homosexuals so that they can pretend to be concerned about marriage in order to pretend their prejudices are somehow elevated. Promoting causes that deny gays the same rights and privileges that non-gay people have, affects only one sect of people...the gays. So yes Brian_G_Idiot, there efforts are anti-gay.

The only person on the planet that NOM has fooled Brian_G, is you. And I'm even doubtful of that given how deceitful you are and your complete disregard for maintaining any semblance of self respect or integrity.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5531
Jul 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, NOM isn't anit-gay; many gays belong to NOM. They are against changing marriage laws, not against homosexuals.
Really?

Tell us Brian_G, if this is truth, then why did NOM issue a public condemnation to the Boy Scouts for allowing openly gay scouts?

What does the Boy Scouts of America have to do with marriage laws?

Waiting...

Waiting....

Waiting....

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5532
Jul 12, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've never said it's OK for NOM to violate law, the leaked tax filing might have come from a sleeper agent inside NOM. If so, investigate the leak and prosecute the guilty.
This is the kind of thinking one gets at 4am.

Brian, you made the allegation that the IRS leaked the information. You've failed to recognize that NOM is a political 501(c)(4). And most importantly, you've failed to recognize that political 501(c)(4) donor information is public.

It would be a great scandal you have uncovered, were there any scandal there. You have revealed that you are a weak minded fool who goes off half cocked.
barry

Trussville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5533
Jul 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's obvious from your posts that you don't know any rich ones or middle class ones either.
<quoted text>
...
as a contractor i've worked for several. certainly not poor. as a person in management of a business, i've hired a few. the lesbians were great employees. the male homosexuals didn't last. now that i work for a well respected university i have contact with them on a regular basis. believe me they are definitely different. those that are athletes have difficulty handling both the training and the academics together. usually their studies are not a problem but their choice and desire of night life activities out on the town usually limit their ability to perform at the best of their potential. it might be that my experience with the homosexual community just might be more diverse than yours.
barry

Trussville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5534
Jul 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's obvious from your posts that you don't know any rich ones or middle class ones either.
<quoted text>
I'm quite sure this was most likely the result of meeting you.
<quoted text>
...
now that is a real mature and well thought out response that really adds a lot to the conversation.
barry

Trussville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5535
Jul 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Some do, some don't. Just like straight people.
<quoted text>
Yes, just like straight people.
<quoted text>
...
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
homosexuals generally don't have the responsibility nor the cost of raising children.
....
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
i know, some do, but generally they have the money to put into their houses, hobbies and businesses. they have the time also to be politically active.

no, not just like straight people. the quote was that "generally" it should be usually. the vast majority have no interest in children or the responsibility.

and no, they are not politically active like straight people. when they don{t have the responsibility and the expenses of children, they definitely have the time and the money to spend on their business, hobbies and politics.

meanwhile the rest of society is taking care of preparing for the future.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 5,281 - 5,300 of17,524
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••