Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11694 Oct 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>apparently xbreath and jonah do.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>well, according to recent california law, men can be lesbians.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-02/cali ...
"California would have the first state law permitting elementary and high school students to use bathrooms and join sports teams based on their gender identity, rather than their biological sex, under a bill going before Governor Jerry Brown."
"Federal law also guarantees transgendered students access to programs and facilities that fit their gender identity, Ilona Turner, legal director for the Transgender Law Center, said in an e-mailed response to questions."
and xbreath replied;
"You can't be THAT stupid."
and jonah's comment was;
"You certainly do love showing off how uneducated you are."
but really now, california law allows a man to say that he is a lesbian and we must give him special rights at the expense of everyone else's rights.
Why would a man say that he is a lesbian? How would such an act infringe any of your rights?

Are you kidding?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11695 Oct 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>rose, could you be more specific in your question. what you have responded to includes a conversation about gender identity issues.
this is the comment that you seem to be trying to make a point about:
"now we must "recognize" that a person who thinks they are a female in a male body somehow has special rights that trump everyone else's rights."
if you are asking about what special rights they are asking for i will be glad to answer. but really it is obvious if you simply follow the news.
do you want to go down this line of discussion?
I asked you days ago to present this "special right". Yet you've not responded. So yes, please do go down this line of discussion. How does a person using the bathroom that they identify with provide one sect of society a "special right". What right does a transgendered person have that you don't have barry?

Perhaps after you answer that, you could answer the other questions you've ignored.

1) You stated that gender identity and sexual orientation are related. Please provide the peer reviewed research that confirms this. In addition, please reference the cause/effect that one has on the other.

2) Since you've stated that gender identity and sexual orientation are related, please demonstrate what portion of the law addresses homosexuals specifically. You stated that according to the law, men can now be lesbians. Point out specifically where sexual orientation is referenced in this new law.

3) You keep stating that now YOU must "recognize" something. Please provide the exact verbiage from the state law that expressly notes how this law demands anything about your, or anyone elses, recognition.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11696 Oct 21, 2013
barry wrote:
but really now, california law allows a man to say that he is a lesbian and we must give him special rights at the expense of everyone else's rights.
Bbbbbaaaaaahhhhhhh!!! Bbbbbbbaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!

What specific portion of the law references sexual orientation? That's what lesbianism is, a sexual orientation. So please show us specifically in this new law, the verbiage that addresses sexual orientation.

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

Waiting....

What special right has been extended? Beyond using the bathroom that one identifies with, what extra right are transgendered people given with this law? specifics barry.

And what right of yours is being negated, altered or affected? Specifics please.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#11697 Oct 21, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I see. YOU, the person that thinks employing a business owner is the same thing as inviting them to a wedding, YOU, the person that thinks "gay marriage" is an actual separate institution, YOU are going to try and tell me what I don't understand about homosexuality!!!!!
Oh please Barry, do educate me and the room on homosexuality!! I had no idea you were an expert in the matter!! Do fill us all in on how gender identity is related to sexual orientation!!!! Please, do tell spell out for us the cause and effect that one has on the other!!!!!
After you do that, please pinpoint exactly what part of the law that you presented directly affects homosexuals specifically. We'll all patiently wait for your response!!!!!
"possible legal ramifications" = Fundie slippery slope speak, because they have no real argument.
<quoted text>
I'm not aware of many people that "think" they are homosexual. Most people I know "know" they are homosexual. But then, you're the expert on these matters Barry, so perhaps there are gaggles of people that "think" they are homosexual and I've just never met one.
Oh, just fyi, if a homosexual says they are homosexual, then they haven't been "recognized" as being homosexual. Recognition requires the recognizer to reach a conclusion on their own. I'm not aware that homosexuals share a feature that allows them to be recognized. But then, you're the expert. Perhaps you could tell us what features homosexuals have that will allow them to be recognized.
<quoted text>
What special right do these individuals have? They are using the bathroom that they identify with, just like everyone else. What "special right" are you referring to? Again, all up in arms and you don't even know what about. Baaaaaahhhhhhhhhh. Baaaaahhhhhhhhh. By the way, YOU don't have to recognize anything about these individuals. It's about what they recognize, not you. You aren't important, please stop pretending you are.
<quoted text>
It's not the same argument at all. Not even close. What gender one is attracted to has absolutely nothing to do with what bathroom one uses or what gender one identifies as.
But don't let facts get in the way of you thinking someone has received something you haven't!!!!!! You keep squawking about imaginary special rights!!!! There's nothing funnier that watching fundies make fools of themselves over stuff they don't have a clue about!!!!
Hey, tell us the one again about how if one is employed for a wedding, that that secretly means they have been given an invitation!!!! I love that one!!!!
jonah, you used a lot of words to basically say that i was wrong to say that homosexuals "think" that they are homosexual. so let me ask you a question;
if a human leg bone is found we can tell by scientific testing whether that leg bone is male or female, is there a test that would determine whether that male or female was a homosexual?

the obvious answer is no. so at this time we must take one's word for it if they claim that they are a homosexual or perhaps a woman trapped in a male body. simply put if they think that they are a homosexual or a confused gender we must accept that they really are.

interestingly you think that a florist is an employee of whomever is getting married. employees should not be forced to do something that is against their religious convictions. slaves on the other hand...
the last time i checked we were still a free country/society with first amendment rights.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11698 Oct 21, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to everyone on their jurisdiction yet were ruled unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause.
It was only men and women marrying in that era. Yet anti-miscegenation laws were still ruled unconstitutional.
2. On the contrary, you're unable to understand why anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional when they were applied equally to men and women and blacks and whites. Which proves the point you totally clueless about the difference between equal application of the law and constitutional equal protection of the law.
3. Go back to school and learn something before you embarrass yourself further.
1. Of course it was only men marrying women, that's normal. Anything else is alternative. Same sex, cars, cats, you name it.
2. Equal application of the laws means they apply equally to everyone in the state. The states regulate marriage. You're the clueless one.
3. If I produced a gay kid I'd be embarrassed, I didn't. Your parents must be. Maybe they adjusted.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11699 Oct 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text> so let me ask you a question;
if a human leg bone is found we can tell by scientific testing whether that leg bone is male or female, is there a test that would determine whether that male or female was a homosexual?
Is there a test to know whether the human was left-handed or right-handed?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#11700 Oct 21, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bbbbbaaaaaahhhhhhh!!! Bbbbbbbaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!
What specific portion of the law references sexual orientation? That's what lesbianism is, a sexual orientation. So please show us specifically in this new law, the verbiage that addresses sexual orientation.
Waiting.....
Waiting.....
Waiting....
What special right has been extended? Beyond using the bathroom that one identifies with, what extra right are transgendered people given with this law? specifics barry.
And what right of yours is being negated, altered or affected? Specifics please.
transgender people can use the same locker room as the sex that they aren't but happen to identify with. no right to individual privacy is recognized. i certainly don't want my daughter to have to shower or change next to your naked body.
transgender people can now play on the whatever sports team they want to if they happen to identify genderly with the team in question. i do not want my daughter to have to play against a 200lb man who claims that he is really a women who just happens to be in a man's body.
is that a good enough start?

"The bill, which is set to take effect on Jan. 1, allows students access to sex-restricted facilities like bathrooms and locker rooms based on the gender they identify with and to gender-restricted activities like sports teams."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/14/cali...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11701 Oct 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>jonah, you used a lot of words to basically say that i was wrong to say that homosexuals "think" that they are homosexual. so let me ask you a question;
if a human leg bone is found we can tell by scientific testing whether that leg bone is male or female, is there a test that would determine whether that male or female was a homosexual?
the obvious answer is no. so at this time we must take one's word for it if they claim that they are a homosexual or perhaps a woman trapped in a male body. simply put if they think that they are a homosexual or a confused gender we must accept that they really are.
No barry, there is no test yet to determine if a bone is from a homosexual. What does the testing of a bone have to do with one "thinking" they are homosexual? How long does one "think" they are homosexual before they are homosexual? Is there a name for this thinking process? Are there lots of folk that stay in this "thinking" phase? You see barry, I'm completely unfamiliar with this "thinking" phase of sexual orientation. So is everyone I know. So I'm really just looking for you to educate me on this "thinking" phase of sexual orientation. Do straight people also have a "thinking" phase where they "think" they are straight, or does this only affect homosexuals?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
interestingly you think that a florist is an employee of whomever is getting married. employees should not be forced to do something that is against their religious convictions. slaves on the other hand...
Sorry barry, but people with religious convictions don't have special privileges that place them above the law. And no one was asked to do anything that was against their religious convictions. They were asked to make flower arrangements, how is that against their religious convictions? Please do provide specifics of how flower arranging adversely affects one's religious convictions. They were not told they had to support the marriage, that they had to agree with the marriage, or that they had to attend the marriage. But please, don't let facts get in the way of you crying persecution!!! I love the use of "slave"!! So melodramatic and completely out of context. Perhaps you could next compare the wonderful couple that was illegally denied public services by your bigot florist to Hitler.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
the last time i checked we were still a free country/society with first amendment rights.
We still are. We are also a country with laws to protect certain citizens from the discrimination of bigots. We are also a country that doesn't extend special privileges to those with whacked out religious convictions.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#11702 Oct 21, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't a theological issue, dimwit. Providing a service for someone who holds a differing belief structure does not violate the religious freedom of a business owner.
<quoted text>
Yes, Brian they did. You are defending people who broke the law.
<quoted text>
...
You are defending people who broke the law, plain and simple.
yes it does.
and no one has actually shown what part of the law the washington florist has broken. perhaps that is why there has been no movement in the case.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11703 Oct 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
the obvious answer is no. so at this time we must take one's word for it if they claim that they are a homosexual or perhaps a woman trapped in a male body. simply put if they think that they are a homosexual or a confused gender we must accept that they really are.
The only one "confused" is you.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#11704 Oct 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there a test to know whether the human was left-handed or right-handed?
what does that have to do with the price of tea in china. are right handed or left handed people complaining about being denied any rights. is anyone against right handed or left handed people do left handed or right handed people need accommodations in society?
besides the answer just might be yes.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#11705 Oct 21, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No barry, there is no test yet to determine if a bone is from a homosexual. What does the testing of a bone have to do with one "thinking" they are homosexual? How long does one "think" they are homosexual before they are homosexual? Is there a name for this thinking process? Are there lots of folk that stay in this "thinking" phase? You see barry, I'm completely unfamiliar with this "thinking" phase of sexual orientation. So is everyone I know. So I'm really just looking for you to educate me on this "thinking" phase of sexual orientation. Do straight people also have a "thinking" phase where they "think" they are straight, or does this only affect homosexuals?
<quoted text>
Sorry barry, but people with religious convictions don't have special privileges that place them above the law. And no one was asked to do anything that was against their religious convictions. They were asked to make flower arrangements, how is that against their religious convictions? Please do provide specifics of how flower arranging adversely affects one's religious convictions. They were not told they had to support the marriage, that they had to agree with the marriage, or that they had to attend the marriage. But please, don't let facts get in the way of you crying persecution!!! I love the use of "slave"!! So melodramatic and completely out of context. Perhaps you could next compare the wonderful couple that was illegally denied public services by your bigot florist to Hitler.
<quoted text>
We still are. We are also a country with laws to protect certain citizens from the discrimination of bigots. We are also a country that doesn't extend special privileges to those with whacked out religious convictions.
the bottom line is that you do not respect her religious conviction that ss marriage is morally wrong. the couple involved were completely free to find another florist and have there "wedding" she did not try to stop them. but you would force her to have a part in the event. you have no respect it is all about your agenda and forcing others to agree with, condone and participate in the special events of your life style.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#11706 Oct 21, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No barry, there is no test yet to determine if a bone is from a homosexual. What does the testing of a bone have to do with one "thinking" they are homosexual? How long does one "think" they are homosexual before they are homosexual? Is there a name for this thinking process? Are there lots of folk that stay in this "thinking" phase? You see barry, I'm completely unfamiliar with this "thinking" phase of sexual orientation. So is everyone I know. So I'm really just looking for you to educate me on this "thinking" phase of sexual orientation. Do straight people also have a "thinking" phase where they "think" they are straight, or does this only affect homosexuals?
<quoted text>
i'm glad that you admit that you don't understand the thinking process.
sexual activity has always been a choice.
just because a man may participate in a homosexual act does not necessarily make him a homosexual. at least that is what you are saying.
so how do we know if one is a homosexual? we must accept their word for it.
now i have not been arguing against homosexuals. i haven't even been making that claim that it is a sin.
i have been arguing against the attitude that we all as individuals must accept and support the activities of homosexuals. it cry used to be "stay out of our bed rooms" but now it is "you must come and celebrate with us".

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11707 Oct 21, 2013
Let's see. My first question was for you to demonstrate where sexual orientation is specifically mentioned in the new law. I see you cowardly avoided responding.

Secondly, I asked for you to provide the specific right that has been provided. Let's see your response.
barry wrote:
<quoted text> transgender people can use the same locker room as the sex that they aren't but happen to identify with.
Everyone is still using the locker room they identify with. No one has a special right.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
no right to individual privacy is recognized.
Exactly what specific right extends individual privacy to children in a tax payer funded school? Is this right spelled out in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Please provide the specific right.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
i certainly don't want my daughter to have to shower or change next to your naked body.
Well, since I'm not transgendered, since I'm an adult not attending school, I don't think you need to worry about that. I also don't think you need to worry about a lot of transgendered people "showering" with your daughter. This is about as likely to happen as a black person requesting to shower at your next KKK gathering.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
transgender people can now play on the whatever sports team they want to if they happen to identify genderly with the team in question.
No, they can only play on the teams that correspond with their gender identity. There won't be a gaggle of transgendered people flip/flopping back an forth from the boys to the girls teams and back again.

And these transgenered people still have to try out and win a place on the teams based on the criteria applied to everyone else. Again, no special privileges.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
i do not want my daughter to have to play against a 200lb man who claims that he is really a women who just happens to be in a man's body.
But you'd of course be perfectly fine with her playing against a woman of 200lb who isn't transgenered?

Don't worry barry, your daughter sounds sort of like a b*tch, so I don't think anyone will be wanting to play with her anyway.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
is that a good enough start?
Well, since you didn't provide the portion of the law that addresses sexual orientation, and since you still haven't provided any special right, I'd say, no, you're not off to a good start. All you really did was express a general sense of disgust for those that are transgenered. It's because of people like you that that these laws are being passed.
barry wrote:
Oh look. A link to news story about fundamentalists using the mythological "confusion of children" as their argument to target people they don't like. Shocker.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#11708 Oct 21, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuality isn't a "practice" barry, it's a characteristic. One can't "practice" homosexuality.
Gee, for someone that discusses what an expert he is on the subject, you sure do say a lot of stupid things about it.
excuse me. if a homosexual man was to be celibate would he not then, not be "practicing" homosexuality?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11709 Oct 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>yes it does.
and no one has actually shown what part of the law the washington florist has broken. perhaps that is why there has been no movement in the case.
Bullshyt. The part of the law has been posted for you repeatedly.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#11710 Oct 21, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
What you think your god is against is irrelevant in matters of civil law.
Shut up and sit down.
i wasn't the one that brought God into the argument. waste water was the one trying to use the Bible and God to make his point. all i was doing was saying that what he claimed was not true and that in fact he was not being honest in his attempt to make his point. so, i'll shut up when the attempt to make the point or defend the point is abandoned.
so in effect i agree with your first sentence and recognize your ignorance and disrespect in your second.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11711 Oct 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the bottom line is that you do not respect her religious conviction that ss marriage is morally wrong.
I completely respect her having religious convictions. But I don't respect her using them as an excuse to break the law.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
the couple involved were completely free to find another florist and have there "wedding" she did not try to stop them.
They wanted her (you know, since they had the previous relationship with her that you love to reference!!!), and she runs a PUBLIC business that is beholden to the laws of the state.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
but you would force her to have a part in the event.
No one ever asked her to be part of the event. She was employed to make flower arrangements.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
you have no respect
no dear, YOU and your bigot florist have no respect. She and you are completely disrespectful of the couple getting married. How dare you state I have no respect. I haven't discriminated against you or your florist, but both of you have advocated for discrimination.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
it is all about your agenda and forcing others to agree with, condone and participate in the special events of your life style.
The florist was NEVER asked to "agree" with the wedding, she was NEVER asked to "condone" the wedding, and she was NEVER asked to "participate" in the wedding. She was asked to make flower arrangements. Go peddle your made up Christian persecution somewhere else. No one's buying that shyt here.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#11712 Oct 21, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then, I would suggest you avoid California. You'd probably just be made fun of there anyway.
oh yeah.... p.s. Taking my responses out of context makes you appear less than honest.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>apparently xbreath and jonah do.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>well, according to recent california law, men can be lesbians.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-02/cali ...
"California would have the first state law permitting elementary and high school students to use bathrooms and join sports teams based on their gender identity, rather than their biological sex, under a bill going before Governor Jerry Brown."
"Federal law also guarantees transgendered students access to programs and facilities that fit their gender identity, Ilona Turner, legal director for the Transgender Law Center, said in an e-mailed response to questions."
and xbreath replied;
"You can't be THAT stupid."

that was the complete context of your response. nothing was left out and nothing was added.
you said that i was stupid for recognizing that california became the first state to recognize that men could be lesbians. they wrote the law not me.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#11713 Oct 21, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a man say that he is a lesbian? How would such an act infringe any of your rights?
Are you kidding?
i didn't say that it would. however if my 10 year old boy must now use the same locker room shower as a 10 year old girl who thinks that she is a boy in a girl's body, that would infringe on my and his rights.

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
News Almost one year since gay marriage ruling, LGBT... 5 hr Rose_NoHo 40
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 6 hr Tre H 4,336
News The Latest: Trump says canceling Chicago rally ... 21 hr OfficialTrumpCard 1,729
News Nicole Kidman's priest says actress hopes one d... Tue Anne Russell 1
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Tue Levy Hater 31,925
News Bollywood in Taipei Tue TW_sugar_daddio 6
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) Tue jorvajor 128
More from around the web