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

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12702 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so are you suggesting ....
Barry, every time you deceitfully begin your response with "so are you suggesting...", the answer will always be "no". This is fundie argument tactic 101.

If you are going to start your rebuttal with, "So what you are really saying...", or "So what you mean.....", or "so are you suggesting.....", then don't bother. You have demonstrated your intent to be deceitful from the start so the rest of whatever you are posting will not be worth considering.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12703 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
if the brain does not match the body is it a physical problem or a mental problem or is it even a problem at all?
It appears to be a "problem" for those that would like to pretend that such scenarios don't exist so that they wouldn't have to think about them, or pretend that they are affected by them.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
what do we choose to adjust and why adjust it at all?
Why would you think that you, or anyone other than the individual themself, get a say in what is adjusted on another human being?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
sounds like confusion to me but don't let logical questions get in your way.
The only confusion is yours. Must stem from your ridiculous viewpoint you, and others like you, have some entitled influence on what other people feel.

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#12704 Nov 7, 2013
Gandhi: "I like your Christ. It's your Christians I'm not so fond of."

Most of these so called Xtian homophobes have no idea what their faith is based on. They think screaming "Amen, Praise the Lord, Sweet Jesus" louder than the person next to them makes them uber holy. Then they leave the church and turn back into black bigots, just like the white racists they relish looking down upon.

They are all FAUX Christians and they aren't fooling anyone except themselves.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12705 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i{ll bet that washington couple would never ask a muslim florist to provide flowers for their 'wedding'. isn't that discrimination?
And you would make this "bet" based upon what information Barry? What insight do you have about the couple that married that led you to believe they would not choose a Muslim florist?

Specifics please.

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

Oh, and just fyi, the couple getting married were planning a "PRIVATE" event, they are not beholden to anti-discrimination laws. They were free to choose WHOMEVER they wanted. that's why your imaginary alternate reality scenario would NOT be discrimination. Unfortunately for Christian fundies everywhere, they originally wanted your beloved florist because at the time they were unaware that she was a bigot.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12706 Nov 7, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Pete for the lovely repeated post......but I need to take a step out of this round-about discussion of yours......you don't care about having a civilized discussion or a debate, you just care about what you care about and NOTHING else.....well, yesterday we had good news out of Illinois and within the next week or so we will finally have Hawaii, taking us up to 16 states and DC.....with adding New Mexico probably by the end of the year.........and you will still be going round in circle about conjugal sexual activity between your version of marriage........enjoy!!!
Apparently YOU continue to fib on two points:

"......your version of marriage" implying that little ole me just conjured that up all by my self. Way off the mark.

I use "conjugal" not to refer to sexual activity but "husband AND wife", conjugal marriage is husband and wife.

Hope that clears things up for you.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12707 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the salient point? there are sufficient florists available who are legally able to and want to service the need for flowers at any ss 'wedding'. the customers were not obstructed from having their ceremony.
Your bigot florist was legally able to service the need for flowers. Whether or not your florist WANTS to do her job is irrelevant. The wedding participants chose her, they weren't required to look elsewhere just because your florist is a bigot.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12708 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so what is your point?
would a small corner deli have the right to not hire muslims based on their religious belief and practices?
'the right wing religious wackos want to force businesses to accommodate people who are unwilling to do their jobs based in religious excuse- making'? but you want them to be forced to accommodate people against their religious convictions
"Forced" Nice attempt at the persecution card Barry. Such a tired and lame routine. But then, it's all you've got.

Accommodating people is what her business is. If that makes her feel "forced", she should get out of business.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12709 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>then prove or show me wrong
Read any post directed at you and there you go.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12710 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>that's what i thought. so, how would she be illegally discriminating if she refused all ss ceremonies regardless of whether they were homosexual or heterosexual?
She wasn't refusing a ss ceremony because no such entity exists. In addition, she wasn't refusing the ceremony she was refusing the participants. And the reason she refused them was because of their gender make up. Gender is a protected class, thus her discrimination was illegal.

But please, don't let that stop you from asking yet again using another of your alternate reality made up scenarios.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#12711 Nov 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently YOU continue to fib on two points:
"......your version of marriage" implying that little ole me just conjured that up all by my self. Way off the mark.
I use "conjugal" not to refer to sexual activity but "husband AND wife", conjugal marriage is husband and wife.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Nope.....NOT fibbing about ANYTHING......you do in fact continue to spin the conjugal speaking point as IF it is relevant and it's NOT.......and just because it was at one time......IT'S NOT TODAY!!!

Families don't INSPECT whether the newly married couple has consummated their marriage anymore, nor is being a virgin on one's wedding night a requirement in our current times, besides....Gay and Lesbian newly married couples CAN consummate their marriage if they so desire to!!!

These are the POINTS you DON'T get!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12712 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>she was discriminating against a ss wedding ceremony.
It wasn't a ss wedding ceremony because no such entity exists. In addition, it wasn't the WEDDING ceremony that was employing her, it was the participants. And it was the participants that she discriminated against.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
the difference is still a difference.
No, your imaginary "difference" is merely fundi-twirling in a lame and unsuccessful attempt to try and pretend that your florist isn't a bigot. Your attempt has failed because your "difference" is non-existent. Your "difference" hinges on pretending that there is a separate institution called "same sex marriage" which there isn't, and it hinges on pretending that the ceremony itself was trying to employ her, which wasn't the case.

She's still a bigot.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
she was not blocking them from their wedding. she was declining to be associated with the ceremony.
No, she was declining the participants because she felt she was allowed to discriminate against them by expressing her disapproval of their wedding and blaming her disapproval on her religion. She was wrong. So are you.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12713 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>yes they could, but why does it have to be 'with a woman'? why not now with another man that they trust?
and there are more reasons than just taxes.
Did I say it "had" to be with "with a woman"? Nope, I sure didn't.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12714 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>think again,
http://www.queerty.com/washington-florist-ref...
A gay couple from Richland, Washington was shocked when the florist with whom they have been doing business for nearly a decade refused to supply flowers to their September wedding, thanks to her relationship with Jesus.
When Rob Ingersoll got engaged to his partner Curt, they turned to Barronelle Stutzman of Arelene’s Flowers where they’ve been tip-toeing through the tulips for the past nine years. Ingersoll had sent bouquets to Curt with cards reading,“Love, Rob” so it was a surprise to him when Stutzman, citing her religious beliefs, politely declined.
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/washington-florist-ref...
was that site good enough for you?
It's just fine dear. Spend a lot of time on Queerty do you?

Oh, and based on this article, please don't try the "she didn't want her name associated with...." routine again!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12715 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>since you claim that the law says...
how about posting a quote from the law that says whatb you claim.
Sure thing dear. The emphasis is mine.

"A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities CONSISTENT WITH HIS OR HER GENDER IDENTITY, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records."

Here's the entire law if you would prefer.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billN...

No where in the law are you affected personally as you previously claimed. Anything else you need cleared up bigot?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12716 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>espn game of the week twice, Ncaa Playoffs, state playoffs, international matches.
been there and done that.
No one cares about your self importance.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
schools compete according to size. big school, small school has very little to do with it. not really up on sports are you? don't have any experience with sports medicine do you?
and then you make this statement,
'If the girls can't qualify, they can't qualify. If they qualify, then they play and the same dangers exist for both genders on the team.'
how about if the boys qualify for the girl's lacross team? or there is no men's volleyball team? how about if the boys qualify?
how about you get real.
Me get real? Hon, I'm not the one trying to present "dangers" that I can't demonstrate as my argument to express my intolerance!!! That's all you dear.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12717 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>um, i own the trailer park. just kidding but i do rent out a trailer.
i'll go back to what i said. you were making an argument about children. i was pointing out that high schoolers are not children.
They aren't? Since when.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
Bo Jackson was 19 when he played football and baseball and ran track while in hs. there is not a single hs girl who could have survived a collision with him.
According to you. I'm also quite sure there were lots of boys that couldn't have survived a collision with him either. That's why those boys, along with your girls, were not on the team.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
and no, no university has a policy that prevents complete sexual discrimination in sports. a boy can not ´play on the girl's volleyball team. a boy can not run on the girl's track team.
'Girls were more likely to miss > 3 weeks of sports activity (as opposed to <1 week for boys) and were twice as likely to require surgery. Girls were also found to be twice as likely to incur major knee injuries as a result of non-contact mechanisms, often involving landing, jumping or pivoting.'
http://www.virtualmedicalcentre.com/news/stud...
http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/HealthNotes/B...
so let's just let the boys compete against the women.
you have a man's moniker but you are not much of a gentleman when it comes to protecting the young ladies.
Are they young ladies or adult women? Make up your mind.

Young ladies that would qualify for a sports team I don't think are really in need of my protecting. And they would find your chauvinism to be a joke.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#12718 Nov 7, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
Let us know when you find one that states "procreation is THE ONLY purpose for marriage". Until then, you're just wasting space. As always.
P.A. never said procreation is the only purpose of marriage. Eating the food you catch isn't the only reason to get a fishing license, either.

Same sex marriage introduces sex discrimination and segregation to perfectly integrated one man and one woman marriage.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#12719 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>does anybody really think that a 'whites only' trailer park would stay in business very long? yes the free market would take care of it.
and you keep trying to sday that this florist deemed them unworthy when in reality she only wanted to guard her religious freedom and not be forced to be associated in any way with something that she held as morally wrong.
btw us people? i have never clung to anything. go ahead and get 'married' have at it. just don't drag me into it.
in alabama & in other parts of the (confederate) south?

you bet it would be a thriving vital business.

LOL.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12720 Nov 7, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.....NOT fibbing about ANYTHING......you do in fact continue to spin the conjugal speaking point as IF it is relevant and it's NOT.......and just because it was at one time......IT'S NOT TODAY!!!
Its the whole point of the issue!!!! Can ya step out from behind the rainbow curtain for just a moment. SSM advocates want the state to drop the CONJUGAL, OPPOSITE SEX, requirement. Conjugal marriage advocates want the state to maintain it. Is that clear enough?!
Families don't INSPECT whether the newly married couple has consummated their marriage anymore, nor is being a virgin on one's wedding night a requirement in our current times, besides...
DID I RAISE THIS POINT???!!!! Oh Madone! Stick to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
.Gay and Lesbian newly married couples CAN consummate their marriage if they so desire to!!!
Uhhhh....huh...okay, considering the fact that coitus is physically impossible unless the gay couple is of the opposite sex....what constitutes it?

These are the POINTS you DON'T get!!!

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12721 Nov 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>P.A. never said procreation is the only purpose of marriage.
Did I state that he did? Nope, I sure didn't dolt.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Eating the food you catch isn't the only reason to get a fishing license, either.
Thank you for that completely idiotic statement that has nothing to do with anything being discussed. Typical of you.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage introduces sex discrimination and segregation to perfectly integrated one man and one woman marriage.
The marriages of gay people don't introduce diddly squat to any other marriage. The marriages of straight people are completely unaffected in any way, shape or form. You remain a lying idiot.

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
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 min chris toal 26,563
Elvis Presley's sex secrets exposed 16 min Myself 5
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 18 min Grau 148
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 19 min dee lightful 151
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 51 min idiocracy 31,497
Gay Christians choosing celibacy emerge from th... 2 hr Belle Sexton 58
Will the Supreme Court End Gay Marriage as an E... 5 hr Reverend Alan 432