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.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#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.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12722 Nov 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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?!
<quoted text>
DID I RAISE THIS POINT???!!!! Oh Madone! Stick to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
<quoted text>
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!!!
On the contrary, you continue to ignore the evolution of the English language which now reflects or is starting to reflect that neither consummation, conjugal nor coitus are exclusive to opposite sex couples. At least for those of us not stuck in the 19th century.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12723 Nov 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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?!
No, what you want is to maintain a status quo and to continue to deny the right to marry to Gay and Lesbian individuals STRICTLY because you DON'T like their choice of who they want to marry.......sorry but that's DISCRIMINATION and violates both the Due Process and Equal protection Act!!!

The lack of conjugal intimacy is IRRELEVANT or the sole definition of CONJUGAL per your belief system is ALSO irrelevant!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12724 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>creative
Thanks. But honestly, demonstrating your idiocy and contempt doesn't really take much.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12725 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so if someone says they're a homosexual that settles it.
Are you under the impression its up for debate? Or are you under the impression that you have some sort of insight that the person themselves don't have? Is it a habit for you to try and label people as liars? When someone tells you they are left handed do you think it's a challenge? Get a life.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
and if someone says that their gender identity is confused that they really are a man in a women's body that settles it.
The only one using the word "confused" is you and sheeple like you. There's no confusion for the transgendered person, or for those of us who have educated ourselves on the matter.

Again, are you under the impression that you have special insight into that person's psyche that would make the issue up for debate?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
we as a society must accept it.
No, only humans with a conscience and a sense of morality and compassion must accept it. Ignoramuses like yourself are free to think about it and bitch about it however you like. The world moves on without you. Again, enjoy your Hazel Massery Award, you've earned it dear.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12726 Nov 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>brains can be trained if one has any. bodies have to be changed. scientific information changes all the time.
Gender can NOT be trained moron.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12727 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.
They still exist in the south and they thrive. They may not have advertising acknowledging it, but they definitely make sure the rules are known. Are you really this stupid?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
She wanted to make sure her feeling on the matter were known, when her feelings about it were never solicited. Her religious freedom is irrelevant. She was free to disagree with the marriage the entire time she performed her job. And her discrimination towards these two individuals demonstrates that morality wasn't an issue she was concerned about. Her religious freedoms don't provide her with privileges placing her above the law.

Your florist is a bigot.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
btw us people? i have never clung to anything. go ahead and get 'married' have at it. just don't drag me into it.
I'm already married, and you are completely unaffected by that fact. I wouldn't drag you across water if your bigoted head was on fire.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#12728 Nov 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM advocates want the state to drop the CONJUGAL, OPPOSITE SEX, requirement.
What makes it a "requirement"?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#12729 Nov 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
False.

Same sex marriage has no impact on opposite sex marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12731 Nov 7, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes it a "requirement"?
The state that defines marriage, sets the requirements. Conjugal, or opposite sex is one of those requirements in most states.

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 Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 10 min Mite Be 23
News Gay Republican Iowa Senate Hopeful: I'm Not the... 2 hr Stephany McDowell 1
News Why Does the Church Wink at Divorce but Get So ... 4 hr Gremlin 10
News Greens against gay marriage plebiscite The Gree... 10 hr Rosa_Winkel 5
News How Donald Trump is slowly teaching Republicans... 20 hr Lawrence Wolf 48
News Can a new chief rabbi change the Israeli Rabbin... (Apr '13) Fri indict robert mercer 18
News Pastors Rarely Asked to Wed Same-Sex Couples Fri Humpty Dumpty 76
More from around the web