Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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.

Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12756 Nov 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
A little. My point is X-Box is not immune to being a bigot just because he's gay.
And if you're going to be touchy about words, careful how you use them yourself. It might bite you back.
Only if you can comprehend what you read, and you have demonstrated a total lack of ability to do that.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12757 Nov 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it IS a disorder.
Get with the times auntie. It is very insulting to call it a disorder. I agree. It should not be called a disorder.

Bigot! Hater! Dummy!

P.S. WebMD. Too funny!

YUK!YUK!YUK! Ah good times.

P.P.S. Don't be mad honey.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12758 Nov 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you can comprehend what you read, and you have demonstrated a total lack of ability to do that.
Oy vey. Again with the reading comprehension schtick? That's got mold on it you silly jackass! I doubt anyone believes that. I could be wrong but who cares?

"Even if that were true, it would be a non-issue." Rose_NoHo.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12759 Nov 7, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Does anyone actually give a rat's ass?
I'm getting blunt with these silly jackasses and I will soon be disappeared again but you and me are always good right toots? Hope so. You know where I'm coming from. These simpletons don't. See ya!
Have fun.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12760 Nov 7, 2013
Before I go, one thing. X-Box referral to WebMD. Too funny! YUK!YUK!YUK!

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12761 Nov 7, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
I suppose you could put it that way.....but we're making progress Nor! I prefer it as, maintaining the definition as one man and one woman as husband and wife. Still progress in our discussion.
Racists preferred maintaining segregation too.
Pietro Armando wrote:
First gay and lesbian individuals, men and women, ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY AS ANY OTHER MAN OR WOMAN. See....I hate having to use all caps.....but it's a legal fact...personally they can marry whomever they want without state recognition, I nor anyone else cares.
Still confusing equal application of the laws with constitutional equal protection of the law. Blacks and whites had the same rights to marry under anti-miscegenation laws too. Yet those laws were ruled unconstitutional because racial discrimination isn't deemed a compelling government interest on which to justify an infringing someone's fundamental rights.
Pietro Armando wrote:
However the legal definition of marriage is a different issue.
No it's not. You only think so because you're incorrectly defining marriage by restrictions you advocate on exercising the fundamental right rather than by what marriage legally accomplishes UNIVERSALLY FOR EVERYONE: establishing kinship between previously unrelated parties.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I've noticed, you never seem to include the other letters in the Alphabet soup marquee. Are you forgetting the "B", bisexuals? "Gays, Bisexuals, and Lesbians"? Why would do you wish to deny bisexuals their right to marry someone of both sexes, should they so choose?
The fight to obtain legal recognition of same sex marriage does expand the choices the available to bisexuals. However, a desire to marry more than one person at a time is defined by a different "B": bigamist. So if a bisexual bigamist wants to to remove the number restriction in marriage law, that's a different objective and they're free to petition government to address that grievance just like Mormon polygamists. A person exercising their right to petition government is not, and never has been, required to address the grievances of anyone but themselves. That you constantly throw out the "plight" of others that you have no intention of helping yourself, much less supporting their cause, just proves you to be intellectually sleazy and a hypocrite.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's just as much "DISCRIMINATION ......" As prohibiting someone from marrying a relative, or more than one person!
Yes, it is. You keep forgetting there is not an absolute prohibition on government restricting the exercise of fundamental rights like marriage. The constitutional requirement is that government must demonstrate a compelling interest to do so and the restriction must be rationally related to the stated interest for doing so. Like it or not, restrictions on number and consanguinity have previously been ruled compelling interests. The restriction on gender hasn't been because the reasons proffered to date don't rationally relate to the gender restriction. And of late, citizens and legislators are acknowledging this be extending legal recognition to same sex marriage without a judicial mandate to do so.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12762 Nov 7, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
So why do not demand the state stop that discrimination as well !!!!!! I know....I know..."it's not your fight".... So in other words the state can continue to discriminate as long as they don't discriminate against "gays and lesbians". So much for "marriage equality".
If no one affected by the restriction feels strongly enough about it to legally challenge it, then why do you expect those not affected by it to do so? After all, you don't give a f--- about it other than to use these people as personal poster children in your laughably pathetic arguments against same sex marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nope....nice try though..."conjugal" or husband AND wife, opposite sex, bride AND groom, boy and girl, etc. is what we're arguing over, whether or not It should be the sole legal understanding/definition of marriage, or not.
Yes, because it's a restriction on exercising the fundamental right of marriage, not the definition of marriage as you erroneously assert.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Remember, you're on this planet, as am I, and every other person on this thread, because of a conjugal act, coitus, "marital relations".
Most people on this plant, including you, are here because two people screwed each other, whether in a marriage relationship or not, consensually or not, as an act of love or not. Some are here through medical assistance. But in no case was marriage a prerequisite to accomplish that fact.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12763 Nov 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's only "discrimination" as long as the opposite sex requirement is maintained. Apparently the other "discriminations", no more than one spouse at a time, or not close relative, is perfectly acceptable. Is there a "b" in the marquee? They seem to get forgotten in this debate, it's just "a Gays and Lesbians", not "Gays, Bisexuals, and Lesbians". Why is that?
Because you're a f-ing liar, small Peter.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12764 Nov 7, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you're a f-ing liar, small Peter.
Feeling frustrated? Poor form old sport! Never let them see you sweat.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12765 Nov 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Feeling frustrated? Poor form old sport! Never let them see you sweat.
Telling the truth isn't frustrating. Educating morons can be though. When posting to small Peter, it usually involves both.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12766 Nov 8, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, then it's a dwindling, toothless "requirement", and it's still arbitrary.
"Arbitrary"? Oh do explain.
The rest of your list makes sense. Consent is tantamount, of course.
Agreed.
Bigamy is an abusive crime, and the functions of marriage can't currently be applied among parties larger than 2.
Bigamy is a crime due to fraud. Consensual polygamy involves just that, consent. Functions of marriage? Procreation is one of those. A man can just as easily impregnate one than one wife.
And since marriage establishes family, it provides no function to existing family members.
Marriage establishes a man and a woman as husband and wife. First cousins can marry.
Opposite-sex spouses have been recognized for so long because MOST people are heterosexual, and homosexuals have been hated for so long.
[/QUOTE
Really, what did people do, or call themselves before the political sexual identity labels. Oh I know, just men and women.
[QUOTE]
But since marriage is the primary route for two people to establish themselves as family,
A man and woman as husband and wife.
and enact a legal bond unassailable by outside forces, it makes complete sense to extend it to same-sex couples.
Hmmmmmm.....not quite.
It serves no purpose to DENY marriage to gay couples, other than to punish them as social outsiders, a practice that is ending.
It serves no purpose to redefine marriage to include other unions, besides that of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
You think that these court cases are going the way they're going because people some people are marrying less?
Not at all, more cases will develop, even a few from polygamists, that the American way.
You don't think it has ANYTHING to do with the plaintiffs bringing fantastic, iron-clad arguments before fair and reasonable judges?
Oh but of course....silly me....Edmond....my friend...if that helps you understand it.....and not men and women evaluating marriage, and their commitments to each other.,.,why.....you go right ahead amico.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12767 Nov 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Get with the times auntie. It is very insulting to call it a disorder. I agree. It should not be called a disorder.
Gender identity disorder is defined in the DSM. It is a treatable condition, but it requires medical intervention to resolve. If GID were not a disorder, why would it require medical treatment?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12768 Nov 8, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
False. Same sex marriage has no impact on opposite sex marriage.
Tell that to Barronelle Stutzman, she was sued for not supporting a same sex wedding ritual. It costs her time and money, she could have used to support her family.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12769 Nov 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Tell that to Barronelle Stutzman, she was sued for not supporting a same sex wedding ritual. It costs her time and money, she could have used to support her family.
Jesus you are stupid. Read the original statement again. It was about marriage. Barronelle Stutzman's MARRIAGE was not affected in any way, shape or form because gays are married. And she was sued for discrimination of services, not for lack of support. The time and money she lost is the sole result of her desire to believe she could operate outside the law. The time and money she lost was NOT the result of my marriage or the marriage of any other gay couple.

You are a deceitful LIAR. Careful Brian_G_Village_Idiot, your bible is very clear on what your god thinks of liars.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12770 Nov 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Tell that to Barronelle Stutzman, she was sued for not supporting a same sex wedding ritual. It costs her time and money, she could have used to support her family.
Or, she could have made MORE money by simply providing her services without discrimination.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12774 Nov 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Tell that to Barronelle Stutzman, she was sued for not supporting a same sex wedding ritual. It costs her time and money, she could have used to support her family.
Not true......she violated Washington's ANTI-DISCRIMINATION policies and is being sued for that reason alone......she is responsible for her actions!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12775 Nov 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuality used to be defined in the DSM as a disorder too.
But there are no effective "treatments" for homosexuality. And it doesn't require treatment, anyway.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12776 Nov 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Get with the times auntie. It is very insulting to call it a disorder. I agree. It should not be called a disorder.
Bigot! Hater! Dummy!
P.S. WebMD. Too funny!
YUK!YUK!YUK! Ah good times.
P.P.S. Don't be mad honey.
Look in the DSM, shit-for-brains.

Tell me, Blankie. Is there ANY website you approve of other than YouTube for Retards?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12777 Nov 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuality used to be defined in the DSM as a disorder too.


Forty years ago.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12784 Nov 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Look in an edition of the DSM prior to 1973. Then about 5 years from now look in the latest edition of the DSM and see if "gender identity disorder" is still there.
Yeah right, you'll do that. Too funny.
It is not a disorder as your masters will be telling you soon. Catch up!
Yes. Make up a hypothetical and then argue about it.

No one in the medical field questions whether gender identity disorder is a real disorder.

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 5 min Frindly 8,568
News Catholic Church threatens to fire gay teachers ... 4 hr EMMETT TILL 28
News Tunisian president 'boldly' takes on Islam to a... 10 hr Rasputin 1
News Elvis Is Alive and Well In Las Vegas Mon Dead and Drugged 2
News Churches threaten to dismiss staff who wed same... Mon South Knox Hombre 7
News Muslim cleric tells Australians: 'Husbands shou... (Jan '09) Mon Say NO to islam 65
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Aug 19 huh 32,016
More from around the web