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.

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.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12785 Nov 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're making my argument for me nicely. Thanks.
Yeah? What's forty years to a drug addled idiot like you?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12789 Nov 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"...A majority of 55.8% believed the diagnosis should be excluded from the 2013 edition."
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15...
Of course you'll ignore it lie and say I never posted it as is your strategy.
Where does it say they were in the medical field? It says, and I quote: "organizations concerned with the welfare of transgender people."
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12790 Nov 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Even if that were true, it would be a non-issue." Rose_NoHo.
Get an argument loser.
Really? A drug addled brain is a non-issue, eh? Is that what you tell the police when they pull you over for driving while intoxicated?

Honestly, Blankie.... do you EVER think BEFORE you type?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#12793 Nov 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a pet rat named "fruitloop" I inherited when my grand kids got tired of taking care of him. What a silly little guy. Drinks beer and watches TV with me. Sits on my shoulder. Likes movies and animal planet channel.
I never knew how intelligent and social rats were. Comes when I call him. When he escapes his cage in the middle of the night he gets in bed with me (real far from his cage, it's a wonder he can find me, I have a big house.) Sleeps on the pillow next to my head. Tries to wake me up for some more beer.
He's becoming obese from beer and rich food but he's a rat! What does it matter. I'm gonna miss him when he dies. They live about three years. This guy with his bad health habits maybe a few months less.
Ah good times!
Very creative Frankie. You have style.....

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#12794 Nov 8, 2013
the light has come wrote:
<quoted text>God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit. He gave them free will. He told them of the consequence in disobedience. Do you think religious leaders can do more than God. Only thing they can do it tell the people. if the make wrong choices they have no one to blame but themselves.
Thanks for sharing your mythology with us. Do you have any other funny stories?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12795 Nov 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Dance Ballast Boy dance for Frankie. Do a good job now, you're getting tedious again.
Where did it say they were in the medical field, Blankie?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12796 Nov 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never been pulled over for driving intoxicated and even if I was it would be a non issue. Get an argument.
Do you ever take a deep breath before you type?
s
So being intoxicated is a non-issue concerning Driving While Intoxicated. Got it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12797 Nov 8, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No one? Not a single person?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#12802 Nov 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
X-Box has lots of 'em. For example, did you know that driving drunk is an issue when you are driving drunk?
I don't know why. I mean, if you are legally drunk then it must be legal right?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#12804 Nov 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Arbitrary"? Oh do explain.
The restriction is only in place to prevent same-sex couples from joining in marriage. Not for any other reason. Opposite-sex couples suffer no degradation of their marriage if a same-sex couple has one also. The fact that this "requirement" must be ADDED to some state constitutions in response to the gay rights movement, while other states have no issue with it, shows it is only being done as a reprisal against gays.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Bigamy is a crime due to fraud.
Yes, fraud against human beings. I call that abuse.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Consensual polygamy involves just that, consent.
That’s nice. But it doesn’t foster the distribution of those 1,138 functions of marriage which you consistently ignore.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Functions of marriage?
Yes. 1,138 of them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Procreation is one of those.
No, it absolutely is not. Any marriage can skip procreation. Any procreating can skip marriage. There aren't 1,139 functions.
Pietro Armando wrote:
A man can just as easily impregnate one than one wife.
That’s why it’s not a function of marriage. A woman doesn’t have to be a WIFE to be impregnated.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage establishes a man and a woman as husband and wife. First cousins can marry.
Marriage establishes people as family.“Husband” and “wife” are simply the titles held by the married people, depending on their gender. First cousins are only distantly family, that’s why marriage is allowed over their existing connection.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Really, what did people do, or call themselves before the political sexual identity labels. Oh I know, just men and women.
The gay identity has always existed. We simply have never been allowed to explore, expand or fulfill our identities, because small-minded people would rather put us to death or lock us up.
Pietro Armando wrote:
A man and woman as husband and wife.
NO. Unrelated people as family. That is the POINT of marriage. A man doesn’t simply want to become a husband for the TITLE. People want to be FAMILY. That’s WHY they marry. That’s what marriage provides them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hmmmmmm.....not quite.
Maybe not to you, but that tells me a lot.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It serves no purpose to redefine marriage to include other unions, besides that of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
There’s no redefinition of the institute which takes two strangers and makes them family. And it serves a major purpose to same-sex couples who seek to become family, and legally establish and protect that family. The only people who see no purpose in this are people who simply could not care less about us or our families.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not at all, more cases will develop, even a few from polygamists, that the American way.
Good for them. If their arguments have merit, I hope they see justice.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
Those men and women who are "evaluating marriage and their commitments to each other" are the very ones who are RECOGNIZING that gay people feel the same way, and that we deserve the same accommodation for OUR families. Polygamy has nothing to do with commitment.

I AM going to “go right ahead” and GET MARRIED, because people in MY state have already made those arguments I mentioned, and our reasonable jurists found them convincing.

What is it you think I need help understanding? Why SHOULDN’T it be assumed that it’s the arguments of the plaintiffs which are swaying the judges which hear them? If your side had BETTER arguments, we wouldn’t be seeing all these legal victories.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#12805 Nov 8, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
The restriction is only in place to prevent same-sex couples from joining in marriage.
Duh, of course they are. Just like these laws are to prevent other certain marriages:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/Pa...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#12806 Nov 8, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Duh, of course they are. Just like these laws are to prevent other certain marriages:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/Pa...
That's nice. See you at the altar!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12807 Nov 8, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh, of course they are. Just like these laws are to prevent other certain marriages:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/Pa...
Section 1. No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, stepmother, grandfather’s wife, grandson’s wife, wife’s mother, wife’s grandmother, wife’s daughter, wife’s granddaughter, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter, father’s sister or mother’s sister.

Section 2. No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, stepfather, grandmother’s husband, daughter’s husband, granddaughter’s husband, husband’s grandfather, husband’s son, husband’s grandson, brother’s son, sister’s son, father’s brother or mother’s brother.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12808 Nov 8, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Does anyone actually give a rat's ass?
Again with the rat's ass, Wastey. What, did the gerbil die?:)

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#12809 Nov 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with the rat's ass, Wastey. What, did the gerbil die?:)
No, I'm selling them ten for a dollar. Interested?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#12810 Nov 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with the rat's ass, Wastey. What, did the gerbil die?:)
The rats ate them.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12811 Nov 8, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
The restriction is only in place to prevent same-sex couples from joining in marriage.
So throughout the history of the Republic, marriage was understood to be a union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife, but "the restriction is only in place to prevent same sex couples from joining in marriage".
Not for any other reason. Opposite-sex couples suffer no degradation of their marriage if a same-sex couple has one also.
By that reasoning, any adult claiming his or her personal intimate consensual relationship is "marriage" would it degrade anyone else's marriage.
The fact that this "requirement" must be ADDED to some state constitutions in response to the gay rights movement, while other states have no issue with it, shows it is only being done as a reprisal against gays.
The "requirement" was in line with the understanding of marriage throughout American history, and it also bars any recognition of polygamy, as well.
Yes, fraud against human beings. I call that abuse.
What other beings would it be fraud against?
That’s nice. But it doesn’t foster the distribution of those 1,138 functions of marriage which you consistently ignore.
Do what's to ignore.....besides those aren't all "functions of marriage".
Yes. 1,138 of them.
Those aren't "functions of marriage".
No, it absolutely is not.
Oh but it is, not for same sex couples, though.
Any marriage can skip procreation. Any procreating can skip marriage.
Yes individual marriages can, but not the function of marriage as it relates to society.
There aren't 1,139 functions.
Oh look we've gained a function.
That’s why it’s not a function of marriage. A woman doesn’t have to be a WIFE to be impregnated.
True
Marriage establishes people as family.“Husband” and “wife” are simply the titles held by the married people, depending on their gender.
-
Ooooooooo....how about this, marriage transforms a man and a woman into husband and wife.
First cousins are only distantly family, that’s why marriage is allowed over their existing connection.
"Distantly family"? Marriage is allowed because the risk of sexually procreative birth defects are low.
The gay identity has always existed. We simply have never been allowed to explore, expand or fulfill our identities, because small-minded people would rather put us to death or lock us up.
-
Oh it has,....it just took until the early 20th century for a word to be attributed to it, a word, by the way, which originally referenced "heterosexual" sexual behaviors. A "gay man" was a womanizer. Ironic.
NO. Unrelated people as family. That is the POINT of marriage. A man doesn’t simply want to become a husband for the TITLE. People want to be FAMILY. That’s WHY they marry. That’s what marriage provides them.
Yes, an unrelated man, and woman, or first cousins, become related once they accept each other as "husband and wife". A man wishes to become a husband because he has found a woman who wishes to be his wife, and vice versatile. They may be motivated by love, companionship, desire for children, financial reasons, etc, or a combination there of.
There’s no redefinition of the institute which takes two strangers and makes them family.
We must be speaking of two different institutions. I'm familiar with the institution of marriage, based on, centered around, and understood as, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. I've been locked up in that institution for over 20 years.

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 Greens against gay marriage plebiscite The Gree... 3 min Fa-Foxy 4
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 22 min Rosa_Winkel 16
News How Donald Trump is slowly teaching Republicans... 9 hr Lawrence Wolf 48
News Can a new chief rabbi change the Israeli Rabbin... (Apr '13) 14 hr indict robert mercer 18
News Pastors Rarely Asked to Wed Same-Sex Couples 18 hr Humpty Dumpty 76
News Judge who said she wouldn't marry gays fights b... Thu okimar 19
News Straight Talk: Young husband's cheating is agon... (Mar '12) Thu Dump his ass 5
More from around the web