Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 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.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5786 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Conjugal as in "husband and wife".
That's NOT what conjugal means.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5787 Jul 16, 2013
lides wrote:
...Brian, you've never proven that this form was not "leaked" by NOM, nor have you proven that NOM is not a political group, in which case, their form 990 Schedule B must be made public by law.
"Tax-exempt political organizations may also be required to file
Form 990, including Schedule B. Political organizations must make both of these forms available to the public, including the contributor information."
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eo_disclosure...
Each time you present this argument, you reaffirm that you are an imbecile.
The citation above is a 2012 law, the issue is the leaking of NOM's 2008 Schedule B. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in America.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5788 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Your Mom.
Dodging questions again.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's an easy one.....my children of course, the benefit from having their mother and father married to each other.
Dodging AGAIN. You really need everything spelled out to you in minute detail, don't you? Otherwise you find a loophole to avoid answering.

What ADULTS, besides you and your spouse, enjoy the benefits granted to you by marriage?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Conjugal as in husband AND wife.
Sorry, that's just not what conjugal means.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not all gay people support SSM. Some reject it for the same reason I do, others think its too constraining, too "hetero".
Some gay people kill themselves, too, out of shame heaped on them by society. Is that the model we should all follow?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nothing at all, but those folks can offer alternative opinions, he might not find among those he knows.
And once he's heard all the "alternatives" and STILL wants to apply marriage benefits to the person best suited to him that he's chosen to spend his life with?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do you mean opposite sex marriages? How would you characterize an opposite sex mixed orientation marriage, like the Weeds?
Dodging again. If we just call them ALL "marriages", will you be policing their monogamy?
Pietro Armando wrote:
They seem very happy.
And do you expect all gay people to follow their model? Do you think the MILLIONS of gay people around the world fighting for this right, are only doing so because they can't find the right person of the opposite sex?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why bother recognizing it at all then?
Because marriage is a CONTRACT (god, you're like a carnival ride, round and round). The government enforces contracts. If someone breaks a contract with you, where do you seek arbitration?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly. No state cares about "orientation", in most states, all that matters is the parties be of the opposite sex.
Not for long. Funny that the states allowing same-sex marriage are all Northern, progressive, liberal states, and all the rest are still getting over the end of slavery. They'll figure out how to treat gay people soon enough.
Pietro Armando wrote:
But that undermines your contention of "a person of one's choice". If a woman chooses her sister to be her spouse and vice versa, is she not exercising her choice? A pair of siblings can be "spouses for life". Some are, for all practical purposes?
And which of the 1,138 rights of marriage do they need?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Jersey right?
Start there.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Which is consistent with my answer.
Good to know you have such... high aspirations of society. Shall we soon be shrouding our women in veils, as those societies do?

Seriously.... you're PROUD that much of the US models their marriage laws after places like Afghanistan and Iran? You claim that something happens "in society", and you're GLAD that your answer is consistent... in Uganda? Man, even England will be a member of the nations that recognize the dignity of gay people by about the time you finish reading this. What kind of society do you WANT?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Differs in form and function. No matter how hard u try, short of chemicals and surgery, you're still a male member of the human species. You're not a woman.

Differences in form are superficial, but there is no difference in function.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The bennies could work for ANY pairing. So what makes SSCs so special in that regard?
It's as special as yours is. It's unique bond of two strangers who found love in each other and became family to protect one another, forsaking all others.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5789 Jul 16, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference between bias and making-it-up. WND is way over the on the making-it-up side. Serious people--whether liberal or conservative--agree on that.
Yes, there are plenty of pro-gay sites that are just as unreliable as WND. But we aren't citing them as our sources.
Fair enough.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5790 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
That's NOT what conjugal means.
con·ju·gal
/&#712;känj&#601;g &#601;l/
Adjective
Of or relating to marriage or the relationship between husband and wife: "conjugal loyalty".
Synonyms
marital - connubial - matrimonial - married - wedded
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5791 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodging questions again.
<quoted text>
Dodging AGAIN. You really need everything spelled out to you in minute detail, don't you? Otherwise you find a loophole to avoid answering.
What ADULTS, besides you and your spouse, enjoy the benefits granted to you by marriage?
<quoted text>
Sorry, that's just not what conjugal means.
<quoted text>
Some gay people kill themselves, too, out of shame heaped on them by society. Is that the model we should all follow?
<quoted text>
And once he's heard all the "alternatives" and STILL wants to apply marriage benefits to the person best suited to him that he's chosen to spend his life with?
<quoted text>
Dodging again. If we just call them ALL "marriages", will you be policing their monogamy?
<quoted text>
And do you expect all gay people to follow their model? Do you think the MILLIONS of gay people around the world fighting for this right, are only doing so because they can't find the right person of the opposite sex?
<quoted text>
Because marriage is a CONTRACT (god, you're like a carnival ride, round and round). The government enforces contracts. If someone breaks a contract with you, where do you seek arbitration?
<quoted text>
Not for long. Funny that the states allowing same-sex marriage are all Northern, progressive, liberal states, and all the rest are still getting over the end of slavery. They'll figure out how to treat gay people soon enough.
<quoted text>
And which of the 1,138 rights of marriage do they need?
<quoted text>
Start there.
<quoted text>
Good to know you have such... high aspirations of society. Shall we soon be shrouding our women in veils, as those societies do?
Seriously.... you're PROUD that much of the US models their marriage laws after places like Afghanistan and Iran? You claim that something happens "in society", and you're GLAD that your answer is consistent... in Uganda? Man, even England will be a member of the nations that recognize the dignity of gay people by about the time you finish reading this. What kind of society do you WANT?
<quoted text>
Differences in form are superficial, but there is no difference in function.
<quoted text>
It's as special as yours is. It's unique bond of two strangers who found love in each other and became family to protect one another, forsaking all others.
considering how brian & pietro like to gnaw on the same point repeatedly, asking the same questions over and over and over again - you'd think they were one in the same poster.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5792 Jul 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not true......I'll read many things, just not sources I already know are biased against me and my rights.
That doesn't quite answer my question.

Pietro Armando wrote:
So u only read articles/opinion pieces/news from sources that are EXTREMELY pro-gay and gay biased?

"Bias" is a two way street.
One day, you'll stop trying to think you know me and stop making asinine comments regarding me.....thanks!!!
One day you'll stop assuming I claimed to know you....thanks!!! I'm merely engaging in an exchange of thoughts and opinions.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5793 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
That's NOT what conjugal means.
for a little clarity, so that this doesn't have to be revisited AGAIN....here's the definition straight from merriam webster online dictionary :

Definition of CONJUGAL

: of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5794 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
con·ju·gal
/&#712;känj&#601;g &#601;l/
Adjective
Of or relating to marriage or the relationship between husband and wife: "conjugal loyalty".
Synonyms
marital - connubial - matrimonial - married - wedded
con·ju·gal [kon-juh-guhl]

adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of marriage: conjugal vows.

2. pertaining to the relation between marriage partners.

So, now we know that dictionaries can vary. But you don't just get to pin YOUR favorite definition onto a word, and insist that everyone else MUST abide by it. Definitions shift as social use shifts. And in a dozen US states, DC, one Native Oregon tribe, and 15 nations around the world, that definition includes same-sex couples.

The one common component to BOTH our definitions is that "conjugal" simply means "relating to marriage". Your definition even has an "or" in it, allowing for either use. You don't succeed at putting marriage out of the reach of gay couples, simply by insisting that "conjugal" means "male and female only".

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5795 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
con·ju·gal
/&#712;känj&#601;g &#601;l/
Adjective
Of or relating to marriage or the relationship between husband and wife: "conjugal loyalty".
Synonyms
marital - connubial - matrimonial - married - wedded
Whoops, make that SIXTEEN nations around the world. England is one of ours now.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5796 Jul 16, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
for a little clarity, so that this doesn't have to be revisited AGAIN....here's the definition straight from merriam webster online dictionary :
Definition of CONJUGAL
: of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations
It seems ridiculous when someone tries to insist that this MUST pertain ONLY to a man married to a woman. The same "requirement" could be forcibly applied to the definitions of "dating" or "romance" or even just "sex".

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5797 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't quite answer my question.
Actually it did:-)

As for your comment about engaging in meaningful discussion......sorry, but you don't really.....you just repeat the same issues regardless of how many times they have been addressed.

Oh and you continue to think it's okay to slap my marriage down as being something different than yours......and the only real difference is that my wife and I can't naturally create children between us......but that truly is irrelevant because we are both pass the childbearing years anyways!!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5798 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems ridiculous when someone tries to insist that this MUST pertain ONLY to a man married to a woman. The same "requirement" could be forcibly applied to the definitions of "dating" or "romance" or even just "sex".
true.

as john prine sang "you are what you are and you ain't what you ain't"

if people were really comfortable in their own skin, they wouldn't feel threatened or disturbed by someone else's problivities or who someone else was attracted to. it wouldn't matter what someone else did. i just don't get this obsession some folks have about what other people do and think that because they object to it, they'll get someone else to stop or change. it'd be the height of arrogance if i decided i didn't like people to wear orange and expected everyone to stop wearing the color orange because it offended me or my sensibilities. because, afterall, some folks might actually like the color or even look good in orange. for all i know, some folks would wear orange just to tick me off (ok, maybe just my middle son would, LOL).
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5799 Jul 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it did:-)
As for your comment about engaging in meaningful discussion......sorry, but you don't really.....you just repeat the same issues regardless of how many times they have been addressed.
Oh and you continue to think it's okay to slap my marriage down as being something different than yours......and the only real difference is that my wife and I can't naturally create children between us......but that truly is irrelevant because we are both pass the childbearing years anyways!!
congratulations on your marriage!
i hope that my partner and i can be legally married sometime soon, too. we're certainly planning the event.

...and the childbearing thing? totally irrelavent (and i know you know this, too...LOL) since no state, no municipality, no law no statute anywhere in these united states require a couple to either procreate or to agree to adopt children. furthermore, there's no law that requires a pregnant woman to marry anyone. children a commonly born out of wedlock. some folks cringe at that thought, but it does not negate the hard reality that children are born out of wedlock and have since the beginnings of time. the marriage status does not matter when it comes to birthing a child.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5800 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoops, make that SIXTEEN nations around the world. England is one of ours now.
I just read that and thought of Archie Bunker.:)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5801 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoops, make that SIXTEEN nations around the world. England is one of ours now.
I think you meant to type WEEEEE!

On another note, I'm a little confused by whose covered. I am under the Impression that this law will cover both England and Wales. But I know that Scottland and Ireland both have separate governments considering the issue.(Ireland will have a constitutional amendment on the ballot next year.). Does anyone know exactly how England and Wales fit together?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5802 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems ridiculous when someone tries to insist that this MUST pertain ONLY to a man married to a woman.
Oh like the word "gay".... Which also means "happy", and at one time, referred to various hedonistic heterosexual practices/people. A "gay man" was a womanizer. Ironic isn't it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5803 Jul 16, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
true.
as john prine sang "you are what you are and you ain't what you ain't"
if people were really comfortable in their own skin, they wouldn't feel threatened or disturbed by someone else's problivities or who someone else was attracted to. it wouldn't matter what someone else did. i just don't get this obsession some folks have about what other people do and think that because they object to it, they'll get someone else to stop or change. it'd be the height of arrogance if i decided i didn't like people to wear orange and expected everyone to stop wearing the color orange because it offended me or my sensibilities. because, afterall, some folks might actually like the color or even look good in orange. for all i know, some folks would wear orange just to tick me off (ok, maybe just my middle son would, LOL).
Certain colors, if worn in the wrong neighborhood, could be painful. Just an observation.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5804 Jul 16, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
I think you meant to type WEEEEE!
Why yes, yes I did.:)

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5805 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh like the word "gay".... Which also means "happy", and at one time, referred to various hedonistic heterosexual practices/people. A "gay man" was a womanizer. Ironic isn't it.
Uh, no? I have no idea what point you're making here. Like I said, definitions change over time, depending on usage.

The word gay can mean a man or a woman. It can even still mean "happy" if you want to use it that way. We might "Don we now our gay apparel" or The Flintstones could have a "Gay old time". No big deal. No one is trying to LEGISLATE who can use the word, or that one group may define it while another group must abide. Dictionaries aren't law books.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 58 min Imprtnrd 2,323
News LGBT kids should be very nervous about Betsy De... 1 hr World Nurtures Ch... 2
News 'Homosexuals aren't gay - they are just possess... 1 hr Imprtnrd 34
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 1 hr guest 526
News Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin? 3 hr Just Think 52
News Kentucky Has a Gay Senate Candidate - Does Anyb... 6 hr Cordwainer Trout 11
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 hr Truthsayer4 43,057
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) Thu Truthsayer1 22,547
More from around the web