Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#10079 Sep 19, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Jesus tell you to judge others as stupid and dogs?
Or did He say, in all things treat others as you would yourself, and as He would treat you?
You are spreading venom in public. Jesus said to not give what is holy to dogs and that could be interpreted on different levels. People are implied. Outside are the dogs and immoral persons...Your venom does harm to others who a naive enough to swallow the swill you dish out. Part of the reason you want to blend in with your perversion has to do with conversion of the youth. Many of whom would not submit or become enslaved to it all if it was culturally shunned by responsible adults. Legalize SSM at the expense of your offspring who may either become gay or have to deal with the inevitable consequences later on.

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#10080 Sep 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
A man, a woman, and even an additional woman....sounds like polygamy.
Did I mention polygamy AT all? But you need to ASSume I did in order to make a jackazz out of yourself......good for you!!!

Medical science helps LOTS of couples create human life when the couple itself can not, but that's okay because you believe they will raise that child together.......you are aware that divorced parents DO NOT always raise their children together, right?

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#10081 Sep 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nye, and NorCal
I've provided one link, your turn.
I've provided you with MANY links, sorry.....you'll not get another one from me......do the research yourself!!!

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#10082 Sep 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Actually in way it does....marriage acts as, to a degree, a regulatory mechanism of the male female sexual union. It brings their corresponding procreational aspects together, the husband is the father to any children born into the marriage. The wife pledges sexual fidelity to ensure this, the husband agrees not to impregnate other women, and stick around to help raise the children and provide for the family. Is it a perfect system, no, but demonstrate a purpose often forgotten.
This comment is TOTAL BULLSHIET.......marriage DOESN'T act as ANY regulatory mechanism BECAUSE it CAN NOT mandate that the male and female MUST get married after their little "ACCIDENT"!!!

Why should the wife be the ONLY person in the marriage to pledge sexual fidelity? Why doesn't the husband have to pledge sexual fidelity? Again, this is an ARCHAIC means to control women and has NOTHING to do with making either party procreative responsible for their "ACCIDENTS".......an d how would denying the right to marry to Same-Sex Couples make opposite-sex couples more responsible for the children they have "ACCIDENTALLY" created? By the way, this argument has already FAILED in Court!!!
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10083 Sep 19, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>You are spreading venom in public. Jesus said to not give what is holy to dogs and that could be interpreted on different levels. People are implied. Outside are the dogs and immoral persons...Your venom does harm to others who a naive enough to swallow the swill you dish out. Part of the reason you want to blend in with your perversion has to do with conversion of the youth. Many of whom would not submit or become enslaved to it all if it was culturally shunned by responsible adults. Legalize SSM at the expense of your offspring who may either become gay or have to deal with the inevitable consequences later on.
Honey, the naïve people are the people who believe things they cannot prove.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10084 Sep 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nye, and NorCal
I've provided one link, your turn.
Do you find in your quote anything that says incest is not harmful and should be facilitated? It offers some of the many reasons incest is prohibited, but doesn't address all of them.

The facilitation and acceptance of child abuse remains an important and compelling consideration:

"Maltz (2002) sexual abuse occurs whenever one person dominates and exploits another by means of sexual activity or suggestion.
Irrespective of how childhood sexual abuse is defined, it generally has significant negative and pervasive psychological impact on its victims.(p.33)" http://www.counseling.org/docs/disaster-and-t...

"Incest is sexual contact between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal (e.g., parents and children, uncles/aunts and nieces/nephews, etc.). This usually takes the form of an older family member sexually abusing a child or adolescent."

All forms of child sexual abuse can have negative long-term effects for the victim. You can read about some of those effects here.
Incest is especially damaging because it disrupts the child’s primary support system, the family.

When a child is abused by someone outside the family, the child’s family is often able to offer support and a sense of safety.
When the abuser is someone in the family, the family may not be able to provide support or a sense of safety. Since the children (especially younger children) often have limited resources outside the family, it can be very hard for them to recover from incest
Incest can damage a child’s ability to trust, since the people who were supposed to protect and care for them have abused them.
Survivors of incest sometimes have difficulty developing trusting relationships."
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of...

Survivors of incest:
http://www.siawso.org/

"Incest between an adult and a person under the age of consent is considered a form of child sexual abuse[36][37] that has been shown to be one of the most extreme forms of childhood abuse; it often results in serious and long-term psychological trauma, especially in the case of parental incest.[38] Its prevalence is difficult to generalize, but research has estimated 10–15% of the general population as having at least one such sexual contact, with less than 2% involving intercourse or attempted intercourse.[39] Among women, research has yielded estimates as high as 20%.[38]

Father-daughter incest was for many years the most commonly reported and studied form of incest.[40][41] More recently, studies have suggested that sibling incest, particularly older brothers having sexual relations with younger siblings, is the most common form of incest,[42][43][44][45][46][47 ][48][49][50] with some studies finding sibling incest occurring more frequently than other forms of incest.[51] Some studies suggest that adolescent perpetrators of sibling abuse choose younger victims, abuse victims over a lengthier period, use violence more frequently and severely than adult perpetrators, and that sibling abuse has a higher rate of penetrative acts than father or stepfather incest, with father and older brother incest resulting in greater reported distress than stepfather incest.[52][53][54] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

While many dismiss wiki as a source, this site discusses many of the considerations which justify the prohibition on incest. The citations are there for those inclined to do further research. While a few will disagree about the severity and effects of harm, mainstream medical and mental health organizations continue to oppose child abuse in all forms, including incest.

This also shows why the prohibition on incest is an entirely different restriction from the restriction on gender.

Now, ready to tell me what is the basis of all fundamental rights?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10085 Sep 19, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>You are spreading venom in public. Jesus said to not give what is holy to dogs and that could be interpreted on different levels. People are implied. Outside are the dogs and immoral persons...Your venom does harm to others who a naive enough to swallow the swill you dish out. Part of the reason you want to blend in with your perversion has to do with conversion of the youth. Many of whom would not submit or become enslaved to it all if it was culturally shunned by responsible adults. Legalize SSM at the expense of your offspring who may either become gay or have to deal with the inevitable consequences later on.
Venom? Care to provide any examples?
Words like "perversion, dogs, immoral persons, shunned, swill"? Is this the venom you mean?

Or are you calling the Golden Rule venom?

Your response relies on demonizing pejoratives. It totally fails to address any of the issues we have been discussing, such as fundamental rights, compelling government interests sufficient for restriction of rights.

We have shown that gay people have always existed around the world and throughout history, no matter how severely they have been punished and "shunned". Sexual orientation is not a choice, and removing the irrational prejudice won't change that. Heterosexual people will still be heterosexual, etc. Shunning, punishing, and otherwise harming gay people won't benefit straight people. It only harms gay people needlessly. It contradicts the Golden Rule.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10086 Sep 19, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
34“Then the King will say to those on his right,‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him,‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply,‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left,‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer,‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply,‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
-Matthew 25:34-46
It's funny, how they pick and choose, isn't it?
Yes, how sad they find ways to contradict the Golden Rule.

One of the most widely and frequently misinterpreted stories about the Golden Rule, is the story of Sodom.

Once you realize gang rape by every male in the town has nothing to do with forming committed relationships built on mutual love and respect, it quickly becomes clear the story of Sodom is about how you treat the stranger at the gate. It tells us we should treat others as Jesus would treat us, rather than to abuse and harm others needlessly. Pretty amazing so many use that story to justify shunning, punishing, dehumanizing, and harming gay people needlessly.

John 13:34: A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#10087 Sep 19, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Venom? Care to provide any examples?
Words like "perversion, dogs, immoral persons, shunned, swill"? Is this the venom you mean?
Perversion refers to homosexuality. Dogs and immoral persons were from the Bible. Shunned is avoiding folks who practice evil. Swill refers to lies.
Or are you calling the Golden Rule venom?
No. I do not respect lies and the promotion of perversions. That is not required from a Christian.
Your response relies on demonizing pejoratives. It totally fails to address any of the issues we have been discussing, such as fundamental rights, compelling government interests sufficient for restriction of rights.
There is no fundamental right to SSM. OSM is from God. Rights are from God. SSM is from perverted humans or the Devil.
Sexual orientation is not a choice,
You make that sound like an absolute. Are you an absolutist? What is the objective basis for your claim? At some point it is but it can become enslavement. A consequence of extreme sex addiction. Homosexual sin is by nature multi partner. Even if you get everything you want there will be people like me who will have nothing but contempt for your immoral practices. The fact you call wrong right. The fact you corrupt children with false teachings.
and removing the irrational prejudice won't change that. Heterosexual people will still be heterosexual, etc. Shunning, punishing, and otherwise harming gay people won't benefit straight people. It only harms gay people needlessly. It contradicts the Golden Rule.
You have a right to live and all that. You even have the right to lobby the government as i have the right to dissent. Quit being a crybaby.

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#10088 Sep 19, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
Sorry, but you really are clueless about God's message and have NO idea what being supposedly Christ like means!!!

When you try and speak for God or judge others against God's wishes......YOU have committed the worse sin of all!!!
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10089 Sep 19, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Perversion refers to homosexuality. Dogs and immoral persons were from the Bible. Shunned is avoiding folks who practice evil. Swill refers to lies.
<quoted text> No. I do not respect lies and the promotion of perversions. That is not required from a Christian.
<quoted text> There is no fundamental right to SSM. OSM is from God. Rights are from God. SSM is from perverted humans or the Devil.
<quoted text> You make that sound like an absolute. Are you an absolutist? What is the objective basis for your claim? At some point it is but it can become enslavement. A consequence of extreme sex addiction. Homosexual sin is by nature multi partner. Even if you get everything you want there will be people like me who will have nothing but contempt for your immoral practices. The fact you call wrong right. The fact you corrupt children with false teachings. <quoted text> You have a right to live and all that. You even have the right to lobby the government as i have the right to dissent. Quit being a crybaby.
I don't know about your country, but here in the good ol' USA we have SEPARATION of church and State. We are a secular country. Your god and Buybull are irrelevant when it comes to matters of civil rights and law.

You should be glad stupidity isn't a crime.... you'd be doing LIFE for some of the blatantly false statements you've made. And you had the unmitigated NERVE to ask us for an 'objective basis?' You have NOTHING with an objective basis.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10090 Sep 19, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about your country, but here in the good ol' USA we have SEPARATION of church and State. We are a secular country. Your god and Buybull are irrelevant when it comes to matters of civil rights and law.
And yet we.....have "In God We Trust" on our currency....live in cities named after Saints....root for the Saints, and the Padres....are cared for in Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, hospitals.....watch as the President takes the oath of office with his hand on a Bible......Congress has a chaplain....

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10091 Sep 19, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Perversion refers to homosexuality. Dogs and immoral persons were from the Bible. Shunned is avoiding folks who practice evil. Swill refers to lies.
<quoted text> No. I do not respect lies and the promotion of perversions. That is not required from a Christian.
<quoted text> There is no fundamental right to SSM. OSM is from God. Rights are from God. SSM is from perverted humans or the Devil.
<quoted text> You make that sound like an absolute. Are you an absolutist? What is the objective basis for your claim? At some point it is but it can become enslavement. A consequence of extreme sex addiction. Homosexual sin is by nature multi partner. Even if you get everything you want there will be people like me who will have nothing but contempt for your immoral practices. The fact you call wrong right. The fact you corrupt children with false teachings. <quoted text> You have a right to live and all that. You even have the right to lobby the government as i have the right to dissent. Quit being a crybaby.
Calling being gay a perversion is your demeaning, dehumanizing judgement, not a fact, nor a belief shared by all religious scholars, leaders, and believers, including the new Pope. Calling people dogs and immoral is also your dehumanizing judgement. You fail to show any lies, and rely on your demonization and dehumanization alone, to justify harming gay people, in contradiction of the Golden Rule.

As we discussed earlier, fundamental rights come from "nature's God, or their Creator". You do not get to decide what the Creator intended, and yet you claim to speak for God. That is the entire point of fundamental rights. No matter what you may think God wants, you don't get to decide who qualifies, and they belong to everyone.

I'll post a sample of the documentation showing sexual orientation is not a choice, separately, though I'll mention addiction and orientation are two very different things. Straight people can be obsessive/ compulsive about sex, as can anyone. Sexual orientation is not addiction, nor a choice.

Yet even if it were a choice, choice of how you wish to live your life is also protected by the constitution as long as it doesn't harm others needlessly. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental rights of all individuals.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10092 Sep 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet we.....have "In God We Trust" on our currency....live in cities named after Saints....root for the Saints, and the Padres....are cared for in Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, hospitals.....watch as the President takes the oath of office with his hand on a Bible......Congress has a chaplain....
Lowered expectations strike again.

There are also symbols of the occult on our money. You think that means the USA is a nation of occultists?

No wonder our country is in trouble. Idiots like you think what's printed on our money determines our laws.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10093 Sep 19, 2013
Apologies to those who have this memorized by now...

Ironically, much of the research showing orientation is not a choice, comes from failed efforts to change it, including imprisonment and torture.

Evidence exists both through clinical studies as well as through the personal testimony of millions of gay and straight people around the world who will testify they have no choice over to whom they are emotionally, romantically, and physically attracted. Bisexual people sometimes confuse the issue as it takes some of them a long time to realize that while they experience attractions to some members of both sexes, they have no choice about being attracted. Like gay and straight people, they only have a choice of whether to act on their attractions.

Change efforts, forced and voluntary, have shown efforts to change orientation are often harmful to the point of self destructive behavior including suicide. No true change has been documented, though some bisexuals are able to commit to a member of the opposite sex. They still experience same sex attractions.

"The idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organizations.

Despite the general consensus of major medical, health, and mental health professions that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal expressions of human sexuality, efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy have been adopted by some political and religious organizations and aggressively promoted to the public. However, such efforts have serious potential to harm young people because they present the view that the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is a mental illness or disorder, and they often frame the inability to change one’s sexual orientation as a personal and moral failure.

Because of the aggressive promotion of efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy, a number of medical, health, and mental health professional organizations have issued public statements about the dangers of this approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics advises youth that counseling may be helpful for you if you feel confused about your sexual identity. Avoid any treatments that claim to be able to change a person’s sexual orientation, or treatment ideas that see homosexuality as a sickness."

Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth [AAP]

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10094 Sep 19, 2013
"The New Testament and Homosexuality" Robin Scroggs, Prof of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary is a serious theologian and is favorable reviewed by many theologians. He is a happily married heterosexual with no personal bias. He includes cites from Boswell and expands further especially on pederasty and concludes there is nothing biblically wrong with homosexuality."

“These are a few.....”

Since: May 10

of my fav~o~rite things~~

#10095 Sep 19, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Lowered expectations strike again.
There are also symbols of the occult on our money. You think that means the USA is a nation of occultists?
No wonder our country is in trouble. Idiots like you think what's printed on our money determines our laws.
Speaking of lowered expectations,
....he raised six points.
When you come up with five more partially true deflections,








....you'll still be an idiot.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10096 Sep 19, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Lowered expectations strike again.
[/QUOTE[

I didn't expect too much given your chosen moniker.

[QUOTE]
There are also symbols of the occult on our money. You think that means the USA is a nation of occultists?
How many occultists operate hospitals, schools, or nursing homes?
No wonder our country is in trouble. Idiots like you think what's printed on our money determines our laws.
The idiot is you in thinking that. I pointed out that despite the "seperation of church and state", the "church" is interwoven throughout our society. But you rather fall back on your religiphobia and brilliant choice in forum nicknames to demonstrate your "superior intellect". I'm sure your Mommy is proud of the fine low standing individual you've become. If nothing else, you are entertaining.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10097 Sep 19, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"The New Testament and Homosexuality" Robin Scroggs, Prof of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary is a serious theologian and is favorable reviewed by many theologians. He is a happily married heterosexual with no personal bias. He includes cites from Boswell and expands further especially on pederasty and concludes there is nothing biblically wrong with homosexuality."
Boswell? Really?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10098 Sep 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet we.....have "In God We Trust" on our currency....live in cities named after Saints....root for the Saints, and the Padres....are cared for in Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, hospitals.....watch as the President takes the oath of office with his hand on a Bible......Congress has a chaplain....
The fact "God" has been added to certain public property and documents demonstrates the reason official recognition of any one religion was prohibited by the Constitution. The founders knew religions would try to enshrine their particular religious beliefs in the law, at the expense of others.

1. "In God We Trust" on our money, has been challenged. The court determined it did not refer to any particular understanding of "God", and that all persons of all religions can and do claim "God" as their own. It does not mean any belief is needed to use the money, or for any other governmental interest. It does not mean we are a "Christian Nation".

2. Cities can be named anything including: The top 10 U.S. cities with the most unfortunate names:
1. Toad Suck, Arkansas
2. Climax, Georgia
3. Boring, Oregon
4. Hooker, Oklahoma
5. Assawoman, Maryland
6. Belchertown, Massachusetts
7. Roachtown, Illinois
8. Loveladies, New Jersey
9. Squabbletown, California
10. Monkey's Eyebrow, Kentucky

3. Sports teams, also private, can include Devils, Pirates, Raiders, Giants, Dolphins, and anything thing else they choose. No religion required.

4. Some Hospitals are private corporations, yet still public accomodations and must act accordingly. Again, no religious belief required.

5. There is no requirement the oath of office include a bible, and not all have.(though Obama used 2 of them) It is an oath to uphold the constitution, not any religious belief. No bible required, no religious belief required.

6. No particular religious belief is required for the Chaplain. This is one way it has withstood court challenges. Madison was very much against it, but again, religion has always tried to include itself in the government, and this was one of the consessions to the religionists. But again, no particular religious belief is required.

Establishment of any religion is prohibited by the constitution. Again, the fact some religious beliefs have made it in from time to time, only shows why the founders knew it was important to try to keep it out of the law.

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 SC gay marriage plaintiffs can now seek legal fees 3 min goonsquad 23
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 min lides 24,150
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 19 min EdmondWA 1,904
News How is it that cake became a favourite platform... 24 min Shirley 20
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 27 min Termiraider 6,746
News More evidence that kids of gay parents do just ... 28 min EdmondWA 27
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 37 min Frankie Rizzo 8,277
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 43 min Reverend Alan 1,296
News Feds release updated strategy against AIDS in A... 20 hr Logic Analysis 24
More from around the web