Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,568

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.

Full Story

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11456 Oct 15, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we are superior. We see to it that mankind doesn't end.
You and your partner can't do that.
Overpopulation will end man faster than anything else.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#11457 Oct 15, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we are superior. We see to it that mankind doesn't end.
You and your partner can't do that.
The same is true for opposite-sex couples.....but you seem to ignore that!!!

And being ABLE to procreate HARDLY makes you more superior to Gays and Lesbians or ANYONE else who can't between themselves and their spouses!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11458 Oct 15, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we are superior.
No, you aren't.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
We see to it that mankind doesn't end.
You seem to be confusing homosexuality with sterility. They aren't the same thing.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You and your partner can't do that.
Why can't they? It's 2014 moron. There are numerous means for gay couples to have children. They can even take in the ones that non superior heterosexuals abandon.

The ability to procreate doesn't make one superior to others. You aren't special. You never have been.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11459 Oct 15, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
1. You seem to be confusing homosexuality with sterility. They aren't the same thing.
2. Why can't they?
3. It's 2014 moron. There are numerous means for gay couples to have children.
4. The ability to procreate doesn't make one superior to others. 5. You aren't special. You never have been.
1. You are sterile by choice.
2. Gay couples don't have the right parts.
3. Not without a third party.
4. Ok, it makes us normal.
5. Ask my spouse and kids. I am and I always have been.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11460 Oct 15, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Petey.
"Petey"? This can't be the same woman who gets her panties in a knot if someone messes with her "nic", can it? I mean if I were to call her Nor Callie, she would get upset. So it's apparent someone is impersonating NorCal Native
.....but you do want Gays and Lesbians to act just like Josh Weed.......why? Because you repeat his story as if it is some sort of testimonial and it is NOTHING of the sort!!!
No, I repeat it to illustrate some gays and lesbians exercise the right to marry the same as any other man or woman.
There are currently 9 states with lawsuits challenging those bans on allowing Gay and Lesbian couples the right to marry......IF we take all or most.....your 30 goes down to 21........then what?
Gay and lesbians as individuals can already marry, what they seek is to have their same sex relationshios, legally designated by the stste, "marriage".
Eventually all of those states who don't allow Gays and Lesbians the right to marry will succumb either through their legislators, their courts, their ballot box or SCOTUS!!!
Gays and lesbians already possess the right to marry, always have. However if the prople of a state who have previously constitutionally defined marriage, as a union of one man and one woman, wish to redefine it via the constitutional amendment process, so be it.
Time is NOT on your side of the fight!!!
Time is all any of have.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11461 Oct 15, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Overpopulation will end man faster than anything else.
It doesn't seem to be an issue in the West, depopulation is a danger in some countries.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#11462 Oct 15, 2013
lides wrote:
Brian, unless you can offer a way in which allowing same sex couples to marry adversely impacts you are your rights, you are still an idiot.
That's easy, ask the Christian Baker, Photographer and Florist if "allowing same sex couples adversly impacts" their right to not participate and support a same sex wedding ritual. They have no legal protection from being compelled to attend a religious ceremony they consider profane.

Down with the left and celebrating differences; up with the right and tolerance for all.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#11463 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nope, it was me........sometimes you just get really frustrated by someone who keeps repeating the same thing over and over again.......and besides, you insult EVERYONE'S nic.......and I just returned the favor!!!

Sorry, but you do want Gays and Lesbians to MAKE the same choice that Josh Weed did and THEY shouldn't have to........regardless of how you feel about it.....Gays and Lesbians are getting legally married and WILL continue to do so......and more states will be INCLUDED, again whether you like it or not!!!

At one time ONLY nobility actually married......today even poor, decent Americans can marry without your consent or permission and some of those Americans are Gay or Lesbian!!!!

Ciao!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11464 Oct 15, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
The purpose of anti-gay marriage laws was to maintain the theory of heterosexual supremacy. Even the Courts recognize THAT obvious fact.
Oh of course.....I get it now...that's why the court ruled against racial segregation within marriage but said gender segregation in marriage was acceptable........no wait.....that doesn't sound right.....hmmmmmm....maybe it goes back to slavery.....when boat loads of gay people were brought over to this continent in chains......no that can't be it....."gay only" water fountains......"gay only" building entrances.......nope...can't be that.....lets see.....when was the word "heterosexual" coined again?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11465 Oct 15, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, honey.... OBVIOUSLY there IS one or it wouldn't be legal.
It doesn't mean it's "compelling", if it were, it'd not only be nationwide, but would have existed long before now.
I just LOVE how low IQ, religious Rethuglican types are able to so easily deny reality. Probably because the basis of their entire belief system is based on nothing but wishful thinking, and they don't have the intellect to know any better.
I just love how Mrs. Blowme's little boy Neil has brought such credit to the family name. Why he could be a spokesman at the next Demorat convention. He can even wear his big boy rainbow underoos, and his cape made out of his Mom's tablecloth.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11466 Oct 15, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, it was me........sometimes you just get really frustrated by someone who keeps repeating the same thing over and over again.......and besides, you insult EVERYONE'S nic.......and I just returned the favor!!!
Thank goodness......I thought an imposter had take over. I don't insult everyone's nic.....I do have some standards......besides give a "nic" a nickname is not necessarily an insult. Adding a "y", or an "ie" is not insulting. Now, someone like "Neil and Blowme" demands to be insulted.

As far as the "Petey".....why....w hy...I never knew you cared.:)
Sorry, but you do want Gays and Lesbians to MAKE the same choice that Josh Weed did and THEY shouldn't have to........regardless of how you feel about it.....Gays and Lesbians are getting legally married and WILL continue to do so......and more states will be INCLUDED, again whether you like it or not!!!
Actually, gays and lesbians can choose who they wish, however I don't advocate legal marriage being redefined in order to provide same sex couples with a legal structure for their relationships. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not it is sound public policy to legally fundamentally, alter a vital social institution. If it matters not if conjugality is maintained, why not the other "restrictions"? I know this is the part where you either claim its a "red herring", or "if those groups want their marriages recognized, they have to fight for it". Where does it end? With the state choosing to no longer recognize marriage?
At one time ONLY nobility actually married......today even poor, decent Americans can marry without your consent or permission and some of those Americans are Gay or Lesbian!!!!
Ciao!!!
Poor decent Americans, even those with self described same sex attraction/orientation could marry, long before "gay" became synonymous with "homosexuality", a term which dates back to the late 19th century.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11467 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't mean it's "compelling", if it were, it'd not only be nationwide, but would have existed long before now.
You must have taken a triple dose of stupid pills today, small Peter.

You seem to have forgotten (or never learned) that the 14th amendment was originally passed to extend citizenship to blacks and guarantee to them the same civil rights as white citizens enjoyed at the time. And yet it took another hundred years before that promise came to fruition and it required a civil rights movement of blacks and their supporters to push the process along with court challenges, civil disobedience, rallies, etc. Our history shows historical discrimination against a minority group isn't eliminated overnight even when mandated by a constitutional amendment or court rulings.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I just love how Mrs. Blowme's little boy Neil has brought such credit to the family name. Why he could be a spokesman at the next Demorat convention. He can even wear his big boy rainbow underoos, and his cape made out of his Mom's tablecloth.
And Mrs. Armando's little boy peter can be a featured speaker at tea party rallies in his orange prison jumpsuit with the butt flap that provides easy access when his male cell mates want to engage in coitus with him.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11468 Oct 15, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we are superior. We see to it that mankind doesn't end.
You and your partner can't do that.
That doesn't make you superior. It makes you breeding stock.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#11469 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Actually, gays and lesbians can choose who they wish, however I don't advocate legal marriage being redefined in order to provide same sex couples with a legal structure for their relationships. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not it is sound public policy to legally fundamentally, alter a vital social institution.
That vital social institution ISN'T being altered, it's just being INCLUSIVE on the fundamental right to decide for one's self who they want to marry.........marriage is about 2 people deciding to make a life together regardless of wanting a family or being able to have a family........it STARTS with the 2 individuals becoming jointed together in a marital ceremony......and that is NOT defined by strictly male/female anatomy........now, maybe a 150 years ago LOVE was not necessary or require in order for a marriage to take place......but today, ask ANY couple why they opted to marry and most will tell you it's because of how much they love the person and CAN'T see their life without that person being a part of their life.......so, again, you can believe whatever ya want.......but I'm legally married to my wife and there is NO male involved!!!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11470 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't mean it's "compelling", if it were, it'd not only be nationwide, but would have existed long before now.
Hell. You believe in an invisible zombie god in the sky. That hardly makes you an arbiter of what is considered 'compelling' evidence.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11473 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh of course.....I get it now...that's why the court ruled against racial segregation within marriage but said gender segregation in marriage was acceptable........no wait.....that doesn't sound right.....hmmmmmm....maybe it goes back to slavery.....when boat loads of gay people were brought over to this continent in chains......no that can't be it....."gay only" water fountains......"gay only" building entrances.......nope...can't be that.....lets see.....when was the word "heterosexual" coined again?
It's only 'gender segregation' to the grievously stupid. The rest of us realize that some people are gay.... and we won our 'equal protection' claim in court. It's only a matter of waiting for the cases to wind their way through the system for the anti-gay State ammendments to fall.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11474 Oct 15, 2013
Wise_Crack_er wrote:
<quoted text>Stop lying. It's always been written as "one man and one woman".
You want that ALTERED to "include" same sex couples.
If it's "always been written" then why were constitutional amendments needed to prohibit gay marriage?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11475 Oct 15, 2013
Wise_Crack_er wrote:
<quoted text>
This is true. While all sterile couples are NOT homosexual, all homosexual couples ARE incapable of procreating, and therefore, effectively "sterile".
<quoted text>
And every single one of them requires a member of the opposite sex.
<quoted text>
Still Sterile.
Strike Three.
buh-bye, now......buh-BYE....
Except for the teeny tiny detail that the ability to procreate has never been a requirement for marriage. Kinda makes you look simple.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11476 Oct 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have taken a triple dose of stupid pills today, small Peter.
You seem to have forgotten (or never learned) that the 14th amendment was originally passed to extend citizenship to blacks and guarantee to them the same civil rights as white citizens enjoyed at the time. And yet it took another hundred years before that promise came to fruition and it required a civil rights movement of blacks and their supporters to push the process along with court challenges, civil disobedience, rallies, etc. Our history shows historical discrimination against a minority group isn't eliminated overnight even when mandated by a constitutional amendment or court rulings.
<quoted text>
And Mrs. Armando's little boy peter can be a featured speaker at tea party rallies in his orange prison jumpsuit with the butt flap that provides easy access when his male cell mates want to engage in coitus with him.
Tea partiers are scary stupid.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#11477 Oct 15, 2013
Wise_Crack_er wrote:
<quoted text>Stop lying. It's always been written as "one man and one woman".
You want that ALTERED to "include" same sex couples.
Not really......go back to early centuries and you will see otherwise!!!

Hate to inform you but MARRIAGE already includes Gay and Lesbian couples:-)

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
GOP leader: NC officials can refuse to marry gays 6 min Sir Andrew 35
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 12 min Roose Big Ho 3,100
Appeal sought in Puerto Rico gay marriage case 14 min NE Jade 7
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 19 min barry 1,534
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 28 min Brad 68,113
Biggest Gay Lies 36 min Rico 2,445
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 37 min Avenger 1,996
Gay kiss couple 'thrown off bus' 46 min Pattysboi 33
Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Se... 2 hr Prosperity Fundie... 159

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE