Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments (Page 547)

Showing posts 10,921 - 10,940 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11853
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Xaviers Breath Mint wrote:
<quoted text>
Frustrated much? Resorting to weak profane insults....sad.
Giving the facts of the lawsuit is resorting to weak profane insults? Gee... why aren't you jumping all over the other poster for LYING?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11854
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
Was every race addressed or defined? Could blacks marry Asians? Were whites barred from marrying blacks but not Indians? How did the law apply to mixed race individuals?
It was addressed in 1967, bans on interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional. Period, end of story. There was no need to address the issue on a race by race basis.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The problem with your comparison to bans on interracial marriage is that it ignores the obvious. Marriage of interracial couples were still viewed as marriage as it was understood throughout American history, the union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife. The issue was not whether their union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember interracial marriage did exist in various parts of the country, at various times, including mid 19th century NYC when black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Not so with same sex unions. Not everyone agrees a same sex union is "marriage", nor was it legally designated such until 2004, in any state.
Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping the races apart, and preventing mixed race babies. SSM is about keeping the sexes apart, and no babies.
Of course, the fundamental problem with your argument is that you still lack the ability to offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional, and render your argument valid.

When you advance such an argument absent any such interest, you merely succeed in making yourself look like a fool.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11855
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Was every race addressed or defined? Could blacks marry Asians? Were whites barred from marrying blacks but not Indians? How did the law apply to mixed race individuals?
<quoted text>
The problem with your comparison to bans on interracial marriage is that it ignores the obvious. Marriage of interracial couples were still viewed as marriage as it was understood throughout American history, the union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife. The issue was not whether their union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember interracial marriage did exist in various parts of the country, at various times, including mid 19th century NYC when black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Not so with same sex unions. Not everyone agrees a same sex union is "marriage", nor was it legally designated such until 2004, in any state.
Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping the races apart, and preventing mixed race babies. SSM is about keeping the sexes apart, and no babies.
Saying that SSM is about keeping the sexes apart is about as stupid as it gets. Marriage is about the two people involved in the contract.

I know your feelings are hurt because you are losing this fight. Did you ever stop to think about why you are losing, and why your arguments are rejected by the Courts?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11856
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Saying that SSM is about keeping the sexes apart is about as stupid as it gets. Marriage is about the two people involved in the contract.
I know your feelings are hurt because you are losing this fight. Did you ever stop to think about why you are losing, and why your arguments are rejected by the Courts?
Did ya ever wonder why the Supreme Court never said same sex marriage is a fundamental right? Why even they, five justices actually, didn't go so far as to impose same sex marriage nationwide?

Now what are you going to do when a plural marriage family win the right to have their marriage(a) legally recognized, citing SSM as a precedent?

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/11...
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11857
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Before the 21st century, all custom and law defined marriage as male/female. The 30 states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of one man and one woman marriage did that in response to court challenges from same sex marriage supporters.
Let the people decide, not unelected and unaccountable courts. Same sex marriage came to the USA by court decision, not by vote. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Many gay conservatives actively oppose courts imposing their morality without the consent of the governed.
Before 1967, all custom and law defined marriage as A COUPLE OF THE SAME RACE. The states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of same race marriage did that in response to court challenges from different race marriage supporters.
Let the people decide, not unelected and unaccountable courts. Different race marriage came to the USA by court decision, not by vote. That's why different race marriage is antidemocratic.
Many black conservatives actively oppose courts imposing their morality without the consent of the governed.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11858
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Brian_G wrote:
Right, gay rights are human rights;
You almost had it right, Brian. Gays are human so have the SAME human rights that heterosexuals do.
Brian_G wrote:
not the special right to rewrite marriage law for everyone or to expel a student for her religious beliefs.
Gays have the same right to petition government to address their grievances that you do, Brian. Did you rant and whine when anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional and changed marriage laws for everyone?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11859
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Brian_G wrote:
How were those three Christian's marriages impacted with fines and court summons because they refused to participate in same sex marriage rituals?
How is anyone's marriage impacted when one of the spouses breaks the law, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Would you defend atheists who refused to participate in a same sex wedding?
If they broke the same the law, the consequences should be the same.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage harms everyone;
Lie.
Brian_G wrote:
that's why we protect marriage as one man and one woman.
No, YOU do so out of animus towards gays, Brian.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11860
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Brian_G wrote:
WW asked where same sex marriage harms "anyone's existing marriage" and when I give three examples, calls the harm: drivel.
You didn't give any examples of someone's marriage being harmed. You merely provided the consequences of someone's actions resulting from breaking the law. Any "harm" to the marriage in that situation is the result of the one breaking the law.

And of course you ignore the demonstrable harm done to gays by your advocacy of discrimination against them, hypocrite.
Brian_G wrote:
Want to know how same sex marriage harms existing marriages, ask Elane Huguenin and her husband Jonathan jointly own their family business, Elane Photography who were sued for refusing to participate in a same sex wedding ritual.
Then they simply share joint responsibility for their bad business decision to break the law.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage harms everyone.
Lie.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11861
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"The organization that owns the property"
How can this 'organization' own public property?
Can you refer me to that deal, you know, the exchange tax exempt for equal public access? I'm sure there must be a public record. You never say anything you can't back up. BWAHAHAHA!
Here you go. No more excuses for not knowing what you're talking about, except for your overwhelming will to remain ignorant.

http://www.aclu-nj.org/files/8713/2639/9826/C...
Judge Metzger wrote:
n July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2).
Neptune Township, the municipality within which respondent is located, opposed the application on grounds that respondent is governed by religious restrictions that make equal-access doubtful. At a public hearing conducted by the Department of
Environmental Protection in September 1989, respondent represented that the Pavilion was available for public use without reservation. Following the hearing the Department approved the tax exemption on certain conditions, one of which required the property to be open for public use on an equal basis. Respondent renewed this application every three years as required, and the tax exemption was continued through the period in question here with the same condition for equal access.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11862
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Wondering wrote:
Was Mildred Loving a woman?
Yes.
Wondering wrote:
Was Richard Loving a man?
Yes.
Wondering wrote:
Did the law forbid them from marrying?
They were prevented from marrying because of their race, not because they were a man or a woman. They each could have married someone of the opposite sex had they abided by the race restriction. Which is why SCOTUS ruled the the race restriction unconstitutional and did not instead rule the right of opposite sex couples to marry was absolute.

If SCOTUS had ruled the latter, that would have overturned consanguinity restrictions too. A fact you apparently realized belatedly after I rubbed your face in your usual stupidity when you asserted ANY restriction on men and women marrying was unconstitutional.

And your intellectual dishonesty for deleting that part of my comments from your reply is noted. It's too bad for you that you can't as easily delete your stupidity as well.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11863
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

Brian_G wrote:
WW asked where same sex marriage harms "anyone's existing marriage" and when I give three examples, calls the harm: drivel.
Because your three examples didn't show how anyone's marriages were harmed. You presented how three people's businesses were harmed because they broke the law.
Feel free to try again. How has any straight person's marriage been harmed by mine Brian?
Waiting....
Waiting....
Waiting....
Brian_G wrote:
Want to know how same sex marriage harms existing marriages, ask Elane Huguenin and her husband Jonathan jointly own their family business, Elane Photography who were sued for refusing to participate in a same sex wedding ritual.
Same sex marriage harms everyone.
There marriages weren't affected, their business were, because they broke the law.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11864
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Before the 21st century, all custom and law defined marriage as male/female.
That's just another of your lies, Brian. Ignoring history doesn't make it go away.
Brian_G wrote:
The 30 states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of one man and one woman marriage did that in response to court challenges from same sex marriage supporters.
And thereby also wrote discrimination into their constitutions, which is decidedly anti-american. That will, however, be corrected in due time.
Brian_G wrote:
Let the people decide, not unelected and unaccountable courts.
Whether some citizens are given civil rights is not for the majority to decide, Brian. SCOTUS has ruled otherwise in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage came to the USA by court decision, not by vote. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
It came initially by court decision because the restriction on gender violated the fundamental rights of gays and was deemed unconstitutional. Of the 14 states and District of Columbia now giving legal recognition to same sex marriage, over half have been the result of legislative action by the people's elected representatives in removing the unconstitutional restriction on exercising the fundamental right to marry.
Brian_G wrote:
Many gay conservatives actively oppose courts imposing their morality without the consent of the governed.
Far more Americans of every political stripe support same sex marriage because it removes discrimination based on bigotry and animus towards gays.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11865
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
Was every race addressed or defined? Could blacks marry Asians? Were whites barred from marrying blacks but not Indians? How did the law apply to mixed race individuals?
Not germane to the questions you posed.

Could Mildred Loving marry? Yes, to a man of the appropriate race.

Could Richard Loving marry? Yes, to a woman of the appropriate race.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The problem with your comparison to bans on interracial marriage is that it ignores the obvious. Marriage of interracial couples were still viewed as marriage as it was understood throughout American history, the union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife. The issue was not whether their union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember interracial marriage did exist in various parts of the country, at various times, including mid 19th century NYC when black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Not so with same sex unions. Not everyone agrees a same sex union is "marriage", nor was it legally designated such until 2004, in any state.
Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping the races apart, and preventing mixed race babies.
No, interracial marriages were NOT viewed as 'marriage' throughout American history.

The issue was not whether a same-sex union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember same-sex marriage does exist in various parts of the country.

Yes, not everyone agrees a same sex union is 'marriage', but 14 states sanction such as marriages and several more states (Oregon just this month) and the federal government recognize such unions as valid, legal marriages.

Bans on same-sex marriage are about keeping the privileges of marriage as a SPECIAL RIGHT for heterosexuals only.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM is about keeping the sexes apart...
What an inane statement.
Pietro Armando wrote:
...and no babies.
Then why do so many same-sex families have and are raising children? The fact that they do was one of the reasons the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court mandated marriage equality for same-sex families. Goodridge 2003

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11866
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
Was every race addressed or defined? Could blacks marry Asians? Were whites barred from marrying blacks but not Indians? How did the law apply to mixed race individuals?
Why do you keep asking the same questions for which you already received answers, small Peter? Are you truly uneducable or just desperate for attention?
Pietro Armando wrote:
The problem with your comparison to bans on interracial marriage is that it ignores the obvious. Marriage of interracial couples were still viewed as marriage as it was understood throughout American history, the union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife.
They weren't viewed as marriages in the states in which they forbidden, small Peter. It's irrelevant what other states did or didn't recognize. And unlike most differences in state marriage laws such as whether first cousins could marry, Virginia's law didn't extend recognition to interracial marriages performed in other states. It was an absolute ban, period.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The issue was not whether their union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember interracial marriage did exist in various parts of the country, at various times, including mid 19th century NYC when black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Not so with same sex unions. Not everyone agrees a same sex union is "marriage", nor was it legally designated such until 2004, in any state.
That interracial discrimination wasn't universal like that against gays isn't the reason why the interracial ban was struck down, small Peter. You still can't grasp the concept of constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the law in that tiny, withered, uneducable brain of yours.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping the races apart, and preventing mixed race babies. SSM is about keeping the sexes apart, and no babies.
The flaw in your stupid theory, small Peter, is mandatory sex "integration" is just as unconstitutional as mandatory racial segregation. Both are an infringement on an individual's ability to freely select a marriage partner with which to exercise their fundamental right of marriage. That's why the government doesn't care if most people still marry within their race because now it's a free choice of the individuals rather than a government mandated requirement.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11867
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

8

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Before 1967, all custom and law defined marriage as A COUPLE OF THE SAME RACE. The states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of same race marriage did that in response to court challenges from different race marriage supporters.
http://www.angelfire.com/space/cropcircles/
History of Interracial Marriages

In history of interracial marriages there was no support to those couples that choose to date or marry someone of a different race. The biggest problem our country faced with this issue arose in the era of slavery. The White race wanted to maintain the race superiority and thus used laws against interracial, especially Black and White unions of any kind. Our early history is an indicator that Black and White interracial unions have always faced the most social pressures. During the slavery era, the White race was concerned that marriages between Blacks and Whites carried implications of social equalities. Social equalities were exactly what the White race was trying to avoid, so these unions were not to their benefit.

It has been said that there is no better place to examine prohibitions on interracial relationships as in the state of Virginia, because this state possessed a vast amount of leadership in the concept of slavery, and it was also the first state to legally define race. Virginia has an extensive background for its opposition to interracial marriages.

In the late 1600's Virginia enacted laws against marriages of different races. The laws were specifically targeting the union between Whites and Blacks. Their justifications for banning interracial marriages were: White supremacy, protection of White womanhood, and prevention of mixed children. The law creators believed marriages between Whites and Blacks reduced White supremacy because social equality was slowly emerging as these marriages occurred. Protection of White womanhood refers to White woman remaining pure, away from the hands of any Blacks. Lawmakers wanted to prevent mixed children because mixed children were considered mentally and physically inferior to pure White race children, although there was no scientific proof for any of these inferiorities. The lawmakers also disapproved the idea of mixed races because the physical characteristics of a person defined their place and benefits in society. If the person was White then they received privileges, if they were not White then they were rejected by society and did not receive any privileges. This became a problem when interracial couples had biracial children who looked White; the burden was on the state to try to prove that the person was something other than what they looked. To avoid these situations, the states simply made laws to try to avoid them from arising.

The issues got so out of hand that the Whites created ways of identifying how much Black heritage a person carried within them. This system has been labeled "passing" for the simple reason that it allowed some people with Black heritage to pass and be accepted as a White person. The categories Blacks could be placed in were as follows: Sacatra, Griffe, Marabon, Mulatto, Quadroon, Metif, Meamelouc, Quarteron, and Sang-mele.

A Sacatra was half Griffe and half Black. A Griffe was half Black and half Mulatto. A Marabon was half Mulatto and half Griffe. A Mulatto was half White and half Black. A Quadroon was half White and half Mulatto. A Metif was half White and half Quadroon. A Meamelouc was half White and half Metif. A Quarteron was half White and half Meamelouc. A Sang-mele was half White and half Quarteron.

The penalties for any person of the White race who chose to marry someone of the Black race, was banishment from the colony. Black men who married or had sexual relations with a White woman were convicted of rape and were put to death, yet White men were never charged with rape much less put to death for having sexual relations with a Black woman.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11868
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did ya ever wonder why the Supreme Court never said same sex marriage is a fundamental right?
Because SCOTUS has yet to have a case before them that required them to make such a determination. As you've been told countless times previously but refuse to learn, courts in general and SCOTUS in particular rule narrowly on the actual merits of the case at hand rather than broadly on questions not before them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why even they, five justices actually, didn't go so far as to impose same sex marriage nationwide?
Because the issue in Windsor v. United States was whether the federal government had to recognize the legal marriage status of a citizen granted by the state, not whether all states must recognize or allow same sex marriages.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Now what are you going to do when a plural marriage family win the right to have their marriage(a) legally recognized, citing SSM as a precedent?
There has to be a lawsuit challenging anti-bigamy laws first, small Peter. And to date, none of the polygamists you use as examples for argument but don't really support anyway have yet to file such a lawsuit. If and when they do, their case will be decided on its own merits, just like the cases brought by gays. After all, Loving v. Virginia didn't automatically make same sex marriage legally recognized.
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://supreme.justia.com/case s/federal/us/114/15/case.html
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.
That SCOTUS ruling is about eligibility to register to vote in Utah if one is involved in a polygamous marriage or co-habitating with multiple adults of mixed gender., small Peter. It's not an affirmation of the constitutionality of anti-bigamy laws

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11869
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Fa-Foxy wrote:
Before 1967, all custom and law defined marriage as A COUPLE OF THE SAME RACE. The states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of same race marriage did that in response to court challenges from different race marriage supporters.
Let the people decide, not unelected and unaccountable courts. Different race marriage came to the USA by court decision, not by vote. That's why different race marriage is antidemocratic.
Many black conservatives actively oppose courts imposing their morality without the consent of the governed.
^^^This is untrue, it applies to only one state, not the whole country. Interracial marriage has always been legal in America, not so for same sex marriage.

Because same sex marriage is sex segregation marriage and Americans prefer integration and diversity of one man and one woman marriage.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11870
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is untrue, it applies to only one state, not the whole country. Interracial marriage has always been legal in America, not so for same sex marriage.
Actually, neither of you is correct. Most states banned interracial marriage at one time or another but not all as fa-foxy incorrectly asserted nor only one as you erroneously assert, Brian. Further, most slaves were prohibited from marrying even other slaves, so in the south at one point in history blacks generally weren't allowed to marry at all.
Brian_G wrote:
Because same sex marriage is sex segregation marriage and Americans prefer integration and diversity of one man and one woman marriage.
If integration and diversity was what Americans preferred, then interracial and interfaith marriages would be required. The fact they aren't and citizens can freely choose to self segregate on various characteristics like race or religion when marrying merely proves how stupid you are, Brian. Not to mention being a world class liar.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11871
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is untrue, it applies to only one state, not the whole country. Interracial marriage has always been legal in America, not so for same sex marriage.
Because same sex marriage is sex segregation marriage and Americans prefer integration and diversity of one man and one woman marriage.
Actually it was TRUE.......only 19 states had removed their laws forbidding interracial marriages, but most still had them when the ruling in Loving came down!!!

Do the research!!!

Sorry, but marriage had occurred between folks of the Same-Sex long before the 21st Century......even if you don't agree with it or like it!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11872
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it was TRUE.......only 19 states had removed their laws forbidding interracial marriages, but most still had them when the ruling in Loving came down!!!
Do the research!!!
Sorry, but marriage had occurred between folks of the Same-Sex long before the 21st Century......even if you don't agree with it or like it!!!
So why hasn't ssm sustained it self, cross time, cross cultural, throughout history?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 10,921 - 10,940 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

54 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 3 min deutscher Nationalstolz 50,665
Philly Fun 7 min mark in Toronto 3
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 11 min KKKafeteria Christianists 7
Morale gap among LGBT federal workers persists 13 min Homostats 2
Russian Embassy: Our Homophobia Is No Worse Tha... 14 min KKKafeteria Christianists 2
Rob Ford stays seated during standing ovation f... 15 min KKKafeteria Christianists 7
Scranton Venue Says No to Same-Sex Weddings 28 min lgbt is silly 6
Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors 48 min KiMare 1,563
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 1,843
Tony Perkins Warns Support of Gay Rights by 'Li... 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 38
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••