Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15147 Jan 2, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What that exact role is in explaining same sex attraction, is still yet undetermined.
You are so transparently stupid. We don't quite understand gravity, either. We're not sure what dark energy is, but we know that it's causing the universe to accelerate. There are lots of things we know without fully understanding them.

For instance, I can't understand how you can post such stupid garbage ad nauseum. But there it is on the boards for all to see.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15148 Jan 2, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
Me too. On the other hand, Free Speech doesn't force a broadcaster to support your speech. If I were on talk shows and the internet bad-mouthing my employer, I wouldn't have a job for long. I would still have the right to bad-mouth them, but I don't have a right to a job when I embarrass them. Phil Robertson has repeatedly embarrassed his employer.
If A&E had just said they don't agree with Phil's views, there would be no problem. Instead, they locked him out of his workplace without legal recourse. This proves, same sex marriage is about shutting down free speech in favor of PC speech codes instead of liberty.

If you love freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#15150 Jan 3, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
History will be the ultimate judge of whether or not fundamentally redefining marriage will be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral.
Oh, HISTORY will be the judge? Then, you'd agree that Brian_G is being premature and false in simply ASSERTING that same sex marriage is harmful NOW to men and women? He seems to think that we can make that judgment today, WITHOUT waiting for history to weigh in. Do you agree or disagree with him?

Of course, if history is to be the judge, then we must allow these marriages to go forth. Otherwise, we would not be able to collect data on whether they are beneficial or detrimental. We can't make an assessment on the effects of something, if we don't allow that something to happen! Agree or disagree?

But I'm curious how MUCH history you think we need, before we can make these judgments. Some places in the US have been recognizing same-sex marriages for a decade. Is that long enough yet? Some world nations have been going longer than that. When will they begin to show their "harms"? Brian-G has suggested that we must wait 12 generations before we will see these effects. Depending on how one measures a generation, that could be anywhere from 240 to 300 years. Does that sound like a fair amount of time to you? Too little? Too much? RIDICULOUSLY too much?

What "harms" are we looking for, exactly? Can you not give SOME idea what we should be looking for? And why are you not worried about the harms that Civil Unions would cause? If this legal arrangement will provide all the exact same rights, and will lead to same-sex couples taking all the exact same actions in their lives, then why should we fear the changes from same-sex marriages, but not from civil unions? How can you be SURE that civil unions won't ALSO cause harm? Why don't you seem concerned that this is a possibility? Shouldn't we allow time and history to be the judge of civil unions also? Why or why not?
Pietro Armando wrote:
I lost track of our last exchange, every time I try to go back, I get distracted by another post from someone else. If you remember how far back it was, please, if you'd be so kind, refresh my memory. Grazie.
Oh, why don't you at least try to dodge today's questions, before we go looking for questions in the past for you to dodge?

I think you were completely ignoring the fact that people with homosexual desires have been historically killed, locked up and given extreme treatments such as electroshock or chemical castrations, and then you were naively wondering why a cultural identity did not develop and thrive under such oppressive abuse. You may have also been going on about some kind of enforced national registry of sexual orientation being a good idea, so that people must still marry according to your own personal preferences for them. There might also have been some complaint about gay married couples depriving children of their biological parents, while you had no opinion about gay UNmarried couples adopting, thereby depriving children of their biological parents.

You know, the usual types of logical, compassionate and attentive arguments we have come to expect here.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15151 Jan 3, 2014
We've already seen same sex marriage cause harm on the will of the voters, the legislature and the law in California, Massachusetts, Iowa and now Utah. In Egypt, the military overturns elections and in America its the activist leftist judges.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#15152 Jan 3, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
We've already seen same sex marriage cause harm on the will of the voters, the legislature and the law in California, Massachusetts, Iowa and now Utah. In Egypt, the military overturns elections and in America its the activist leftist judges.
WHAT "harm"? Name the harm.

Do you support Civil Unions, like Pietro does? Do you think they cause equal harm?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15153 Jan 3, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
WHAT "harm"? Name the harm.
Do you support Civil Unions, like Pietro does? Do you think they cause equal harm?
Civil unions are SOOO last decade. I would be surprised if any more states enact civil unions or domestic partnerships. There are currently only four states that recognize those whatchamacallits. In any event, every state will be forced to accept marriage equality long before many of them would have voluntarily recognized same-sex couples.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#15154 Jan 3, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
Civil unions are SOOO last decade. I would be surprised if any more states enact civil unions or domestic partnerships. There are currently only four states that recognize those whatchamacallits. In any event, every state will be forced to accept marriage equality long before many of them would have voluntarily recognized same-sex couples.
Oh I agree. I just don't understand how these opponents can fearmonger on and on about some supposed "harms" of same-sex marriage, while these "harms" seem to be magically eliminated if we use civil unions instead. And yet, none of these people can ennumerate the differences, if any, between civil unions and marriages. They champion civil unions, but they cannot prove that civil unions will NOT cause the very same harm (whatever that may be). They want us to wait and see what history tells us about same-sex marriage, but they don't seem to think that we need to wait for history to tell us anything about civil unions. It is a vacuum of logic.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#15155 Jan 3, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
We've already seen same sex marriage cause harm on the will of the voters, the legislature and the law in California, Massachusetts, Iowa and now Utah. In Egypt, the military overturns elections and in America its the activist leftist judges.
on the cases brought before the courts.....there were NO RECOGNIZABLE HARMS. that is, your side "tried" to say some things that were ultimately refuted by THEIR OWN WITNESSES, and the judges found there was no state interest in not allowing same sex couples to marry.

....and that "will" of the voters? how about you try to show us from ALL the eligible voters that were registered with those states, just how many voted against same sex marriage? how big was that percentile of the entire voting base in each of those states?

bi, truly, get the facts before you spout off.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15156 Jan 3, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I agree. I just don't understand how these opponents can fearmonger on and on about some supposed "harms" of same-sex marriage, while these "harms" seem to be magically eliminated if we use civil unions instead. And yet, none of these people can ennumerate the differences, if any, between civil unions and marriages. They champion civil unions, but they cannot prove that civil unions will NOT cause the very same harm (whatever that may be). They want us to wait and see what history tells us about same-sex marriage, but they don't seem to think that we need to wait for history to tell us anything about civil unions. It is a vacuum of logic.
Civil whatchamacallits are nothing but a diversion. Unless facing the prospect of same-sex marriage actually passing, no one opposed to marriage would vote for comprehensive civil rights in any form.

This construct merely gives cover to people who want to appear generous to gay people while treating them as part of a different species. When have you ever seen a group that opposes same-sex marriage advocating for civil whatchamcallits? It hasn't happened yet. The same groups which funded the fight against same-sex marriage in Maine in 2009 simultaneously funded the fight against domestic partnerships in Washington state. All the while, they were running around Maine proclaiming how great they thought civil unions were and that they only opposed "marriage."

When a state finally enacts civil whatchmacallits, it's only because the homophobes have no other choice but to allow full marriage equality. And true equality follows shortly. The longest any state has waited was Vermont, and that was only 8 years.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#15157 Jan 3, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I agree. I just don't understand how these opponents can fearmonger on and on about some supposed "harms" of same-sex marriage, while these "harms" seem to be magically eliminated if we use civil unions instead. And yet, none of these people can ennumerate the differences, if any, between civil unions and marriages. They champion civil unions, but they cannot prove that civil unions will NOT cause the very same harm (whatever that may be). They want us to wait and see what history tells us about same-sex marriage, but they don't seem to think that we need to wait for history to tell us anything about civil unions. It is a vacuum of logic.
what ol' bi would've said to :
the inventors of polio vaccine "lets just wait and see how it works, ok?"

the wright brothers "let's just see how this thing really flies with some history behind it. let's not rush into anything"

the pioneers of the old west "let's just wait and see if anyone comes back - the earth is flat, ya know, at least that's what history shows us"

the founding fathers of this great nation "let's just wait and see how this democracy thingy works out. we've just never seen a revolution for freedoms and equality before in history. we just don't know who'll be harmed"

the inventors of computers "let's just wait and see if we'll even need computers - they could hurt somebody if we don't pull in the reigns and see what history tells us"

feel free to add your own "what ifs" about other important subjects.....LOL

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#15158 Jan 3, 2014
heartandmind wrote:
what ol' bi would've said to :
the inventors of polio vaccine "lets just wait and see how it works, ok?"
the wright brothers "let's just see how this thing really flies with some history behind it. let's not rush into anything"
the pioneers of the old west "let's just wait and see if anyone comes back - the earth is flat, ya know, at least that's what history shows us"
the founding fathers of this great nation "let's just wait and see how this democracy thingy works out. we've just never seen a revolution for freedoms and equality before in history. we just don't know who'll be harmed"
the inventors of computers "let's just wait and see if we'll even need computers - they could hurt somebody if we don't pull in the reigns and see what history tells us"
feel free to add your own "what ifs" about other important subjects.....LOL
and certainly he would say that the BEST way to gather information about these practices while we "wait and see", is to disallow them entirely. Because, in a dozen generations, when we have NO data on practices that we've banned, that will help us learn about them! Somehow.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#15159 Jan 3, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
I lost track of our last exchange, every time I try to go back, I get distracted by another post from someone else. If you remember how far back it was, please, if you'd be so kind, refresh my memory. Grazie.
Oh, and also, I think you were going on about how YOUR questions get to the "heart of the issue", and therefore merit answering, while my questions can be shunted aside if they don't address whatever "heart" you decide is important.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15160 Jan 3, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so transparently stupid.
Such a lame insult. If you're going to resort to such tactics, at least do so with some creativity.
We don't quite understand gravity, either. We're not sure what dark energy is, but we know that it's causing the universe to accelerate. There are lots of things we know without fully understanding them.
That is true, however we do know that "homosexual" was a word that wasn't coined until the late 19th century, and "heterosexual" followed a decade or two after that. We also know the "sexual identity" concept is a virtual modern invention, despite the existence of same sex sexual behavior throughout human history.
For instance, I can't understand how you can post such stupid garbage ad nauseum. But there it is on the boards for all to see.
Nor can I understand your use of such lame insults, as a substitute for addressing posts you either do not agree with, or do not understand.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#15161 Jan 3, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Ask Phil Robertson if GLAAD and other same sex marriage supporters didn't impact when they encouraged his employer to lock him out of work during the Christmas holidays. Ask the Christian florists, bakers and photographers who were sued for declining to support same sex marriage if there was any impact. The issue isn't freedom, every state allows same sex religious weddings, travel to jurisdictions that license same sex marriage and same sex habitation.
The issue is the greater social good, every gay was born from the union of one man and one woman. That's why marriage is male/female.
Your hero Robertson just need a good baby dummy. I suggest you buy him one.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#15162 Jan 3, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If A&E had just said they don't agree with Phil's views, there would be no problem. Instead, they locked him out of his workplace without legal recourse. This proves, same sex marriage is about shutting down free speech in favor of PC speech codes instead of liberty.
If you love freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman.
Then they reinstated the dingbat. IMO the collective wrists of A&E are much limper than any gay man's.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#15163 Jan 3, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Such a lame insult. If you're going to resort to such tactics, at least do so with some creativity.
<quoted text>
That is true, however we do know that "homosexual" was a word that wasn't coined until the late 19th century, and "heterosexual" followed a decade or two after that. We also know the "sexual identity" concept is a virtual modern invention, despite the existence of same sex sexual behavior throughout human history.
<quoted text>
Nor can I understand your use of such lame insults, as a substitute for addressing posts you either do not agree with, or do not understand.
That's right. By a writer named Karoly-Maria (or Karl) Kertbeny.
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/karl-maria-k...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15164 Jan 4, 2014
heartandmind wrote:
...bi, truly, get the facts before you spout off.
^^^Do you ever wonder which slur heartandmind uses to address homosexuals? Think it's the f* word?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15165 Jan 4, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
WHAT "harm"? Name the harm. Do you support Civil Unions, like Pietro does? Do you think they cause equal harm?
The harm comes from overturning lawful elections; same sex marriage is antidemocratic. See Shelby's ruling on Utah's constitutional referendum for proof.
MoonGoddess777

Winter Haven, FL

#15166 Jan 4, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
How many people have lost jobs because they are gay? Despite all the howling and whining from the religious leaders, the backlash against supporters of Prop 8 has been all-but-nonexistent.
How many people left their jobs because they will not be bother with another gay worker on a personal level.

How many people had to go into business to get away from the perverts in corp America?

How many people due to the fact their skin color was pigmented have been been discriminated against employment, housing, living, kwk.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#15167 Jan 4, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Do you ever wonder which slur heartandmind uses to address homosexuals? Think it's the f* word?
F**kwit? It aint the homosexuals who are that.

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 HIV rates dropping for U.K. gay men 12 min Lamar 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 19 min Aquarius-WY 14,000
News Getting used to gay unions 22 min Frankie Rizzo 9
News Aboriginal drag queen bringing gay pride to reg... 25 min Hoss Lightfoot 20
News Roy Moore accuser says she was not paid to tell... 34 min moore4prison 35
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 36 min Fabio 26,557
News This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for being born gay 2 hr GodSmacked 75
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite 5 hr GodSmacked 112
More from around the web