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

#16389 Feb 6, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage was created so children may be raised in a home by their mother and father. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
And you have yet to provide a single example of a child who had better alternatives. We're waiting, but we're not holding our breath.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16390 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The question in Reynolds, if you had actually bothered to read the decision, is the legality of the grand jury, and whether this was an infringement of religious freedom. the court decided that neither was the case.
It's a good idea to know a little about a case before one starts spouting BS. Particularly, if they are intent upon including things that are outside the scope of the ruling rendered.
Most of the Court’s argument is dedicated to the original meaning of the Constitution’s religion clauses, but also noteworthy is its passing comment on the basis of the law in question, a basis that the Court at that time apparently found unquestionably legitimate:“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”

Reynolds has never been overturned and indeed has been cited as an authority by the modern Supreme Court. In it the Court tells us straightforwardly the basis of laws prohibiting polygamy: moral disapproval of the practice.
- See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/972...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16391 Feb 6, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the deal.
You play grabass with your "partner" all you want.
I agree you should hold that right. Crap - marry the fruit, who cares???
But when it comes to you and yours suddenly taking your newly found freedoms and telling heterosexuals how to live and behave we'll shove your fresh found freedoms back to where they came.
OK??????????
Could you present the post number where some one told you how to live or behave? Yeah, I didn't think so. Just another jackass whiner. You sound like a sniveling 8 year old.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16392 Feb 6, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Most of the Court’s argument is dedicated to the original meaning of the Constitution’s religion clauses, but also noteworthy is its passing comment on the basis of the law in question, a basis that the Court at that time apparently found unquestionably legitimate:“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”
Reynolds has never been overturned and indeed has been cited as an authority by the modern Supreme Court. In it the Court tells us straightforwardly the basis of laws prohibiting polygamy: moral disapproval of the practice.
- See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/972...
Do you notice that from a decision that is over 100 pages in length, you can find one sentence in passing that supports your absurd notion?

One could almost draw the conclusion that this was not the main thrust of the courts ruling, and that it was in fact little more than a passing mention. None of which negates the simple fact that the court held against Reynolds, and the decision has not been reversed.

Even you must be smart enough to see that the court seems to think that the issue of polygamy poses a substantially differing set of legal issues than interracial marriage, or same sex marriage, which is why the court addresses these issues separately, instead of making sweeping changes to existing law and jurisprudence.

Quit being an idiot and come back to the topic at hand, Frankie. If you are able.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16393 Feb 6, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Love the spin!
No spin required. Try educating yourself rather than just being childish smartass.

http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.asp...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16394 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you notice that from a decision that is over 100 pages in length, you can find one sentence in passing that supports your absurd notion?
One could almost draw the conclusion that this was not the main thrust of the courts ruling, and that it was in fact little more than a passing mention. None of which negates the simple fact that the court held against Reynolds, and the decision has not been reversed.
Even you must be smart enough to see that the court seems to think that the issue of polygamy poses a substantially differing set of legal issues than interracial marriage, or same sex marriage, which is why the court addresses these issues separately, instead of making sweeping changes to existing law and jurisprudence.
Quit being an idiot and come back to the topic at hand, Frankie. If you are able.
Long winded lame dodge. If the reason polygamy is illegal is not moral disapproval "odious", what is it?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16395 Feb 6, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No spin required. Try educating yourself rather than just being childish smartass.
http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.asp...
Like I said, love the spin.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16396 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you notice that from a decision that is over 100 pages in length, you can find one sentence in passing that supports your absurd notion?
One could almost draw the conclusion that this was not the main thrust of the courts ruling, and that it was in fact little more than a passing mention. None of which negates the simple fact that the court held against Reynolds, and the decision has not been reversed.
Even you must be smart enough to see that the court seems to think that the issue of polygamy poses a substantially differing set of legal issues than interracial marriage, or same sex marriage, which is why the court addresses these issues separately, instead of making sweeping changes to existing law and jurisprudence.
Quit being an idiot and come back to the topic at hand, Frankie. If you are able.
“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16397 Feb 6, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Long winded lame dodge. If the reason polygamy is illegal is not moral disapproval "odious", what is it?
Frankie, it was neither long winded, nor was it a dodge. You are arguing irrelevant drivel, likely because you are too stupid to see that it is irrelevant.

Learn to count, Frankie.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”
Frankie, that is one sentence out of over 100 pages. Were you not an imbecile, you would realize that this is not the foundation of the decision, and that it is in fact little more than a passing mention.

The end reality remains, the decision goes against your position, and has not been overturned. What is more, the court has ruled on many other marriage cases without disrupting the existing jurisprudence regarding polygamy.

If you could count, you would realize how irrelevant and idiotic your arguments are.

Did you have anything to say about the topic at hand? If not, I am done participating in your idiotic and irrelevant obfuscations. Troll on, moron. Oh, and learn to count.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16398 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie, it was neither long winded, nor was it a dodge. You are arguing irrelevant drivel, likely because you are too stupid to see that it is irrelevant.
Learn to count, Frankie.
<quoted text>
Frankie, that is one sentence out of over 100 pages. Were you not an imbecile, you would realize that this is not the foundation of the decision, and that it is in fact little more than a passing mention.
The end reality remains, the decision goes against your position, and has not been overturned. What is more, the court has ruled on many other marriage cases without disrupting the existing jurisprudence regarding polygamy.
If you could count, you would realize how irrelevant and idiotic your arguments are.
Did you have anything to say about the topic at hand? If not, I am done participating in your idiotic and irrelevant obfuscations. Troll on, moron. Oh, and learn to count.
Some one who insists "you can't count" is a legitimate reason to deny marriage equality tells me I am idiotic. Too funny!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16399 Feb 6, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, love the spin.
Let us know when you have any actual refutation.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#16400 Feb 6, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you present the post number where some one told you how to live or behave? Yeah, I didn't think so. Just another jackass whiner. You sound like a sniveling 8 year old.
You're an idiot and a game player.

I never mentioned a post dipshit.

Fact is if I was a God fearing Christian I couldn't open a business given the fear I'd have over offending some queer who'd manipulate a law made for real discrimination should I not bake some gay couple a cake or tell them as a photographer I could not take a picture of the both of them in the nude rubbing on each other over fear I'd get sued - and they might win.

Whining??? You mean like gays do daily???

LOL!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16401 Feb 6, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let us know when you have any actual refutation.
It's common knowledge and proven in court that Sandusky was a pedophile, not a "homosexual pedophile" nor a "heterosexual pedophile", just a pedophile.

The spin is when you put the "heterosexual" label on him.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16402 Feb 6, 2014
“Crusading Jonah1 is hilarious!”

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#16403 Feb 6, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Long winded lame dodge. If the reason polygamy is illegal is not moral disapproval "odious", what is it?
The reason is that (1) Enforcing the rules that govern polygamy as it's practiced in the world today as well as historically would be inherently unequal to different members of the polygamous group, thus violating the constitution; and (2) Nobody has ever put forth a list of changes to existing marriage law that would support polygamous marriages.

Until you put forth the changes that you would like to make, expect to be ignored. It's not our place to decide on the changes that you would like to live by.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16404 Feb 6, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
...Until you put forth the changes that you would like to make, expect to be ignored. It's not our place to decide on the changes that you would like to live by.
I am not obviously not being ignored dummy.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16405 Feb 6, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
Until you put forth the changes that you would like to make, expect to be ignored. It's not our place to decide on the changes that you would like to live by.
Frankie finally puts forth a valid claim. Let's ignore his irrelevant BS. Anyone too stupid to count to three, or understand that three or more is greater than two isn't worth debating anyway. Responding to him just rewards their idiotic tactic of obfuscating the thread.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#16406 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone too stupid to count to three, or understand that three or more is greater than two
Still using that? Using your lack of logic, a husband and wife couldn't have children because they would then become more than 2. Can't be giving those families all those 'greater protections.' You're dumber than a shoe.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#16407 Feb 6, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Still using that? Using your lack of logic, a husband and wife couldn't have children because they would then become more than 2. Can't be giving those families all those 'greater protections.' You're dumber than a shoe.
What you posted is ridiculous......lides was discussing multiple adults with regards to marriage and you bring children into the discussion which is NOT the same....why?

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#16408 Feb 6, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Took me a minute given I might not have had the fascination you did with the program.
To Catch A Predator
That was the show. In one segment they caught a Rabbi wanting to have sex with a little BOY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =xt6MmzRRYk0XX
I've seen that show, not that particular episode. Did you know that TWICE as many young girls are molested as young boys??? All by grown MEN. Does that tell you anything, anything at all?

Perhaps you think a 55 year old man arranging for sex with a 14 year old girl is just a normal "heterosexual" encounter.

Pedophiles are pedophiles, they are attracted to underage CHILDREN. Period. Adults with other consenting adults is fine by me....as long as no one gets hurt. CHILDREN of both genders get hurt and two thirds of them are girls. Pedophilia has nothing to do with the normal attraction between adults.

Pedophilia is in a class by itself and it is a crime. ALWAYS.

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 a CDC ban on 'fetus' and 'transgender?' Experts... 18 min Lawrence Wolf 21
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 28 min Wisdom of Ages 15,033
News Masturbation, sharing beds lead to homosexualit... 33 min Jaysus Sharia 14
News While SCOTUS Decides 'Cakeshop' Case, Canadians... 49 min Joe 1
News Dad who protested against Roy Moore honours gay... 1 hr Jaysus Sharia 2
News Philippines' Duterte says he supports gay marriage 1 hr Jaysus Sharia 3
I LOVE CHRISTMaS 1 hr Rudolph 2
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 8 hr E X P O S E D 26,933
More from around the web