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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16945 Feb 18, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing same sex couples to marry does NOT affect the marriages of opposite sex couples in any way, shape or form. People will always reproduce..... marriage doesn't change that.
Allowing marriage to redefined affects society as a whole.....but to follow your logic...allowing plural marriage would not affect the marriages of couples.....allowing siblings to marry....polyamorous groupings...ditto...throuples. ........
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16946 Feb 18, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing marriage to redefined affects society as a whole.....but to follow your logic...allowing plural marriage would not affect the marriages of couples.....allowing siblings to marry....polyamorous groupings...ditto...throuples. ........
This is the part that makes X Breath get real silly. Marriage equality for me but not for you.

He can't explain it without revealing his hypocrisy so he gets angry and silly. Frankie is stupid ahahahahaha, Frankie is a drug addicted Vietnam vet. Is on pain meds. Is drunk. Is brain damaged from the war...is a moron...got no education...is a liar....
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16947 Feb 18, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing marriage to redefined affects society as a whole.....but to follow your logic...allowing plural marriage would not affect the marriages of couples.....allowing siblings to marry....polyamorous groupings...ditto...throuples. ........
Bottom line is X Breath doesn't like poly marriage just like you don't like SSM, difference between you is you are not a hypocrite, and X breath is. Hence his angst and foul temper.

But you knew that. He's a real piece of work eh? From Joisey. That explains a lot. Unpleasant little fellow. Malcontent. Thrives on anger.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#16948 Feb 18, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
To do that would require a redefinition of marriage
The definition is unchanged: establishing kinship between previously unrelated parties.
Pietro Armando wrote:
which is not in the best interests of society as a whole, in the long run.
That's what slave owners said to abolitionists too. Bigots never like it when the focus of their prejudice gain equal rights.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage has been tinkered with too much, all in the name of "progress", but we've seen the results and the cost is too high.
So because you heterosexuals have f-ed up marriage a minority group has to continue to be discriminated against? I think not.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Calling an apple an orange just to satisfy a minute portion of the population is poor public policy. Even gay people have expressed such a sentiment. Does that make them "bigots"?
Eliminating unjust discrimination against a minority group isn't bad public policy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Did I invoke "holy sacrament"?
Between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
There's no secular reason to redefine marriage, which would have to be done, in order to allow "same sex couples" to "marry".
No change in definition required, stupid Peter, only the elimination of an unconstitutional restriction.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's the simple fact of life. Marriage recognizes the union of husband and wife,
Marriage establishes kinship regardless of the sex of the participants.
Pietro Armando wrote:
and links both to any children they create.
Children are legally linked to their biological parents regardless of whether they're married.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's about the sexes, both of them.
And how the sexes combine for marriage is the constitutionally protected liberty interest of the individuals and not subject to the approval or dictates of you or the state absent a legitimate compelling interest.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's all....it's what virtually every human society has recognized throughout history.
Longevity or historicity of a practice isn't sufficient constitutional justification to continue discriminating against a class of people.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If you're so concerned about "diversity", why stop with same sex couple's? Throuple's , polygamous, poly amorous, even incest marriages can be recognized in the name of "diversity". None of those would neither enhance, or diminish your marriage either.
People exercising their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances aren't required to address the grievances of others nor required to address your false concerns for groups you yourself have no intention of helping.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Progress"?(Chucklin g) Oh what a misguided well meaning fool....so now it's "progress" to can an apple an orange, a same sex relationship, "marriage", a man a lesbian....yes it's true..men can be lesbians now......ahhhhhhh "progress".
Making the lives of bigots like you miserable is progress, stupid Peter.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#16949 Feb 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Bottom line is X Breath doesn't like poly marriage just like you don't like SSM, difference between you is you are not a hypocrite, and X breath is. Hence his angst and foul temper.
But you knew that. He's a real piece of work eh? From Joisey. That explains a lot. Unpleasant little fellow. Malcontent. Thrives on anger.
Actually, stupid Peter is a hypocrite. He only uses polygamists and siblings for the sake of argument against same sex marriage; he has no more intention of letting them legally marry than he does same sex couples.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#16950 Feb 18, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Too late, small peter. You're just upset that Bruce Jenner (Olympic Gold Medalist) turned you down after she had her sex change surgery;0)
No, my name isn't Tagtraum, I'm afraid your German is no better than your English.
Ja, ja, das ist rechtes.

I don't suppose you need the translation of my name either.
:-)

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#16951 Feb 18, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, stupid Peter is a hypocrite. He only uses polygamists and siblings for the sake of argument against same sex marriage; he has no more intention of letting them legally marry than he does same sex couples.
Exactly right. That's a very good summary of page after page of useless waffle.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16953 Feb 18, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, stupid Peter is a hypocrite. He only uses polygamists and siblings for the sake of argument against same sex marriage; he has no more intention of letting them legally marry than he does same sex couples.
Actually Peter is not. He believes the monogamist conjugal model of marriage should be maintained. However if states/judges are going to abandon conjugality, there's no compelling reason to maintain monogamy, or even consanguinity.

Either you favor "marriage equality" Little Terry for all, or you don't. Remember the "B" in the LGBT marquee, demands marriage equality for their sexual orientation too, one of each.
It's the logic of sexual orientation based marriage.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#16954 Feb 18, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joonyun/2012/12/0...
The Next Black Swan: Global Depopulation
Comment Now Follow Comments
blah, blah, blah.....
**********
Interesting that SSM, a virtual modern western invention, is being embraced, even celebrated by the West.
As I said, utterly irrelevant. You can't seem to keep your attention on the subject at hand and I know you went to soooo much trouble to Google, copy'n'paste.*sighs*

Homosexuality is all over the globe. Embraced and celebrated???? You're living proof that every rose has a thorn, small minded peter.

Interesting that you would point out that the more humane (to different degrees) countries are the ones that are beginning to practice tolerance for the GLBTIQ Community ;0)

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#16955 Feb 18, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Ja, ja, das ist rechtes.
I don't suppose you need the translation of my name either.
:-)
Thank you, and yes, I know your name;0)
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16956 Feb 18, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Peter is not. He believes the monogamist conjugal model of marriage should be maintained. However if states/judges are going to abandon conjugality, there's no compelling reason to maintain monogamy, or even consanguinity.
Either you favor "marriage equality" Little Terry for all, or you don't. Remember the "B" in the LGBT marquee, demands marriage equality for their sexual orientation too, one of each.
It's the logic of sexual orientation based marriage.
Makes sense to me. I don't see the logic or even the legality of allowing same sex marriage but not polygamy. If there is no compelling state interest in banning one, there is no compelling state interest in banning the other. How can banning only one be justified?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16957 Feb 18, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, utterly irrelevant. You can't seem to keep your attention on the subject at hand and I know you went to soooo much trouble to Google, copy'n'paste.*sighs*
Homosexuality is all over the globe. Embraced and celebrated???? You're living proof that every rose has a thorn, small minded peter.
Interesting that you would point out that the more humane (to different degrees) countries are the ones that are beginning to practice tolerance for the GLBTIQ Community ;0)
Uruguay. Scored very high on the freedom index. Better than the USA. In personal freedom, gay rights, enlightened drug laws, etc. I'm thinking of buying a place down there before word gets out and real estate prices skyrocket.. Check it out. Thank Frankie the alleged homophobe. Hope you're not my neighbor down there! Unless you get more tolerant and diverse and accept alleged homophobes as neighbors.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#16958 Feb 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the part that makes X Breath get real silly. Marriage equality for me but not for you.
He can't explain it without revealing his hypocrisy so he gets angry and silly. Frankie is stupid ahahahahaha, Frankie is a drug addicted Vietnam vet. Is on pain meds. Is drunk. Is brain damaged from the war...is a moron...got no education...is a liar....
What you consistently fail to comprehend is that Xavier is advocating is marriage equality for ALL. You can't seem to wrap your mind around that simple concept.

If Xavier is getting irritable with you, well, you ARE begging for it. You're nothing but a troll after all. We're all tired of your BS, when actually cornered, you duck, dodge and play the fool.

C'est la vie.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16959 Feb 18, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
What you consistently fail to comprehend is that Xavier is advocating is marriage equality for ALL. You can't seem to wrap your mind around that simple concept.
If Xavier is getting irritable with you, well, you ARE begging for it. You're nothing but a troll after all. We're all tired of your BS, when actually cornered, you duck, dodge and play the fool.
C'est la vie.
No, you have it all wrong, X Breath is against marriage equality for all, and I am for it. Please ask for help. Remember! There are no stupid posts. Only stupid posters like you.

So let's review. I support marriage equality and X Breath does not. Glad we cleared that up.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16960 Feb 18, 2014
Some clown "disagrees" that Uruguay scored high in freedom recently. Priceless. It did dummy. Really really! No sh!t!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#16961 Feb 18, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Actually Peter is not.
Yes you are. You always whine about the plight of polygamists of siblings wanting to marry as a rebuttal to same sex marriage when you have not only have no intention of helping them but also advocate a definition of marriage that excludes them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
He believes the monogamist conjugal model of marriage should be maintained. However if states/judges are going to abandon conjugality
The "monogamist conjugal model of marriage" has not been abandoned in any state, stupid Peter. Marriage is still restricted to two people in all states and marriage still results in conjugality in all states.
Pietro Armando wrote:
there's no compelling reason to maintain monogamy, or even consanguinity.
The courts have ruled otherwise. As I've stated previously, I think the case for prohibiting plural marriage is weak and asserting an argument other than infringement of religious freedom might be more successful. However, we'll never know if no polygamists come forward to file a legal challenge.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Either you favor "marriage equality" Little Terry for all, or you don't.
I don't subscribe to your false dichotomy fallacy nor do I use the marketing slogan "marriage equality" in my advocacy of same sex marriage, stupid Peter. You're wasting your time whining to me about your dislike of a marketing soundbite.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Remember the "B" in the LGBT marquee, demands marriage equality for their sexual orientation too, one of each.
Still can't understand the difference between a bisexual sexual orientation and polyamory, eh stupid Peter? How many times a day must you prove yourself an uneducable moron? Those of us who post in this thread regularly already know that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's the logic of sexual orientation based marriage.
No, it's the stupidity of intellectually retarded bigots like you who are so uneducated and uneducable that they are wholly unqualified to discuss the subject matter at hand.
Poof

Madison, WI

#16963 Feb 19, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Some clown "disagrees" that Uruguay scored high in freedom recently. Priceless. It did dummy. Really really! No sh!t!
What a putz, The judgets have nothing to do with your posts, you're being judged as a human, ya troll

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16968 Feb 19, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"We"? Children of intact married nuclear families? The bottom line is, no matter what evidence is presented to you regarding the best setting for children, with their OWN married biological MOTHER AND FATHER in a stable home, you will reject it. It's obvious your support for SSM, overrides this truth. You have no experiential knowledge as a father, which also effects your view. What do u tell your own Mom and Dad?
Do you propose children be removed from their mother and father absent a valid reason?
Why are you babbling on about children? Marriage doesn't require children.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16969 Feb 19, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
What you consistently fail to comprehend is that Xavier is advocating is marriage equality for ALL. You can't seem to wrap your mind around that simple concept.
If Xavier is getting irritable with you, well, you ARE begging for it. You're nothing but a troll after all. We're all tired of your BS, when actually cornered, you duck, dodge and play the fool.
C'est la vie.
I appreciate your efforts to defend me. However, you must realize that Flunkie just makes it up as he goes along. None of what he wrote about me is true.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16970 Feb 19, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing marriage to redefined affects society as a whole.....but to follow your logic...allowing plural marriage would not affect the marriages of couples.....allowing siblings to marry....polyamorous groupings...ditto...throuples. ........
Allowing same sex couples to marry does NOT affect the marriages of opposite sex couples in any way, shape or form..... other than to piss off bigots, and you better get used to that.

No, you are NOT following MY logic by using a false equivalency. Dig out your LOGIC FOR 1st GRADERS book and check.

Let me ask this silly question.... when will you stop whining about gay couples marrying? When 25 States have it?...or 35.... or 50? People like you will whine until you die rather than admit you are WQRONG.

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 min Freedomofexpression 9,844
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 4 min EdmondWA 34
News CEO's bonus cut 25% for his anti-gay, sexist ti... 21 min Clark 1
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 57 min EdmondWA 13
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr TomInElPaso 56,040
News Marching with Pride: Thousands take to the stre... 1 hr Duane Pride - New... 9
News Russian Activist Charged With 'Gay Propaganda' ... 2 hr Sophie 13
News Michigan sued after gay couples are rejected fo... 2 hr Dallas 17
News Worker fired for same sex 'No' vote hits out 5 hr Wondering 12
More from around the web