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 833)

Showing posts 16,641 - 16,660 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
A Conservative in Ann Arb

Ann Arbor, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18059
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Homosexuals are sick in the head. They need to be incarcerated like the mental nutcases that they are.

Europe is a place filled with sickness and sick people. America is still fighting against it, but sicko judges are not cooperating.

Then the sicko homosexuals are actualling using the Negro Civil Rights struggle as their own struggle.

Negros may be inferior and violent animals, but at least most of them know that lesbianism, homosexuality, transgendered and the other sick things in between are wrong.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18061
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. That's why your advocacy that gays settle for the separate and unequal institution of civil unions has been rejected by gays.
No, let's just call the self separate and unequal institution of gay male "marriage", and lesbian "marriage", "marriage".

http://preaprez.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/b...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18062
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

1

A Conservative in Ann Arb wrote:
Homosexuals are sick in the head. They need to be incarcerated like the mental nutcases that they are.
Europe is a place filled with sickness and sick people. America is still fighting against it, but sicko judges are not cooperating.
Then the sicko homosexuals are actualling using the Negro Civil Rights struggle as their own struggle.
Negros may be inferior and violent animals, but at least most of them know that lesbianism, homosexuality, transgendered and the other sick things in between are wrong.
Go away.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18063
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian, can infertile heterosexual couples marry?
Liddie, can men marry women regardless of procreative ability or intent?
If so, your argument about "the survival of the human race" are out the window.
If so, you modern sexual identity labels are irrelevant.
What is more, all that is sought is the inclusion of same sex marriage, which does not affect the ability of opposite sex couples to marry and have children.
What is sought is the abolition of the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.

How does one include, by excluding?
Quite frankly, 40% of live births, according to the CDC, are out of wedlock. So, Brian, the propagation of the species is in no way threatened by the inclusion of same sex couples in legal marriage.
Inclusion of "same sex couple couples in marriage" requires the state to reorient marriage away from the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife intrinsically linked to procreation. Thus you want the state to sanction, even encourage out of wedlock births by such a redefinition of marriage.
Brian, the judges aren't activist. Those on your side of the issue lack an argument with a rational basis. Just because they rule against you, doesn't make them activist.
Some judges can and do legislate from the bench, as those who overruled not only the will of state legislature, but also of the people, in abolishing the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, in a particular state.
Only the federal rights and protections, which have nothing to do with the state. DOMA still ensures that the states can violate the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.
Why do you hate the ability of the states to define marriage within their state as they see fit?

Why do you hate the Constitution?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18064
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have an obsession with race, Brian; I bring it up because it's likewise a human characteristic that, depending on the personal choices of individuals, can result in "segregation" or "integration" within a marriage. Why are you obsessed with "segregation" within marriage but only care about segregation based on the one characteristic that enforces discrimination in alignment with your prejudice against gays?
<quoted text>
The human race survived long before either marriage or modern languages were created, Brian. So survival of humanity is not and never has been dependent upon marriage, much less marriage law based on having an unconstitutional restriction based on sex.
<quoted text>
That's simply a lie, Brian. All written laws are subject to judicial review for constitutionality and the court rulings finding the marriage law restriction on sex have been well reasoned and based on existing precedent with extensive case citations to substantiate that fact. That you're apparently unable to read and comprehend a written legal ruling is your problem.
<quoted text>
No, that another example of your lying. The federal governments recognition of legally contracted same sex marriage applies only to administration of federal laws, benefits and processes. States not giving legal recognition to same sex marriages contracted in other states are in no way forced by the federal government to recognize such marriages for purposes of administering state laws.
<quoted text>
Still more lies, Brian. Selling goods and services is not participating or celebrating whatever event for which a customer made the purchase. And Christians being sued by gays has nothing to do with "civil discourse" and everything to do with breaking anti-discrimination laws. Further, none of our constitutional rights are absolute; even freedom of religion is subject to restrictions. And SCOTUS has ruled general laws that incidentally infringe religious motivated actions are constitutional if they don't specifically target religion. So Anti-discrmination laws are constitutionally permissible.
"Race", like "sexual identity", is a relatively modern invention, and an little older than the latter.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18065
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
So? Two white people or two black people marrying is "racial segregation" marriage. But the constitution allows people to make such choices as part of their liberty interest in exercising fundamental rights like marriage. Neither you nor the state gets a say in the matter, much less a veto.
"Race", as is "sexual identity" is irrelevant to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Repeating this oft posted lie won''t make it true, Brian. Same sex marriage legally existed in certain cultures and times although not widespread in practice.
And virtually non existent in Western Civilization.
DOMA section 3 defining marriage as one man and one women was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Have you been asleep since last June?
So why then was it not imposed narionwide?
It does no such thing. You're just engaging in Orwellian "1984 speak" again because in reality the exact opposite is true: not allowing gays to marry someone congruent with their sexual orientation does in fact cause them demonstrable harm.
Why do you lie, Brian?
Persons who self identify as "gay", "lesbian", or "bisexual" can marry someone, or more than one, congruent with their sexual orientation", albeit without state recognition. What "harm" is caused by not legally recognizing such relationships?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18066
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
No, let's just call the self separate and unequal institution of gay male "marriage", and lesbian "marriage", "marriage".
As citizens, gays are entitled to equal protection of the law and have the same fundamental rights as any other citizen regardless of whether uneducated, lying, bigoted *sswipes like you consider them or their marriages equal or not.
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://preaprez.files.wordpres s.com/2013/12/bizarro-world.jp g
Aww, little Peter is infatuated with "bizzaro" world. Likely because in that alternate reality he can claim to be both human and smart.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18067
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
Liddie, can men marry women regardless of procreative ability or intent?
Yes. And so can men marry men and women marry women because there is and never has been any marriage requirement to have the ability to procreate naturally.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If so, you modern sexual identity labels are irrelevant.
Yes, they should be. But by imposing sex as a marriage restriction and a de facto sexual orientation test, you and your ilk have violated the constitution.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What is sought is the abolition of the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
Men and women can still marry, stupid lying Peter so nothing in fact has been abolished.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How does one include, by excluding?

You tell us.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Inclusion of "same sex couple couples in marriage" requires the state to reorient marriage away from the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife intrinsically linked to procreation.
Procreation was only linked to marriage by law and social custom that made children born outside of wedlock illegitimate. Once SCOTUS ruled birth legitimacy a quasi-susect class for equal protection law, the government could no longer enforce legal disabilities upon illegitimate children nor give legal sanction to what amounts to religious belief that such behavior is immoral and punish children for the "sin" of their parents.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thus you want the state to sanction, even encourage out of wedlock births by such a redefinition of marriage.
Once again, stupid lying Peter, the government already did that for opposite sex couples who had children via medical assistance and surrogates long before gays same a long asking to have legally sanctioned discrimination against them ended.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Some judges can and do legislate from the bench
The judiciary performing their constitutionally appointed task of judicial review does no such thing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
as those who overruled not only the will of state legislature, but also of the people, in abolishing the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, in a particular state.
Neither legislators nor voters can enact laws or state constitutional amendments that violate the federal constitution, stupid lying Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why do you hate the ability of the states to define marriage within their state as they see fit?
States are still subject to requirements of and compliance with the federal constitution in their actions, stupid lying Peter. All state laws and state constitutions are subordinate to the federal constitution.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why do you hate the Constitution?
Indeed, why do you and your ilk hate the federal constitution that you constantly advocate violating it and whine when federal judges perform the tasks appointed them by the federal constitution? You seem to think we live under the Articles of Confederation in which the federal government and its laws were subordinate to those of the individual states. There's a reason the Founders when charged with revising the Articles ditched them altogether and wrote a new constitution from scratch. So did you sleep through that lesson in your history class or were you just too stupid as usual to understand it?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18068
Mar 16, 2014
 
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
As citizens, gays are entitled to equal protection of the law and have the same fundamental rights as any other citizen regardless of whether uneducated, lying, bigoted *sswipes like you consider them or their marriages equal or not.
As citizens, individual men and women, who self identify as "gay", "lesbian", or "bisexual", are entitled to equal protection of the law and have the same fundamental rights as any other citizen, and thus have the right to marry like any other individual man and woman, regardless of whether uneducated, lying, bigoted *sswipes like you consider them men and women.
Aww, little Peter is infatuated with "bizzaro" world. Likely because in that alternate reality he can claim to be both human and smart.
Nooooooo...you're the one that inhabits bizarro world. Up is down, left is right.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18069
Mar 16, 2014
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
Liddie, can men marry women regardless of procreative ability or intent?
Pietro, how does repeating my question accomplish anything?
Pietro Armando wrote:
If so, you modern sexual identity labels are irrelevant.
Maybe you are starting to develop a modicum of intelligence.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What is sought is the abolition of the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
No, what is sought is equal protection of the law for all persons within a state's jurisdiction. Thus far you have lacked the grey matter ti offer a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render your preferred definition constitutional, and begin to imply that you are not an idiot.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How does one include, by excluding?
No one is excluded by adding same sex marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Inclusion of "same sex couple couples in marriage" requires the state to reorient marriage away from the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife intrinsically linked to procreation.
Marriage and procreation are not intrinsically linked.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thus you want the state to sanction, even encourage out of wedlock births by such a redefinition of marriage.
No, it doesn't. Such unions would be unaffected, and could continue in the future. It merely means also allowing same sex couples the right to marry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Some judges can and do legislate from the bench, as those who overruled not only the will of state legislature, but also of the people, in abolishing the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, in a particular state.
Dear idiot.
"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."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/...
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why do you hate the ability of the states to define marriage within their state as they see fit?
I don't I hate when the defy the US Constitution.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why do you hate the Constitution?
I don't. You are the one proposing unconstitutional legal definitions and laws.

Congratulations, you are an idiot.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18071
Mar 16, 2014
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
As citizens, individual men and women, who self identify as "gay", "lesbian", or "bisexual", are entitled to equal protection of the law and have the same fundamental rights as any other citizen, and thus have the right to marry like any other individual man and woman
They're also guaranteed equal protection based on their membership in the class "sexual orientation" which they're demonstrably denied by the sex restriction in marriage laws since that restoration acts as a de facto sexual orientation test to exclude gays.
Pietro Armando wrote:
regardless of whether uneducated, lying, bigoted *sswipes like you consider them men and women.
Unfortunately, the epithet "uneducated, lying, bigoted *sswipe" applies to you and not me since you're the one unable to understand the sex restriction you advocate is in fact illegally discriminatory under the constitution since it lacks a legitimate compelling state interest. Nor have you been able to learn that fact despite the countless times numerous people have sought to educate you on it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nooooooo...you're the one that inhabits bizarro world. Up is down, left is right.
Nope. You're the one denying reality in this world, stupid lying Peter, by seeking to turn back the clock by decades and ignoring the present so as not to acknowledge language, culture, social custom and the law have evolved and continue to evolve, leaving you and your primitive ilk behind.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18072
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>X.B. continues to misunderstand the words she uses; same sex marriage means sex segregation marriage..
No it doesn't. It means same sex marriage. The government isn't forcing anyone into a same sex marriage.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18073
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

1

A Conservative in Ann Arb wrote:
Homosexuals are sick in the head. They need to be incarcerated like the mental nutcases that they are.
Europe is a place filled with sickness and sick people. America is still fighting against it, but sicko judges are not cooperating.
Then the sicko homosexuals are actualling using the Negro Civil Rights struggle as their own struggle.
Negros may be inferior and violent animals, but at least most of them know that lesbianism, homosexuality, transgendered and the other sick things in between are wrong.
They aren't even close to being as sick as you are.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18074
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Race", like "sexual identity", is a relatively modern invention, and an little older than the latter.
Where did you get this idea that everything new is bad?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18075
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Brian_G wrote:
Separate is not equal; segregation is always voluntary for the group in power. Choosing segregation doesn't make it right. Perfect integration, diversity and affirmative action as one man and one woman marriage beats segregation no matter how you run and hide....
ahhaahahahahah

If you only new how ridiculous you sound. Why someone might even suspect that you are a little retarded. "Affirmative action as one man one woman?" ahahahahahahah

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18079
Mar 16, 2014
 
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhh, Clemm?
The other sex is excluded in a SAME sex marriage.
Boy, nothing gets by you, does it? Lol!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18080
Mar 17, 2014
 
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
Uhh, Clemm?
The other sex is excluded in a SAME sex marriage.
Of course, freedom wins when one can make their own choices.

That said, you aren't really in favor of freedom, at least for those with whom you disagree.
Jorja Fox

Lyndhurst, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18081
Mar 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

a campaign against homosexuality by certain church fathers, among them Augustine (a rather nasty piece of work himself, the first known zealous advocate of forced conversions), and Clement, a man who mistakenly associated homosexuality with a form of child slavery in which male children were often sold into slavery as prostitutes. These two men and others like them began to associate homosexuality not just with unsavory animal practices, but with other practices they didn’t happen to like, such as paganism, or pederastry, etc.
The man who took this ball and ran with it was “Saint” John Chrysostom, who was the first church father who can clearly be shown to object to homosexuality based on the gender of its participants, not based just on procreative intent, or based on the ages of those involved, or whether the participants were pagans. Yet his theology was so thoroughly inconsistent that he did not have much direct influence on subsequent theology.
While the theology of homosexuality of these men was insistent, it wasn’t to become influential for a long time. The reason is simple – homosexuality was so common in this period, and practiced so openly, that the public at large regarded these doctrines as a bit extreme, just like the call to celibacy outside of strictly procreative sex as was advocated by many of these same church fathers.
Homosexuality continued to be practiced openly and without much restraint up through the 11th century. Throughout the middle ages, not only did the open practice of homosexuality continue, but it flourished in the monasteries of the time. Many of the priests and abbots not only left us literature celebrating their gay lovers, but some of the poetry they left us was baldy erotic
That homosexual sex was condemned by Leviticus did not seem to matter to the clerics of this period. They considered the Levitical proscription to fall in the same category as the rest of the vast corpus of Levitical proscriptions: they were abolished, along with the requirement for animal sacrifice, by the atonement of Jesus.
The dawn of the 12th century brought with it an increasing fascination on order and uniformity. There was increasing involvement by the church in the affairs of state, and vice versa, combined with a longing for the “good old days” of what the late Middle Age peoples believed the Roman Empire to have been.
To see that the lawlessness of the countryside and the order of the old Roman Empire was restored, both church and state began cooperation with each other to strengthen each other’s institutions. Increasingly, the line between church and state was blurred. This increasing emphasis on order and uniformity brought with it an explosion in the amount of legislation of all sorts. It was inevitable, then, that with the involvement of the church, sexual mores would find increased regulation as the result of the tide of regulation.
Of course, this led to all kinds of repression. The first to feel the repression were the Jews and Muslims of Europe, who found themselves living in a land that was increasingly hostile to their presence. While regulations were often intended to protect the minorities from popular uprisings against them, they often had the opposite effect, in laying down regulations on behavior that were intended to address the popular grievances against them. These regulations came to include “sodomites” and other sexual minorities, but because the laws regulated behavior, they often became the source of repression, more than protection.
The rise of intolerance did not subside but as the years ticked by it actually increased, resulting in the witchhunts in France, which depopulated whole regions of that country, and the Spanish Inquisition, which continued it’s harsh repression into the 17th century. While the Spanish Inquisition was without a doubt the harshest, the Inquisition itself was a church-wide phenomenon whose harshly repressive hand was felt throughout the Catholic world.
Jorja Fox

Lyndhurst, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18082
Mar 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Muslims and Jews were, of course, not the only ones to feel the heavy hand of the Inquisition. Sexual minorities were particular targets, as the pressure to conform increased. Social critics began to single out gay people for special persecution. Peter Cantor (d. 1197) was the first to argue that Romans 1:26-27 referred specifically to gay people. The term “sodomy” came, for the first time and against all theological precedent, to refer exclusively to homosexual sex.
At Cantor’s urging, the Lateran III Council of 1179 became the first to rule specifically on homosexual acts, along with moneylending, heresy, as well as the arch-heresies of Judaism and Islam. Even though the wording of the regulations on sex meant to punish all non-procreative sex, it was eventually construed, particularly in later centuries, as referring to homosexual sex specifically. It passed into the permanent collections of canon law in the following century, and became the basis of the Catholic ban on homosexuality.
It should be obvious by now that homophobia has its origins in ignorance. It is spread by ignorance, by repression, social conservatism and the alliance of church and state. It is self-evident that education leads to an understanding of the truth and that truth itself leads to freedom.
The history of homophobia in western culture is instructive. It tells us how, when we make untested assumptions, we can easily be led into error that can be very destructive, as homophobia has been. It shows us that the path to liberation isn’t through religious indoctrination but through reason and logic.
In a nation that claims to value freedom, let us learn from this lesson from the past. Let us throw off our chains of superstition and ignorance, and embrace the truth that our forebearers knew two millenia ago: homosexuals are a normal part of life and should be tolerated, accepted and integrated into every facet of culture without prejudice or ignorance.
https://reflectionsasia.wordpress.com/2007/09...

Clearly the "church" made some bad decisions all in order to control the behavior and the mind of it's "followers."

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18085
Mar 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Liberals R Defective wrote:
Radical queer activists like you, have the right to spout your warped, sick propaganda. But that's where it ends, Nancy. No matter what your bought and paid for black robed tyrants say. Nature's law trumps man's law every time.
There is nothing radical or warped about demanding the enforcement of the US Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.

We don't live by natural law, we live by man's law, which is administered by the courts. If you wish to change those laws, you had better grow up and learn to offer an intelligent and factually supported argument that will advance your position. If not, you are doomed to look like an idiot spouting off about natural law in online forums.

Congratulations, you aren't terribly bright.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 16,641 - 16,660 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.

•••
•••