Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16197 Jan 30, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://winteryknight.wordpress .com/2013/10/23/new-study-lesb ian-women-twice-as-likely-to-d ivorce-their-partner-as-gay-me n/
New study: lesbian women twice as likely to “divorce” their partners as gay men
Posted by Wintery Knight
There’s a myth going around that women are fond of commitment and that men are beastly commitment-phobes. But what does science say?
Here’s a new study that’s been reported in the leftist UK Independent.(H/T The Elusive Wapiti)
Excerpt:
Lesbian couples are nearly twice as likely as gay men to end a civil partnership, according to the latest government figures.
The number of same-sex couples ending their civil unions leapt by 20 per cent last year, seven years after their introduction in 2005. Overall there were 794 dissolutions in 2012, almost 60 per cent of which were female couples, figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.
In the seven years since gay couples were able to have civil partnerships, 3.2 per cent of male unions ended in dissolution, compared to 6.1 per cent of female couples.
Sociologists believe the lower rates of ‘divorces’ among gay men may reflect a trend of women committing sooner and having higher expectations for a relationship. Women in civil partnerships tie the knot at an average age of 37.6, compared to men, for whom the average age is 40. Erzsebet Bukodim, sociologist at the University of Oxford, said:“In heterosexual marriage the divorce rate is higher if you enter marriage at a very young age. That might be one of the reasons we’re seeing this [high dissolution rate for women] in civil partnerships.”
Gunnar Andersson, professor of demography at Stockholm University, has found in successive studies that women in Norway, Sweden and Denmark are twice as likely to dissolve their civil partnerships than men. He said:“This reflects trends in a heterosexual marriage because women are more prone to say they want to marry – but they’re also more likely to initiate a divorce. Women usually have higher demands on relationship quality, that’s often been said in studies. Even if you control for age there is still a trend of more women ending partnerships than men.”
Previous figures show British women in heterosexual relationships are more likely to file for divorce than men. Women initiated the divorce in two thirds of cases in the UK in 2011.
<quoted text>
Who cares? Is this any reason to deny equality?

“RULING IN JUNE”

Since: Aug 08

WILL FUEL PRIDE WEEK :-)

#16198 Jan 30, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares? Is this any reason to deny equality?
It is according to Pete......even though opposite-sex couples have a 50% divorce rate overall........didn't you know he'll grab ANYTHING to try and prove his point NO matter how irrelevant it is?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16199 Jan 30, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
It is according to Pete......even though opposite-sex couples have a 50% divorce rate overall........didn't you know he'll grab ANYTHING to try and prove his point NO matter how irrelevant it is?
Exactly. In fact, divorced people are more likely to divorce and remarry. Are they restricted in any way from marrying?

“RULING IN JUNE”

Since: Aug 08

WILL FUEL PRIDE WEEK :-)

#16200 Jan 30, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. In fact, divorced people are more likely to divorce and remarry. Are they restricted in any way from marrying?
Nope, they're NOT and the percentages skyrocket for second and third time divorces/remarrying!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16201 Jan 30, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, they're NOT and the percentages skyrocket for second and third time divorces/remarrying!!!
Kinda kills that previous argument. Why should lesbians be restricted in any way? Such an argument is irrelevant.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16202 Jan 30, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://winteryknight.wordpress .com/2013/10/23/new-study-lesb ian-women-twice-as-likely-to-d ivorce-their-partner-as-gay-me n/
New study: lesbian women twice as likely to “divorce” their partners as gay men
Posted by Wintery Knight
There’s a myth going around that women are fond of commitment and that men are beastly commitment-phobes. But what does science say?
Here’s a new study that’s been reported in the leftist UK Independent.(H/T The Elusive Wapiti)
Excerpt:
Lesbian couples are nearly twice as likely as gay men to end a civil partnership, according to the latest government figures.
The number of same-sex couples ending their civil unions leapt by 20 per cent last year, seven years after their introduction in 2005. Overall there were 794 dissolutions in 2012, almost 60 per cent of which were female couples, figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.
In the seven years since gay couples were able to have civil partnerships, 3.2 per cent of male unions ended in dissolution, compared to 6.1 per cent of female couples.
Sociologists believe the lower rates of ‘divorces’ among gay men may reflect a trend of women committing sooner and having higher expectations for a relationship. Women in civil partnerships tie the knot at an average age of 37.6, compared to men, for whom the average age is 40. Erzsebet Bukodim, sociologist at the University of Oxford, said:“In heterosexual marriage the divorce rate is higher if you enter marriage at a very young age. That might be one of the reasons we’re seeing this [high dissolution rate for women] in civil partnerships.”
Gunnar Andersson, professor of demography at Stockholm University, has found in successive studies that women in Norway, Sweden and Denmark are twice as likely to dissolve their civil partnerships than men. He said:“This reflects trends in a heterosexual marriage because women are more prone to say they want to marry – but they’re also more likely to initiate a divorce. Women usually have higher demands on relationship quality, that’s often been said in studies. Even if you control for age there is still a trend of more women ending partnerships than men.”
Previous figures show British women in heterosexual relationships are more likely to file for divorce than men. Women initiated the divorce in two thirds of cases in the UK in 2011.
<quoted text>
Irrelevant

“RULING IN JUNE”

Since: Aug 08

WILL FUEL PRIDE WEEK :-)

#16203 Jan 30, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Kinda kills that previous argument. Why should lesbians be restricted in any way? Such an argument is irrelevant.
I agree.......it's sort of like their procreative argument which is also an IRRELEVANT issue, but they can't see that!

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#16204 Jan 30, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>

What "central issues"? Redefining marriage, or how marriage is defined is the gist of the issue.
You know full well what the central issues are, they have been explained to you repeatedly.
Redefining marriage is not even one iota of this entire issue, it is only your personal agenda. Your personal problems and hang ups have nothing to do with the legal rights of others. Your problems are yours alone.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16205 Jan 30, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
If you stop slamming your head into the wall, you may recover.
If you ever got an argument, I'd be amazed.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#16206 Jan 30, 2014
Marriage is narrowly defined as sex integrated; segregation is bad.

Don't whine to me because you support prejudice, bigotry and segregation; that's your problem.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#16207 Jan 30, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage is narrowly defined as sex integrated; segregation is bad.
Voluntary "segregation" resulting from exercising one's constitutionally guaranteed personal liberty interest in selecting a marriage partner isn't "bad" just because you don't like it, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
Don't whine to me because you support prejudice, bigotry
Gays aren't the ones supporting prejudice and bigotry, Brian. That would be YOU. You're the one trying to inflict your prejudice onto others with your incessant advocacy of discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays, Brian.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
and segregation;
Voluntary "segregation" is perfectly legal and constitutional, Brian. You don;t get a say in who someone selects as their marriage partner so mind your own business.
Brian_G wrote:
that's your problem.
Actually, it's your prejudice and thus your problem, Brian.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#16208 Jan 31, 2014
T.F. supports the bigotry, prejudice and segregation of same sex marriage.

If you believe in integration, unity, affirmative action and equality; keep marriage one man and one woman.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#16209 Jan 31, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
T.F. supports the bigotry, prejudice and segregation of same sex marriage.
How Orwellian "1984" of you, Brian, to call me a bigot for supporting the constitutionally protected personal liberty interest to freely choose one's marriage partner. The difference between you and me is that I advocate a position that allows an individual choice where you advocate a position that mandates illegal discrimination. Another difference is you're a f-ing liar and I'm not.
Brian_G wrote:
If you believe in integration, unity, affirmative action and equality; keep marriage one man and one woman.
If you believe lying, prejudice and harming your fellow citizen, heed Brian's words.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16210 Jan 31, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you ever got an argument, I'd be amazed.
The fact that you can't seem to remember the argument is curious.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16211 Jan 31, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you can't seem to remember the argument is curious.
Gangs of roving young men high on testosterone searching for wives and wreaking havoc? Pretty hard to forget!

I especially remember your reason to deny three gay men marriage- You won't allow it because they abuse women and children.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#16212 Jan 31, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
How Orwellian "1984" of you, Brian, to call me a bigot for supporting the constitutionally protected personal liberty interest to freely choose one's marriage partner. The difference between you and me is that I advocate a position that allows an individual choice where you advocate a position that mandates illegal discrimination. Another difference is you're a f-ing liar and I'm not. If you believe lying, prejudice and harming your fellow citizen, heed Brian's words.
Not Newspeak; the truth. Same sex marriage means sex segregated marriage where previously all marriage has been gender diverse, gender integrated and in America, affirmative action of one man and one woman.

Look at the meaning of words; segregation is related to prejudice, bigotry and disunity.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#16213 Jan 31, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Not Newspeak; the truth. Same sex marriage means sex segregated marriage where previously all marriage has been gender diverse, gender integrated and in America, affirmative action of one man and one woman.
Look at the meaning of words; segregation is related to prejudice, bigotry and disunity.
Look t the meaning of the constitution ACOTUS rulings and you'll see you're a f-ing liar, Brian. But that's hardly surprising given you're a pathological liar.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16214 Jan 31, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage is narrowly defined as sex integrated; segregation is bad.
Don't whine to me because you support prejudice, bigotry and segregation; that's your problem.
So speaketh the villiage idiot.

Marriage is narrowly defined as sex integrated? Really? You're repeated this nonsense for months. WHERE is this definition. Present it. What body ruled on this definition? Because to date, the ONLY person that talks about this "definition" is you. And everyone knows your a moron.

Present this definition and the body that ratified the definition.

**everyone sit back as cowardly Brian_G yet again avoids responding**
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16215 Jan 31, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you can't seem to remember the argument is curious.
I remember your arguments it's just that they are stupid and invalid.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16216 Jan 31, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you can't seem to remember the argument is curious.
The fact that you have no valid argument is glaringly obvious.

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.

US Senate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Populism could divide the Grand Old Party 6 min Le Jimbo 1
News NYPD officer shot in head dies, commissioner ci... 13 min TOASTER 70
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 29 min Learn to Read 188,023
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr snow 1,225,065
News Ted Cruz Announces White House Bid 3 hr swedenforever 395
News Chris Christie in New Hampshire: Bring it on 3 hr swedenforever 16
News Nuclear waste burial report 3 hr sad very sad 1
More from around the web