Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, 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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#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

Hayward, 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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#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

Hayward, 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

Hayward, 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.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16217 Jan 31, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Present this definition and the body that ratified the definition.
Too funny!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16218 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.
Brian, don't be an idiot. Many jurisdictions currently deny equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry. That is actually segregation, and treating some citizens as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law. Allowing people to marry the adult consenting partner of their choosing is not segregation.

You are nuttier than squirrel droppings.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16219 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.
Funny, you are the imbecile arguing for some US citizens to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.

Do you realize how dumb you look when you post this garbage?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16220 Jan 31, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I especially remember your reason to deny three gay men marriage- You won't allow it because they abuse women and children.
Do you really think ANYBODY believes I wrote that? You are way dumber than I ever imagined.

Way
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16221 Jan 31, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you have no valid argument is glaringly obvious.
FYI: You ain't the judge of what is or isn't valid. That is for the court to decide. I gave direct statements from sworn testimony by expert witnesses. It was good enough for a judge, and you ain't even close to a judge, so I imagine you should give him a call and 'splain some things to him.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/...

[232] The harms against men include: the unequal distribution of spouses and related ostracism of younger men forced to compete for a scarcer supply of women; the creation of a false appetite for patriarchy; inflammation of male lust; and deprivation of the essential bond of mutuality that is unique to the marital institution.

[27] A reference in this forum enables the participants to create an evidentiary record impossible in the typical appellate reference. The participants in the present proceeding embraced that opportunity and compiled a record that is remarkable not only for its size, but also for the breadth and diversity of its contents. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the record embodies the bulk of contemporary academic research into polygamy.

[28] Much of the evidence comprises affidavits and expert reports. Over 90 such are before me. In large measure, these were exchanged and filed with the Court in advance of the hearing according to a schedule directed by the Court. Approximately 22 of the affiants and experts were then examined and cross-examined during the hearing phase of the proceeding.

[29] The expert witnesses represent a broad range of disciplines including anthropology, psychology, sociology, law, economics, family demography, history and theology. The caliber and breadth of knowledge of these experts is impressive. Some undertook original research specifically for this reference. Others are clinical experts who offer case study observations from their practices. Yet others have studied aspects of polygamy relevant to their particular disciplines for years
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16222 Jan 31, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think ANYBODY believes I wrote that? You are way dumber than I ever imagined.
Way
Well it's your second chance to answer like a big boy then- How does three adult men marrying constitute child or woman abuse?

That IS your reason to deny equality for polygamy, so defend it dummy.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16223 Jan 31, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
FYI: You ain't the judge of what is or isn't valid. That is for the court to decide. I gave direct statements from sworn testimony by expert witnesses. It was good enough for a judge, and you ain't even close to a judge, so I imagine you should give him a call and 'splain some things to him.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/...
[232] The harms against men include: the unequal distribution of spouses and related ostracism of younger men forced to compete for a scarcer supply of women; the creation of a false appetite for patriarchy; inflammation of male lust; and deprivation of the essential bond of mutuality that is unique to the marital institution.
[27] A reference in this forum enables the participants to create an evidentiary record impossible in the typical appellate reference. The participants in the present proceeding embraced that opportunity and compiled a record that is remarkable not only for its size, but also for the breadth and diversity of its contents. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the record embodies the bulk of contemporary academic research into polygamy.
[28] Much of the evidence comprises affidavits and expert reports. Over 90 such are before me. In large measure, these were exchanged and filed with the Court in advance of the hearing according to a schedule directed by the Court. Approximately 22 of the affiants and experts were then examined and cross-examined during the hearing phase of the proceeding.
[29] The expert witnesses represent a broad range of disciplines including anthropology, psychology, sociology, law, economics, family demography, history and theology. The caliber and breadth of knowledge of these experts is impressive. Some undertook original research specifically for this reference. Others are clinical experts who offer case study observations from their practices. Yet others have studied aspects of polygamy relevant to their particular disciplines for years
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16224 Jan 31, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
FYI: You ain't the judge of what is or isn't valid. That is for the court to decide. I gave direct statements from sworn testimony by expert witnesses. It was good enough for a judge, and you ain't even close to a judge, so I imagine you should give him a call and 'splain some things to him.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/...
[232] The harms against men include: the unequal distribution of spouses and related ostracism of younger men forced to compete for a scarcer supply of women; the creation of a false appetite for patriarchy; inflammation of male lust; and deprivation of the essential bond of mutuality that is unique to the marital institution.
[27] A reference in this forum enables the participants to create an evidentiary record impossible in the typical appellate reference. The participants in the present proceeding embraced that opportunity and compiled a record that is remarkable not only for its size, but also for the breadth and diversity of its contents. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the record embodies the bulk of contemporary academic research into polygamy.
[28] Much of the evidence comprises affidavits and expert reports. Over 90 such are before me. In large measure, these were exchanged and filed with the Court in advance of the hearing according to a schedule directed by the Court. Approximately 22 of the affiants and experts were then examined and cross-examined during the hearing phase of the proceeding.
[29] The expert witnesses represent a broad range of disciplines including anthropology, psychology, sociology, law, economics, family demography, history and theology. The caliber and breadth of knowledge of these experts is impressive. Some undertook original research specifically for this reference. Others are clinical experts who offer case study observations from their practices. Yet others have studied aspects of polygamy relevant to their particular disciplines for years
So three or more men marrying each other will cause a surplus of unmarried men, eh?

GET A GRIP

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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 min who cares 22,519
News Trump's staff picks disappoint, alarm minority ... 7 min Frankie Rizzo 265
News Trump says cancel new Air Force One: Costs 'out... 11 min spocko 71
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min Grey Ghostmoron 1,459,667
News House prohibits $15-an-hour minimum wage 19 min barry 3
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 22 min Sheriff Joe 529 2,511
News The Racist Smear Against Jeff Sessions 39 min Chilli J 72
More from around the web