Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4758 Jun 15, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>there is no problem. i never said that ssm suppress free speech. i said that the goal of the homosexual activist is to suppress free speech and that ssm will be one of the things that we will not be allowed to speak against.
....
Actually, the goal of those scary activists is to protect themselves, other gay folks, and future generations of Gay people from harm.

Imagine the horror of a world where no gay kid was bullied to death. Where gay couples had the same protections of marriage that their straight friends have, and so did their children. That every gay youth felt that there was unlimited potential for work, and love, and family in their futures. That elderly gay couples would never be forced out of their marital homes by unfair taxes.

Such a terrible world that those "activists" work toward!

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#4759 Jun 15, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Upon what authority do you arrive at such a claim?
I rely upon the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that such sodomy statutes were unconstitutional. The holdings of the Supreme Court apply in all jurisdictions under the Constitution.
"Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."
"Sodomy" is not illegal in the United States.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002...
I'm not sure when the Supreme Court outlawed statutes against sodomy. But I seem to recall reading that during the mid-1980s some gay male couple getting arrested in Alabama or Georgia for sodomy.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#4760 Jun 15, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure when the Supreme Court outlawed statutes against sodomy. But I seem to recall reading that during the mid-1980s some gay male couple getting arrested in Alabama or Georgia for sodomy.
Apparently, you didn't bother reading the link I provided for you, because if you had, you wouldn't make such a foolish statement.

The case you are thinking of, Bowers v Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was overturned by Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

That was the link I gave you. Sodomy laws are unconstitutional in the United States.

You're welcome.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#4761 Jun 15, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, you didn't bother reading the link I provided for you, because if you had, you wouldn't make such a foolish statement.
The case you are thinking of, Bowers v Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was overturned by Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
That was the link I gave you. Sodomy laws are unconstitutional in the United States.
You're welcome.
There was no foolish statement. I was right that this gay had been arrested for sodomy. At least my memory of it was correct. I hadn't kept up with the case whch I read about in the 1980s. You're right; I didn't read the link. Since I find about 90% of posted links to be from dumb and unreliable sources, I rarely click them nowadays unless they come from someone I know, and know to be reliable.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4762 Jun 15, 2013
Savant wrote:
I'm not sure when the Supreme Court outlawed statutes against sodomy. But I seem to recall reading that during the mid-1980s some gay male couple getting arrested in Alabama or Georgia for sodomy.
Lawrence v Texas 2003.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4763 Jun 16, 2013
lides wrote:
You've yet to offer substantiated proof, or a link to the Schedule B. Face it Brian, you are a half-wit liar, who makes claims they cannot remotely prove. The fact that you so often have cited NOM's own allegations, which similarly lack a basis in reality proves as much. Your own article that you cite here states that the donation was not correctly reported to the FEC. I have already linked to documents which disprove this notion. Why, if this action happened in 2008 would NOM only bring it up now? Could it be that they are attempting to bootstrap their BS allegation on an already beleaguered IRS? Wake up and smell the reality conspiracy boy.
The Huffington Post calls Schedule B,'confidential'. What more proof do you want? The disclosure was discovered in 2012, during the Presidential campaign. It happened after the 2008 tax year of course.

Blaming the victim isn't going to work. The IRS harassed Tea Party groups too.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4765 Jun 16, 2013
barry wrote:
there is a case here in washington state ,i think, that is trying to force a devout Christian business person to provide flowers for a homasexual wedding. free enterprise is also being attacked.
So, would you be an equal-opportunity defender if a devout KKK member refused to provide flowers for an interracial marriage? Just how much discrimination should we encourage?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4766 Jun 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The Huffington Post calls Schedule B,'confidential'. What more proof do you want? The disclosure was discovered in 2012, during the Presidential campaign. It happened after the 2008 tax year of course.
Blaming the victim isn't going to work. The IRS harassed Tea Party groups too.
Please provide a link. You haven't proven your position. I HAVE put up links to the FEC filing of Free and Strong America PAC, which showed the donation, as well as the HRC web links from the time period in question showing that document revealed the information.

You have continually posted links to the allegations from NOM, which ironically only surfaced 5 years later after an attempt by congress to create a controversy surrounding the IRS.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4767 Jun 16, 2013
lides wrote:
Please provide a link. You haven't proven your position. I HAVE put up links to the FEC filing of Free and Strong America PAC, which showed the donation, as well as the HRC web links from the time period in question showing that document revealed the information.
On March 30, 2012, the Human Rights Campaign — NOM’s chief political opponent — published on its website, under the headline “One of NOM’s Top Secret Donors Revealed: Mitt Romney,” NOM’s 2008 Form 990 Schedule B, which contained the names and addresses of the organization’s major donors. HRC shared the document with the Huffington Post, which published it that same day. The document — which HRC said it had received from “a whistleblower”— would subsequently appear on a number of sites, among them New York magazine, Mother Jones, and the Daily Beast.
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/one-of-noms-top...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/mitt...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350599/...

.
lides wrote:
You have continually posted links to the allegations from NOM, which ironically only surfaced 5 years later after an attempt by congress to create a controversy surrounding the IRS.
You should blame the criminal for the timing of the crime, not the victim.

.
lides wrote:
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
And a rape is just a rape; saying NOM's skirt was too short isn't a defense.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#4768 Jun 16, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Rustin was the first black man to be arrested on the bus long before Rosa Parks.
Rustin orchestrated the Million Man March.
You are an idiot.
Rose Parks was not a man. But Ruskin was not a man either.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#4769 Jun 16, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
After observing the negative effect you personally have on perceptions of the African-American community, I can safely say that ALL of us are doing more to IMPROVE race relations than you are--just by sitting and doing nothing.
But many of us have done much more than nothing.
Eff "race relations". I am concerned about Black Power.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#4770 Jun 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So any consenting adult relationship should be designated marriage by the state?
<quoted text>
First, "heterosexual" is a modern sexual identity label. Second, marriage is historically, socially, culturally, legally, and religiously, a union of husband and wife. SSM is somewhat of veggie "burger" form of marriage. Third, marriage is not closed to people with either a same sex attraction, or a bisexual attraction. The can marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife like any one else. Lately, society privileges marriage, husband and wife, because human reproduction is sexual. Marriages are consummated, husband and wife engage in "marital relations", and conception could occur. The husband is presumed to be the father of any children born into the marital relationship.
<quoted text>
As are the opposite sex aspects that are associated with that word. Man, woman, bride, groom, husband, wife, consummate, etc. How many people actually think of two men/women when the word "marriage" is mentioned?
<quoted text>
Same sex sexual behavior is nothing new. Various societies throughout time and place have, allowed, tolerated, accepted, and/or celebrated it. However it's not necessarily a universal feature of ever human society.
<quoted text>
"Gay" is a modern political sexual identity label, and yes there are scattered historical example of recognized same sex unions. But not all of them were considered marriage within the particular society. I'm not sure what you me by "....we call heterosexual marriage". In today's times it's either opposite sex or traditional, conjugal marriage, and same sex or gay marriage. Homosexual marriage is used, but not as common.
<quoted text>
Plus creating heirs. As to "love" that is a relatively modern motivational addition. However the state does. OT require, nor define "love", in order for a couple to be married. Love comes in many forms, romantic, companionship, friendship, platonic, etc. Romantic love, as most sociologist/marriage counselors is not the foundation for long term marital success. Hence, "the honeymoon" is over. That's when real love blossoms.
<quoted text>
Does it increase marriage rates among men and women?
<quoted text>
But are they happier? Women intiate 2/3 of all divorces, yet in states that are "joint custody", the divorce rate is lower. Lesbians, although they marry at a higher rate than gay men, seem to have a higher divorce rate. Interesting.
The perverts insisted on being called "gay" because they did not like being called phags which they are.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4772 Jun 16, 2013
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose Parks was not a man. But Ruskin was not a man either.
What are you? Eight years old?

GROW UP!!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4773 Jun 16, 2013
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
Eff "race relations". I am concerned about Black Power.
What power does a man who is insecure in his own sexuality have?

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4774 Jun 17, 2013
Gay marriage supporters leaked confidential taxpayer information from the IRS and used that information against Romney in the last election.

Shame on them!

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#4775 Jun 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Gay marriage supporters leaked confidential taxpayer information from the IRS and used that information against Romney in the last election.
Shame on them!
They are a threat to democracy. They will stop at nothing to destroy this civilization.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4776 Jun 17, 2013
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
They are a threat to democracy. They will stop at nothing to destroy this civilization.
Your kind is already doing a very good job of that bro.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4777 Jun 17, 2013
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/...
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
The perverts insisted on being called "gay" because they did not like being called phags which they are.
It is ironic, when one considers the word used to refer to hedonistic heterosexual sexual activities. For example a "gay man" was a womanizer. Now he sexually rejects women. A "gay woman" was a prostitute.

However, around the early parts of the 17th century, the word began to be associated with immorality.  By the mid 17th century, according to an Oxford dictionary definition at the time, the meaning of the word had changed to mean “addicted to pleasures and dissipations.  Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life”.  This is an extension of one of the original meanings of “carefree”, meaning more or less uninhibited.

Fast-forward to the 19th century and the word gay referred to a woman who was a prostitute and a gay man was someone who slept with a lot of women, often prostitutes.  Sort of ironical that today a gay man doesn’t sleep with women.  Also at this time, the phrase “gay it” meant to have sex.

With these new definitions, the original meanings of “carefree”,“joyful”, and “bright and showy” were still around; so the word was not exclusively used to refer to prostitutes or a promiscuous man.  Those were just accepted definitions, along with the other meanings of the word.

Around the 1920s and 1930s, however, the word started to have a new meaning.  In terms of the sexual meaning of the word, a “gay man” no longer just meant a man who had sex with a lot of women, but now started to refer to men who had sex with other men.  There was also another word “gey cat” at this time which meant a homosexual boy.

By 1955, the word gay now officially acquired the new added definition of meaning homosexual males.  Gay men themselves seem to have been behind the driving thrust for this new definition as they felt (and most still do), that “homosexual” is much too clinical sounding and is often thought of as offensive among gay people due to sounding like a disorder.  As such, it was common amongst themselves to refer to one another as “gay” decades before this was a commonly known definition (reportedly homosexual men were calling one another gay as early as the 1920s).  At this time, homosexual women were referred to as lesbians, not gay.  Although women could still be called gay if they were prostitutes as that meaning had not yet 100% disappeared.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4778 Jun 17, 2013
At least when Bush was in office the IRS wasn't targeting liberal groups.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#4779 Jun 17, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Your kind is already doing a very good job of that bro.
Homosexuals are a tiny minority. Democracy is about majority rule.

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 News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gary Johnson: Election cycle is so 'crazy' he m... 2 min Of Suspicious Ori... 1
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min nanoanomaly 1,420,893
News In drought, drones help California farmers save... 5 min Welfare Farmers 1
News The Latest: FBI expected to release Clinton doc... 8 min Fooling No One 1
News Poll: Most young people dislike Trump, say he's... 8 min Andrew 6
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 min Chimney1 205,497
News 11 most memorable social media marketing succes... (Dec '15) 16 min franklyman 4
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 22 min Jay 240,168
News Trump backer tweets cartoon of Clinton in black... 58 min Chilli J 59
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 58 min Surgit Tempestas 8,064
News Former Obama aide: Trump is a 'psychopath' 3 hr Donald J Trump 117
More from around the web