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
5,041 - 5,060 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5274
Jul 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed they have. However the wisdom of the ages reminds us that not all change is good, nor does everything change. Sex between men and women still makes babies. Society still needs children, children need their mothers and fathers, and marriage is that means by which men and women are joined together, and are connected to whatever children they create. It's good for all.
If by some chance you are aware of any pregnant men living in shame, because the father of the child won't marry him, by all means let me know.
<quoted text>
True, indeed. If the outhouse is a two seater, ya gotta learn to be sociable.:)
<quoted text>
Distinctions can be, and are made without such outcomes. An example would how we acknowledge our parents. We all make distinctions between our mother and father without loving either one any less, we accept both of as individuals, and as a woman and a man.
Same as with relationships, there's no shame in respecting the differences between SSRs, both male and female, and OSRs. Nor is there animosity behind advocating different treatment, for different situations.
Which society needs children? Does the world need overpopulation? Sure it's nice for children to have two loving parents, but what about abusive ones? Do children need both parents when one is abusive. You are making generalizations. What about all the children abandoned by parents but adopted by loving gay and lesbian couples? Should those families be disadvantaged because some people oppose SSM? Nobody is actually denying that there are differences; we are discussing equal protection of the laws for both so than neither is disadvantaged. That's all.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5275
Jul 5, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So u would deny bisexuals, the "B" in LGBT, the right, if they so choose, to marry the one of each sex, they love?
Where did I say that Pietro? Which post? I'd especially love to see the part where I mentioned "denying". I'm very curious where I mentioned my view on the subject.

Waiting....

waiting....

Waiting....

Your routine is tired, and lame. But given the immaturity of your posts, I do see where it would be easier to argue against things you pretend were said rather than addressing actual statements.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5276
Jul 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Make up your mind. If people should be allowed to marry according to their orientation, logically a bisexual, should be allowed to marry one of each sex, if they so choose. Ya can't have it both ways, although, bisexuals do.
Yawn. Can someone wake me when the bisexuals all want to marry one of each gender!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5277
Jul 5, 2013
 
Oh, and make sure that those two people of opposite gender also want to marry each other and not just the bisexual person!!!!
Pietro Armando

East Hartford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5278
Jul 5, 2013
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Just how dumb are you? Many bisexuals enter into monogamous relationships.
Three is still greater than two. I'm still sorry you can't count or engage in basic logic
And gay people marry someone of the opposite sex. So I guess orientation is such a factor after all. See equal protection.
Pietro Armando

East Hartford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5279
Jul 5, 2013
 
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I say that Pietro? Which post? I'd especially love to see the part where I mentioned "denying". I'm very curious where I mentioned my view on the subject.
Waiting....
waiting....
Waiting....
Your routine is tired, and lame. But given the immaturity of your posts, I do see where it would be easier to argue against things you pretend were said rather than addressing actual statements.
It's simply the matter of the logic of sexual orientation, as advocated by SSM activists. The argument is gay people should be allowed to marry according to their orientation. If that is so, then why can't bisexuals, who are orientated towards both sexes, marry one of each, if they so choose? Just answer the question.

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5280
Jul 5, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So u would deny bisexuals, the "B" in LGBT, the right, if they so choose, to marry the one of each sex, they love?
Bisexuals are fully capable of finding the one person they love. I dated both men and women before I met my husband. Just because I find both sexes attractive does not mean I need to have a relationship with more than one person at a time and frankly I would think that would be far too complicated to do.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5281
Jul 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TrueAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Bisexuals are fully capable of finding the one person they love. I dated both men and women before I met my husband. Just because I find both sexes attractive does not mean I need to have a relationship with more than one person at a time and frankly I would think that would be far too complicated to do.
Thanks for the honest response. The point is, if we apply the logic or sexual orientation as it affects who a person can marry, it stands to reason, a bisexual person should have the right to marry one of each if s/he chooses. I did not say all bisexuals are incapable of being with one person. Appreciate the answer.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5282
Jul 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Video shows men attacking religious protesters at Pridefest
By Michael Harthorne Published: Jul 3, 2013 at 9:19 AM PDT

SEATTLE -- A protester holding a sign reading "Repent or Else" was attacked by a group of people following a loud argument during Pridefest Sunday, according to the Seattle Police Department.

Bicycle officers heard a loud debate between two groups of people near Fourth Avenue North and Broad Street but continued on their way.

According to video shot by a witness, after officers leave the crowd continues to yell at and shove two religious protesters, one of whom is holding a sign that reads "Repent or Else" and "Jesus Saves from Sin."

At one point, the video shows a 36-year-old Marysville man taking off his shirt and threatening the sign-holding protester. The man eventually starts leaving, saying, "Cops are coming; let's roll."

After a group of women try unsuccessfully to steal the protester's sign, a group of men grab onto it and pull him to the ground while the crowd applauds. That's when the video shows the 36-year-old run back toward the fight and punch the sign-holder in the back of the head multiple times.....
http://www.komonews.com/news/crime/Video-show...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5283
Jul 5, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So u would deny bisexuals, the "B" in LGBT, the right, if they so choose, to marry the one of each sex, they love?
You have demonstrated a fundamental--but common--misunderstanding of bisexuality. Bisexuals may be attracted to people of either sex. This does not mean that their requirement for more than on mate is any great her or less than that of a straight or a homosexual person in a similar relationship. But if they happen to fall in love with another person. And the two wish to commit to one another, they should have the same right to marry regardless of gender.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5284
Jul 5, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Which society needs children? Does the world need overpopulation? Sure it's nice for children to have two loving parents, but what about abusive ones? Do children need both parents when one is abusive. You are making generalizations. What about all the children abandoned by parents but adopted by loving gay and lesbian couples? Should those families be disadvantaged because some people oppose SSM? Nobody is actually denying that there are differences; we are discussing equal protection of the laws for both so than neither is disadvantaged. That's all.
You concede far too much ground. Despite multiple corrections, Pietro wants us to agree that children of same-sex couples would miraculously obtain biological parents of opposite gender if only gays were prevented from marrying or adopting. Yet no one on these boards has yet answered the fundamental question of who these children are who are being deprived of a mother and father.

How did they get there? Were they adopted because their biological parents agreed that they couldn't care for them? If so, then they are hardly deprived of anything: they are afforded the opportunity of two loving parents that they otherwise would not have had. Are they the product of sperm donation or surrogacy? In that case, perhaps the children wouldn't exist at all without the intervention of same-sex parents. Does Pietro argue that the children would have been better off not being born?

This idea of being deprived of either a mother or father is completely bogus. Nobody yet has described a situation where any child is deprived of any parent. In every circumstance you can imagine, children are given homes that are better than. The alternatives.

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5285
Jul 6, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the honest response. The point is, if we apply the logic or sexual orientation as it affects who a person can marry, it stands to reason, a bisexual person should have the right to marry one of each if s/he chooses. I did not say all bisexuals are incapable of being with one person. Appreciate the answer.
I think this logic is flawed. By your logic, allowing heterosexual marriage should leave room for a straight person to marry more than one person of the opposite sex. I don't believe that to be the case. Allowing two consenting adults to get married doesn't carry with it the same logic to allow polygamy.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5286
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
Make up your mind. If people should be allowed to marry according to their orientation, logically a bisexual, should be allowed to marry one of each sex, if they so choose. Ya can't have it both ways, although, bisexuals do.
No, moron, a bisexual is attracted to people of both sexes. However, equal protection of the law requires they be able to enter into a legal marriage with the, one, partner of their choosing, male or female.

Only an idiot would make the argument you present. Then again, only an idiot would think that a bisexual was not necessarily monogamous. If you are straight, and that is somewhat doubtful, should you be able to marry several women?
Pietro Armando wrote:
And gay people marry someone of the opposite sex. So I guess orientation is such a factor after all. See equal protection.
That's still just two people. Ergo, equal protection.

I'm sorry that you never learned to count. Life must be terribly difficult for you.
SunFLShine

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5287
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I wish you people would vow a backlash over the violence being committed by your community.
Pietro Armando

Allston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5288
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TrueAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I think this logic is flawed. By your logic, allowing heterosexual marriage should leave room for a straight person to marry more than one person of the opposite sex.
That's called polygamy, a valid form of marriage world wide, and practiced, albeit without government recognition. The reasoning is this. A person with an opposite sex orientation marries someone of the opposite sex, SSO, same sex, bisexual orientation, one of both sexes, if they so choose.
I don't believe that to be the case. Allowing two consenting adults to get married doesn't carry with it the same logic to allow polygamy.
That depends on how one defines marriage. SSM seeks to change the nature, conjugal as in husband and wife, of the marital relationship, where as polygamy seeks to change the monogamy. Each represents a significant change in the American legal understanding of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife. To argue otherwise is ether naive, arrogant, or both.
Pietro Armando

Allston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5289
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, moron, a bisexual is attracted to people of both sexes. However, equal protection of the law requires they be able to enter into a legal marriage with the, one, partner of their choosing, male or female.
So sexual orientation doesn't matter? If a bisexual is forced to choose between their two sexual orientations, why is someone with a homosexual orientation not forced to choose someone of the opposite sex?
Only an idiot would make the argument you present. Then again, only an idiot would think that a bisexual was not necessarily monogamous. If you are straight, and that is somewhat doubtful, should you be able to marry several women?
I did not say a bisexual could not be monogamous, simply that they should have, based on their orientation, the right to choose one of both sexes.
That's still just two people. Ergo, equal protection.
[/QUOTE

Husband and wife, equal protection.

[QUOTE]
I'm sorry that you never learned to count. Life must be terribly difficult for you.
I'm sorry you failed high school biology.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5290
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's called polygamy, a valid form of marriage world wide, and practiced, albeit without government recognition. The reasoning is this. A person with an opposite sex orientation marries someone of the opposite sex, SSO, same sex, bisexual orientation, one of both sexes, if they so choose.
<quoted text>
That depends on how one defines marriage. SSM seeks to change the nature, conjugal as in husband and wife, of the marital relationship, where as polygamy seeks to change the monogamy. Each represents a significant change in the American legal understanding of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife. To argue otherwise is ether naive, arrogant, or both.
Tyngsboro, MA...
Awwwww, was Pietro really just wondering all along? The trolling is so similar, that perhaps it should have been obvious.

Similarly, neither seems to be able to count, or understand that three or more is greater than two.

Grow up, Pietro/Wondering.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5291
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Tyngsboro, MA...
Awwwww, was Pietro really just wondering all along? The trolling is so similar, that perhaps it should have been obvious.
Similarly, neither seems to be able to count, or understand that three or more is greater than two.
Grow up, Pietro/Wondering.
Nor can u understand that one plus one can equal three, or four, or more. One man plus one woman, equally protected by law, can, by their physical sexual union, which is understood by American marital jurisprudence, create another life. Or two put it in simple language even you can understand, which human societies have understood throughout time and place, "two go to bed, but three get up".

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5292
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
Nor can u understand that one plus one can equal three, or four, or more.
Thank you, for admitting, and then illustrating, that you do not have a command of basic counting and math skills.

I see you have decided to log back in, but the cat is out of the bag regarding the fact that you post under multiple user names, both registered and unregistered. It's sad to think that one would be so insecure as to feel the need to employ such duplicity.
Pietro Armando wrote:
One man plus one woman, equally protected by law, can, by their physical sexual union, which is understood by American marital jurisprudence, create another life. Or two put it in simple language even you can understand, which human societies have understood throughout time and place, "two go to bed, but three get up".
The "three" that get up in your scenario are not married. Your argument is an irrational one.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5293
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You concede far too much ground. Despite multiple corrections, Pietro wants us to agree that children of same-sex couples
Clearly not "of" in the biological sense.
would miraculously obtain biological parents of opposite gender
Everyone has biological parents of the opposite gender, even you. HS biology.
if only gays were prevented from marrying
Gays can marry, same as anyone else.
or adopting.
Gays can adopt, and as I've said in numerous posts in the past, can be wonderful parents. There are children who have been adopted by gay couples and are very fortunate to have been.
Yet no one on these boards has yet answered the fundamental question of who these children are who are being deprived of a mother and father.
Perhaps the lesbian couple who goes to the local sperm bank for a "freeze pop", pun I tended. Or the gay male couple who buy an egg, rent a womb, and mix their sperm so that they do not know who the biological father is.
How did they get there? Were they adopted because their biological parents agreed that they couldn't care for them? If so, then they are hardly deprived of anything: they are afforded the opportunity of two loving parents that they otherwise would not have had.
See above.
Are they the product of sperm donation or surrogacy? In that case, perhaps the children wouldn't exist at all without the intervention of same-sex parents. Does Pietro argue that the children would have been better off not being born?
The children wouldn't exist at all in those scenarios, unless a deliberate attempt was made for conception.
This idea of being deprived of either a mother or father is completely bogus. Nobody yet has described a situation where any child is deprived of any parent.
I just did, see above.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

41 Users are viewing the US News Forum right now

Search the US News Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min Agents of Corruption 245,956
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min DITCH MITCH 147,076
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Incognito4Ever 1,083,769
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min wondering 113,187
Court orders halt to Colorado gay marriages 24 min Jumper The wise 19
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 24 min Louis Slungpoo 45,893
Who is the worst president since WWII ? 27 min VN Vet 277
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 31 min NorCal Native 52,948
Democrats find living on minimum wage is tough 2 hr Bama Yankee 145
•••
•••