Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11187 Oct 8, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
It's sexual intercourse and sexual intercourse is NOT strictly defined as a penis into a vagina!!!
sexual intercourse
1. coitus.
2. any physical contact between two individuals involving stimulation of the genital organs of at least one.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.c...
You define it your way and others will define it their way and the Courts simply DON'T care about how some couple defines their sexual relations!!!
Not so fast Miss Researcher......we both know you spoke, so to speak, too soon with "coitus" . You could possibly male a case for "sexual intercourse" being applied to same sex, but clearly not "colitis".

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11188 Oct 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not so fast Miss Researcher......we both know you spoke, so to speak, too soon with "coitus" . You could possibly male a case for "sexual intercourse" being applied to same sex, but clearly not "colitis".
Pietro, none of your mindless rhetoric changes the plain and simple fact that you can't offer a compelling governmental interest served by restricting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional. Instead, you offer childish semantics and engage in playing word games.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#11189 Oct 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not so fast Miss Researcher......we both know you spoke, so to speak, too soon with "coitus" . You could possibly male a case for "sexual intercourse" being applied to same sex, but clearly not "colitis".
This sort of "dictionary argument" sounds like it would be effective in not only denying same-sex couples marriage, but also in denying us dating, sex, companionship, proms, dinner and a movie, living together, parenting, kissing, hand-holding.... ANYTHING that someone thinks should be reserved for opposite-sex couples only.

"The dictionary says all these things should be man-woman! Don't let the gays weaken them!!"

Why aren't all these things illegal for same-sex couples? Many of them USED to be. Why not anymore? Why is marriage the LAST bastion of legal denial?

Or I should say, the "dictionary argument" WOULD be effective at denying all these things, if it were ALSO effective as a denial to marriage. It sure hasn't SEEMED effective lately.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11190 Oct 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so fast Miss Researcher......we both know you spoke, so to speak, too soon with "coitus".
No she didn't. This is yet another case where the English language is evolving and leaving you in the ash heap of history, small Peter.

From dictionary.com :

co·i·tus
noun
sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman

Note the word "especially" is not a synonym for exclusively.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]You could possibly male a case for "sexual intercourse" being applied to same sex, but clearly not "colitis".
Neither "colitis" not "coitus" are exclusive to opposite sex couples.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11192 Oct 8, 2013
Wise_Crack_er wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/afa m/T34K0LLUUAMCD7F4D/post323
And yet they continue to make stupid arguments that are demonstrably false. It is one thing to make an unwarranted ad hominem attack. It is another thing entirely to point out that one is advancing a stupid argument with no basis in fact, essentially illustrating that they are an idiot.

The truth is an absolute defense against defamation.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11194 Oct 8, 2013
Wise_Crack_er wrote:
Hit dog hollas, ehh?
If one is truly an idiot, what is the harm of addressing them as such?

If they are ignorant of the US Constitution, what is the harm of calling them ignorant?

If they are bigoted against fellow citizens, and wish to hold them as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law; what's the harm of calling them bigoted?

The truth is an absolutely defense against defamation.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11196 Oct 8, 2013
Wise_Crack_er wrote:
Huh?
Don't get flustered.
It's JUST a comment forum.
Seemingly full of unintelligent trolls who don't understand the topic and won't listen to reason.

I'm not particularly concerned about it, but when someone makes idiotic, bigoted, or stupid statements, then I will call them idiotic, bigoted, and stupid.

The reality remains that even the premise of this particular thread is relatively absurd because it implies that churches wish to participate in the political process. Of course, if they do that they may well put their tax exempt status in jeopardy.

Ultimately legislators are constitutionally forbidden from making laws respecting an establishment of religion, so the political views of religious institutions are largely irrelevant as a matter of law. Individual members of a religion acting as individuals can make their views known, because they have free speech, the institution on the other hand does not.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11197 Oct 8, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
It's sexual intercourse and sexual intercourse is NOT strictly defined as a penis into a vagina!!!
sexual intercourse
1. coitus.
2. any physical contact between two individuals involving stimulation of the genital organs of at least one.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.c...
You define it your way and others will define it their way and the Courts simply DON'T care about how some couple defines their sexual relations!!!
Frottage would even qualify.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11199 Oct 8, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither "colitis" not "coitus" are exclusive to opposite sex couples.
D'OH! Apple spell checker.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11200 Oct 8, 2013
Wise_Crack_er wrote:
Yup.
All worked up,
....over a comment forum.
That's sad.
Nope, all worked up over stupid people who suffer from delusions of adequacy.

Then again, one need only look at your profile photo to determine you are terribly tightly wrapped.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11201 Oct 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Frottage would even qualify.
You're probably right.....but I'm certain that poster will just change the word to something else.....lol!!!
No Comment

New Port Richey, FL

#11203 Oct 9, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, it's your posts that are irrelevant and informed by ignorance if not willful stupidity.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Relying on demeaning insults does not make you correct.
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T34K0LLUUAMCD...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11204 Oct 9, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You're probably right.....but I'm certain that poster will just change the word to something else.....lol!!!
Buuuuuuut......not for coitus!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11205 Oct 9, 2013
http://i.word.com/idictionary/coitus

Main Entry: co·i·tus
Pronunciation:\&#712;k &#333;-&#601;-t&#6 01;s, k&#333;-&#712;&#27 5;-, &#712;k&#559;i-t&# 601;s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from coire
Date: 1845
: physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements :

Main Entry: coitus in·ter·rup·tus
Pronunciation:\-&#716;in-t &#601;-&#712;r&#60 1;p-t&#601;s\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, interrupted coitus
Date: 1900
: coitus in which the penis is withdrawn prior to ejaculation to prevent the deposit of sperm into the
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither "colitis" not "coitus" are exclusive to opposite sex couples.
Coitus is.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11206 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The Supreme Court affirmed marriage as a fundamental right even in case where the husband AND wife, who comprise the marital union upon which the fundamental right is based, cannot, or will not procreate, engage in "marital relations" also known as sexual intercourse, coitus.
Then the marriage fundamental right must not be dependent on any ability to have sex or engage in any particular sexual act.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11207 Oct 9, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Then the marriage fundamental right must not be dependent on any ability to have sex or engage in any particular sexual act.
Its based on the male female union. The only union capable of producing little DaveinMass-es. All the sexual references apply to that union. Its not difficult. The idea of a "same sex" marriage is a virtual new invention in both Western civilization and American history.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11208 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Its based on the male female union. The only union capable of producing little DaveinMass-es. All the sexual references apply to that union. Its not difficult. The idea of a "same sex" marriage is a virtual new invention in both Western civilization and American history.
But you don't need marriage to produce MiniMes and since no particular sex act need be accomplished for marriage why would any court stipulate that only males and females can legally marry?

And let's not forget that the court already recognizes same-sex marriages as legal and valid.

I have the fundamental right to marry.

John has the fundamental right to marry.

Why can John and I not exercise that right together?

You don't have a very strong foundation to build your argument.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11209 Oct 9, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
I have the fundamental right to marry.
John has the fundamental right to marry.
Why can John and I not exercise that right together?
It depends. If your state allows it you can.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#11210 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
New Jersey State University.
Is that right.... and your major was Prevarication?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#11211 Oct 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Its based on the male female union. The only union capable of producing little DaveinMass-es. All the sexual references apply to that union. Its not difficult. The idea of a "same sex" marriage is a virtual new invention in both Western civilization and American history.
Afraid of change, eh?

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 Trump all but endorses GOP's Moore despite sex ... 1 min Get a life 94
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Grey Ghost 1,644,255
News Roy Moore accuser says she was not paid to tell... 9 min Get a life 41
News Delay in Muslims' citizenship leads to lawsuits 12 min Nuke Mecca 3
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 14 min RIP 42,619
News Diagnosing Trump: Did America elect a madman? 15 min Get a life 320
News Racism and Nationalism Were Central to the Elec... 24 min Get a life 24
News Sen. Al Franken accused of inappropriate behavi... 1 hr Pickle Rick 172
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 2 hr Bill Dunning 1,241
News Many Christian conservatives are backing Alabam... 5 hr Newt G s Next Wife 251
More from around the web