Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,562

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.

Full Story

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11285 Oct 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that was funny Liddie.....very good!
It would be, if you ever had the courage or ingenuity to answer my question.

Actually, the fact that you routinely avoid it is a tacit answer of sorts. You have no valid basis for your position, and you are utterly incapable of offering a rational defense of your position.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11286 Oct 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, just one man, and one woman. Nature takes over from there.
Pietro, procreation, the ability to procreate, and child rearing is utterly irrelevant to legal marriage. It must be embarrassing to present yourself in a public forum as someone so unintelligent.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Your objection is a dodge, the issue is one of definition. How is marriage defined? Polygamy, and incest are just as much part if the discussion as SSM.
No, they really aren't. Polygamy does not seek equal protection of the law (I am very sorry to see that you haven't learned to count to three, or understand that it is greater than two. That must be embarrassing.), and there is a compelling governmental interest served by denying incestuous marriage.

Can you indicate such a interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, which would render such a restriction constitutional, and prove that you aren't a mental midget?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11287 Oct 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, procreation, the ability to procreate, and child rearing is utterly irrelevant to legal marriage. It must be embarrassing to present yourself in a public forum as someone so unintelligent.
<quoted text>
No, they really aren't. Polygamy does not seek equal protection of the law (I am very sorry to see that you haven't learned to count to three, or understand that it is greater than two. That must be embarrassing.), and there is a compelling governmental interest served by denying incestuous marriage.
Can you indicate such a interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, which would render such a restriction constitutional, and prove that you aren't a mental midget?
"....mental midget..."? Man, oh man....that was funny. Thanks again!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11288 Oct 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"....mental midget..."? Man, oh man....that was funny. Thanks again!
You've earned it, as is evident from this post where you fail to make a single on topic remark. Congratulations.

Are you having difficulty finding a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, are you too dumb to find one, or are you simply petrified by the simple fact that none exists, and that you lack the ability to respond with an on topic argument?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11289 Oct 11, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooooooh......ahhhhhhhh...I'm in the presence of intellectual greatness.
How so? Did you post this while sitting in a classroom of 1st graders?
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, not just like "blacks and whites". One's ethnicity does not interfere with one's ability to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
It obviously did interfere with the ability of some people to marry for decades in parts of the country. It was a restriction placed on marriage that impacted how individuals were able to exercise their fundamental right of marriage. It was applied equally to all men and women within the law's jurisdiction as you keep asserting the gender and number restrictions do. What it also did was interfere with an individual's choice in how they wished to exercise their right. The laws were ruled unconstitutional because their was no compelling state interest served by the restriction as required under strict scrutiny applied to fundamental rights.

And I see you still haven't learned the difference between race and ethnicity. Black and white are races; Italian is an ethnicity.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's only two sexes.
Which had nothing to do with anti-miscegenation laws or the reason they were found unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Besides such laws were designed to maintain white supremacy, that's why the laws were ruled unconstitutional.
No, anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional because maintaining white supremacy wasn't deemed a compelling state interest that could justify an infringement of a fundamental right.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Same sex sexual behavior is not new, assigning a political sexual identity to it, is virtually new.
Being gay is no more a "political identity" than being a woman or black or Italian or a military veteran or Jewish. They're simply human characteristics, some of which are innate and others of which are learned/acquired.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSSB existed in Ancient Rome, but the Romans didn't put rainbow bumper stickers on their chariots.
Christians existed in ancient Rome too but the Romans didn't have St. Patrick's day parades and ask each other "WWJD?".
Pietro Armando wrote:
....behind the rainbow flag?
Like Catholics do behind the yellow and white papal flag with the triple papal crown and keys of St. Peter?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or even today, not all gay folks think redefining marriage is a good idea, protection for SSCs, yes, redefinition, no.
And yet a majority of polled adults nationwide now favor legal recognition of same sex marriage, most of whom are heterosexual.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Only the smart, handsome, or beautiful, ones.
If they were all like you, they wouldn't qualify as smart and even if considered handsome or beautiful on the outside, it would only be a facade for the ugly bigotry hiding inside.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11290 Oct 11, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
Perhaps if you took off the rainbow glasses, you could see better.
Perhaps if you could throw off the shackles of your heteronormativity and heterosexual privilege, you'd be able honestly self-assess your own words and behavior toward gays.
Pietro Armando wrote:
First, it's not "heterosexual procreation", just sexual procreation.
Another good example of how you so frequently whine about the "style" of an assertion as a means of avoiding addressing the actual substance of it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Second, I never claimed, "always", rather children, should be raised by their own mother and father, as I was, if a all possible.
But it's not always possible and you denigrate both straight and gay people who adopt children or use medical assistance to form their families with your incessant and irrelevant linkage of procreation to marriage when it's neither a requirement of marriage nor dependent upon being married.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The foundation is the male female union. Both you, and I are here, because of it.
100% of us are here because our biological parents had sex or used medical assistance to facilitate fertility and/or conception. Only slightly more than half of newly born children in the US are born within wedlock. Proving once more that sex and marriage are not synonymous nor does one require the other.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So every aspect of marriage law applies to same sex marriage?
You've yet to provide a valid example of a law that didn't apply to both same and opposite sex couples. At least not one that didn't rely ignoring the evolution of the English language.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You ignore the obvious. This particular fundamental right exists because men and women exist, and their union is procreational.
Yes, fundamental rights are intrinsic to human existence. However, the fact non-procreational people can and do form unions recognized as marriage prove the second half of your assertion false.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The state is under no obligation to even recognize marriage.
Within our constitutional system, the state can't ignore the existence or exercise of fundamental rights because of the ninth and tenth amendments to the constitution.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So if it doesn't recognize it, does it exist as a right?
Yes.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#11291 Oct 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
perfect example of what happens when you let religious cults like islam and christianity rule... well,same cult, different sects...
This is where we differ; American Christians don't promote killing gays while many Islamic countries, Jamaica and Russia punish homosexuals. I believe we should all work together to save lives instead of fighting against each other over radical changes to marriage laws for everyone. Same sex marriage is bad because it forces the left to ignore the danger to Russian and Muslim gays. Reason 3 for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival.

Since: Mar 07

Rhoadesville, VA

#11292 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>....... Same sex marriage is bad because it forces the left to ignore the danger to Russian and Muslim gays. Reason 3 for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival.
You have got to be kidding. Legal marriage leads to persecution and genocide?

You have finally lost whatever sanity you might have had.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#11293 Oct 12, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You have got to be kidding. Legal marriage leads to persecution and genocide?
You have finally lost whatever sanity you might have had.
If you've read his posts, you realize he never had any sanity to begin with.

According to Brian's 'logic' we should close all the doughnut shops because some people are on a diet.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11294 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>This is where we differ; American Christians don't promote killing gays while many Islamic countries, Jamaica and Russia punish homosexuals.
That's not entirely true, Brian. Not too long ago a Christian pastor said gays and lesbians should be rounded up and imprisoned behind fences until hey died. Because the pastor stupidly thinks that gays "recruit" rather than being the product of heterosexual procreation.
Brian_G wrote:
I believe we should all work together to save lives instead of fighting against each other over radical changes to marriage laws for everyone.
Feel free to go save lives in Russia and take a break from advocating discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of US citizens. You won't be missed.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is bad because it forces the left to ignore the danger to Russian and Muslim gays.
The left is preoccupied with the danger from conservatives to gays in our own country. If you and your ilk would stop discriminating against a class of your fellow citizens simply because they're different from you, perhaps people would have more time to address the problems in other countries.
Brian_G wrote:
Reason 3 for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival.
Nothing is stopping YOU from ending your campaign of discrimination against gays in the US to go save the lives of gays in other countries. Except your own prejudice, that is.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11295 Oct 12, 2013
Church leaders will do what?

Who cares?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11296 Oct 12, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
Yes, technically first cousins are already related by blood so establishing legal kinship is redundant in that respect. However, some states still permit such marriages because the consequences of conflicting relationships is not as not as pronounced as they are for sibling or parent child marriages.
Plus the risk of sexually procreative genetic defects is low. A risk non existent in same sex siblings.
Adoption in the US only establishes parent-child relationships; one can not adopt another as a spouse.
Adult adoption is allowed in some states. Adults can establish legal kinship without marriage.
True. But then again, you don't really care about the "plight" of polygamists except to the extent you can fake concern and use them to argue against same sex marriage. Your views make clear you don't want either type of relationship recognized as marriage in the US.
I am concerned about the definition of marriage and the consequences of legally redefining it. Both polygamy, and SSM represent a fundamental change in the understanding of marriage as a union off one man and one woman as husband and wife.
Just more of your usual circular reasoning. Marriage is comprised of a male and female because only a males and female have historically been allowed to marry.
Because of the obvious, there are two sexes, and human reproduction is sexual. There's not a great deal of cross time, cross cultural necessity for SSM. If same sex union produced something, there would be a need to recognize it.
Two errors in one short clause: 1) conjugality is a result of marriage, not a requirement for it, and 2) same sex couples can be conjugal too (recall the English language is evolving even if you refuse to do so).
1.) Conjugal as in husband and wife. Thus marriage conjugal marriage states, define marriage soley as union of husband and wife.
2.) Same sex couples cannot, by composition be conjugal, as the word is most commonly understood, historically, cultural, nationwide, and still legally, in thirty plus states.
Given polygamy existed historically and continues to exist in current times, the answer for the US is polygamy is prohibited for cultural and/or religious reasons. That doesn't mean the laws prohibiting bigamy can't be legally challenged of someone i willing to do so.
That they can be, the first step is decriminalization.
Sex has already been ruled a quasi-suspect class for equal protection constitutional law and subject to intermediate scrutiny. So to enact laws that discriminate on the basis of sex, the state must assert an important government interest and the law must be substantially related to that asserted interest.
States, that have chosen to maintain the monogamous conjugal definition of marriage, assert its continuance as an important governent interest.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11297 Oct 12, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, procreation, the ability to procreate, and child rearing is utterly irrelevant to legal marriage. It must be embarrassing to present yourself in a public forum as someone so unintelligent.
Spoken like a true SSM advocate, who need not be concerned with such matters. However, as indicated by the various court citations dating back over 150 yrs plus, procreation is indeed a function of marriage. To claim otherwise is either to be willfully ignorant of history, or too stubborn to admit the obvious.
No, they really aren't. Polygamy does not seek equal protection of the law (I am very sorry to see that you haven't learned to count to three, or understand that it is greater than two. That must be embarrassing.),
SSM seeks greater protection of law, not equal. It asks that TWO men, or TWO women, be treated the same as ONE man AND ONE woman.
and there is a compelling governmental interest served by denying incestuous marriage.
Not as it relates to SSM, at least siblings.
Can you indicate such a interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, which would render such a restriction constitutional, and prove that you aren't a mental midget?
Can YOU indicate such an interest served by denying some men, or women, the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife valid in every state, as other men and women, that would render such a denial constitutional?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11298 Oct 12, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
How so? Did you post this while sitting in a classroom of 1st graders?
Only of you cloned yourself enough times to fill a 1st grade classroom?
It obviously did interfere with the ability of some people to marry for decades in parts of the country. It was a restriction placed on marriage that impacted how individuals were able to exercise their fundamental right of marriage. It was applied equally to all men and women within the law's jurisdiction as you keep asserting the gender and number restrictions do. What it also did was interfere with an individual's choice in how they wished to exercise their right. The laws were ruled unconstitutional because their was no compelling state interest served by the restriction as required under strict scrutiny applied to fundamental rights.
It was ruled unconstitutional beeeeeeeeee.....cuz:

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
And I see you still haven't learned the difference between race and ethnicity. Black and white are races; Italian is an ethnicity.
In the 19th century, and into the 20th century, ethnicity, and race, were often used interchangeably.
Being gay is no more a "political identity" than being a woman or black or Italian or a military veteran or Jewish.
"Gay" IS a political sexual identity label, hence the alphabet soup designation, "LGBTQPI"! Being a woman is one's sex. Black or Italian, or both, is Inez's ethnicity/race. Military veteran, one's experience. Jewish, Inez's religious faith and/or ethnicity.
Christians existed in ancient Rome too but the Romans didn't have St. Patrick's day parades and ask each other "WWJD?".
Christians had to hide at times in Ancient Rome. I don't think there was a large Irish population back then, and the would probably ask "WWCMUD" ( What would Cesear make us do). Not a bad comeback though....I see you're starting to use your thinking cap.
Like Catholics do behind the yellow and white papal flag with the triple papal crown and keys of St. Peter?
Remember Terry, the Vatican is a city state, a political entity. Is it any different than Irish marching behind their flag on St Paddy's Day?
And yet a majority of polled adults nationwide now favor legal recognition of same sex marriage, most of whom are heterosexual.
So why then the votes against SSM at the other polls?
If they were all like you, they wouldn't qualify as smart and even if considered handsome or beautiful on the outside, it would only be a facade for the ugly bigotry hiding inside.
"Ugly bigotry hiding inside"?.....such loaded language.....alas not true. My beauty is both inside and out.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11299 Oct 12, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
Plus the risk of sexually procreative genetic defects is low. A risk non existent in same sex siblings.
But married same sex siblings, like married opposite sex siblings, still create the same real legal issues that would result from conflicting blood and kinship relationships.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Adult adoption is allowed in some states. Adults can establish legal kinship without marriage.
You need to read more carefully, small Peter. I never said adults couldn't adopt other adults. The issue is adoption creates a parent-child legal relationship, not a spouse-spouse legal relationship. Therefore adult adoption isn't a substitute for marriage since it doesn't make the adopter and adoptee eligible for the legal benefits and privileges conferred upon marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I am concerned about the definition of marriage and the consequences of legally redefining it. Both polygamy, and SSM represent a fundamental change in the understanding of marriage as a union off one man and one woman as husband and wife.
It's not being redefined; it's having an unconstitutional restriction based on gender removed. Marriage still accomplishes the same thing whether the participants are same sex, opposite sex or various combinations involving more than three people: creating kinship between previously unrelated people. Your definition is defective since it doesn't account for reality as it existed in the past, across cultures or in the present.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Because of the obvious, there are two sexes, and human reproduction is sexual.
People don't have to be married to reproduce. In fact, almost half of children in the US are currently born out of wedlock. Marriage as a fundamental right is not based on procreation. The decision whether to procreate or not is a separate fundamental right protected by the constitutional guarantee of privacy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's not a great deal of cross time, cross cultural necessity for SSM.
Unfortunately, animus and discrimination like yours towards gays have been all too prevalent across time and cultures, creating the dearth of examples you then cite as the reason for why it shouldn't be recognized. So your argument is essentially "we've never allowed gays to marry and because there is no historicity of gay marriage we shouldn't allow it now." Just more of your usual circular reasoning.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11300 Oct 12, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
If same sex union produced something, there would be a need to recognize it.
Same sex marriages create kinship and families so are no different than opposite sex marriages in that respect. Regardless, State recognition of fundamental rights is required by the constitution; it's not something individuals have to prove has "value" to the state in order to receive state recognition.
Pietro Armando wrote:
1.) Conjugal as in husband and wife. Thus marriage conjugal marriage states, define marriage soley as union of husband and wife.
And when the unconstitutional gender restrictions in those states are removed, both same sesx and opposite sex couples will be conjugal.
Pietro Armando wrote:
2.) Same sex couples cannot, by composition be conjugal, as the word is most commonly understood, historically, cultural, nationwide, and still legally, in thirty plus states.
Conjugality is a result of marriage, small Peter, not a requirement for it. NO state requires marriage participants to prove themselves capable of sexual intercourse, much makes them promise to engage in it. Closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet won't stop the English language from evolving or constitutional justice from prevailing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That they can be, the first step is decriminalization.
And yet no polygamist, not even your oft cited Brown family, is actually litigating to have bigamy decriminalized. Again, you need to read the details of the lawsuit rather than just talking out of your ass.
Pietro Armando wrote:
States, that have chosen to maintain the monogamous conjugal definition of marriage, assert its continuance as an important governent interest.
Infringement of a fundamental right like marriage triggers strict scrutiny, not the lesser intermediate scrutiny used for quasi-suspect classes like sex. So the state needs to provide a compelling, not merely an important government interest ti infringe a person's right of marriage. And states can assert whatever they want is a compelling or an important government interest; it's the court that actually decides whether it is or not.

The other aspect of strict scrutiny that doesn't get cited as frequently as the compelling government interest requirement is the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve the asserted interest and implemented using the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. Unfortunately for you, your "we've always discriminated against gays and prohibited same sex marriages" argument doesn't meet any of the requirements of strict or intermediate scrutiny to be deemed a permissible infringement of the right to marry.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11301 Oct 12, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Only of you cloned yourself enough times to fill a 1st grade classroom?
No need; any first grader could construct better and more rational arguments than you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It was ruled unconstitutional beeeeeeeeee.....cuz:
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
What that really means, small Peter, is whether SCOTUS reviewed the issue as an infringement of the fundamental right to marry or as violation of equal protection of the law, strict scrutiny would be the standard of judicial review applied because strict scrutiny is always applied in cases of fundamental rights and suspect classes (which race has been ruled). And they found there was NO legitimate much less compelling government interest/purpose to justify anti-miscegenation laws. They went even further and declared the sole reason for their existence was "invidious racial discrimination" which violates both substantive due process and equal protection.

One interesting aspect of the ruling to which you should pay close attention to is the idea that the fundamental right of marriage also includes "the freedom of choice". If you have the intellectual capability to process that, perhaps you might finally begin to understand why your constant suggestions that gays should just marry people of the opposite sex to comply with unconstitutional laws is insulting and repugnant rather than empathetic as you laughably think it is.
Pietro Armando wrote:
In the 19th century, and into the 20th century, ethnicity, and race, were often used interchangeably.
IS this the 19th or early 20th century? No. No wonder your ideas and arguments are so outdated.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Gay" IS a political sexual identity label, hence the alphabet soup designation, "LGBTQPI"! Being a woman is one's sex. Black or Italian, or both, is Inez's ethnicity/race. Military veteran, one's experience. Jewish, Inez's religious faith and/or ethnicity.
Being gay, straight or bi is one's sexual orientation; it's simply a less formal lay term preferred by people who identify as such because is it sound less clinical than homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual. Just like white is used instead of "caucasian" and black has taken over from "negro" and "colored" as the preferred term by people who identify as such.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11302 Oct 12, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
Christians had to hide at times in Ancient Rome. I don't think there was a large Irish population back then, and the would probably ask "WWCMUD" ( What would Cesear make us do). Not a bad comeback though....I see you're starting to use your thinking cap.
You mean like gays have had to hide for much of human existence? As I recall, Christians weren't exactly happy about being persecuted back then and certainly did not hesitate to employ the same persecution tactics against Jews, Muslims and non-orthodox Christians when they had the power to do so.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Remember Terry, the Vatican is a city state, a political entity. Is it any different than Irish marching behind their flag on St Paddy's Day?
The Irish marching in US St. Patrick's Day parades are overwhelmingly US rather than Irish citizens. They march behind an Irish flag for cultural reasons, which is exactly the same reason gays have the rainbow flag as a symbol. The pink triangle that Hitler made gays wear in Nazi Germany also has a historical cultural significance for gays too. Adopting previous words or symbols of oppression has been a frequent method used by discriminated against minorities to overcome and negate societal imposed stigma.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So why then the votes against SSM at the other polls?
Public opinion has shifted significantly in the past 5 years. Recall, none of the anti-gay ballot measures passed in the last general election in 2012. And it was at least 20 years after anti-miscegantion laws were ruled unconstitutional before a majority of polled adults expressed approval of interracial marriages.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Ugly bigotry hiding inside"?.....such loaded language.....alas not true.
On the contrary, you advocate continued infringement of the fundamental rights of gays and offer little more than irrational arguments riddled with logical fallacies as justification.
Pietro Armando wrote:
My beauty is both inside and out.
So you're a narcissistic bigot. I stand corrected.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11303 Oct 12, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
Perhaps if you could throw off the shackles of your heteronormativity and heterosexual privilege, you'd be able honestly self-assess your own words and behavior toward gays.
"Heteronormativity"? I was wondering when it would rear its ugly head. Oh the humanity! But bounds points for the comeback Potts. Bravo! Good job.
Another good example of how you so frequently whine about the "style" of an assertion as a means of avoiding addressing the actual substance of it.
No, just pointing out the irrelevance of interjecting sexual political identity labels into every aspect of this issue.
But it's not always possible and you denigrate both straight and gay people who adopt children
Agree, and no, quite the contrary, I have praised, on this thread, people who adopt children.
or use medical assistance to form their families
Sounds so coldly clinical. Do you mean medical assistance like when two men buy an egg, rent a womb, and mix their sperm together so as not to know who the biological father is? I wonder what "medical assistance" the children use to know their Mom?
with your incessant and irrelevant linkage of procreation to marriage when it's neither a requirement of marriage nor dependent upon being married.
But it is the primary function, or a least one of the primary functions, of matrimony, as many a court has ruled.
100% of us are here because our biological parents had sex or used medical assistance to facilitate fertility and/or conception.
As I said, the male female union.
. Only slightly more than half of newly born children in the US are born within wedlock. Proving once more that sex and marriage are not synonymous nor does one require the other.
What it proves, is that we, as a society, have devalued marriage, much to the detriment of our children.
You've yet to provide a valid example of a law that didn't apply to both same and opposite sex couples. At least not one that didn't rely ignoring the evolution of the English language.
Still won't concede the "coitus" point I see.
Yes, fundamental rights are intrinsic to human existence. However, the fact non-procreational people can and do form unions recognized as marriage prove the second half of your assertion false.
No, it proves marriage is still a male female union, orientated towards its procreative aspect.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11304 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>This is where we differ; American Christians don't promote killing gays while many Islamic countries, Jamaica and Russia punish homosexuals. I believe we should all work together to save lives instead of fighting against each other over radical changes to marriage laws for everyone. Same sex marriage is bad because it forces the left to ignore the danger to Russian and Muslim gays. Reason 3 for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival.
WTF?

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Incognito4Ever 1,190,667
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min wtf 172,063
5 Most Controversial Presidential Elections in ... 8 min meximan 1
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 9 min Rick Perry s Closet 100
Scott Walker has no college degree. That's norm... 9 min barefoot2626 1,814
Obama Calls for Two Years of Free Community Col... 11 min Silent Echo 1,254
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 11 min Coffee Party 312,720
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu atten... 29 min kuda 14
Alexander pledges help if court blocks health l... 1 hr Mothra 4
Scott Walker reverses immigration stance 1 hr serfs up 13
House leaders, Senate Democrats at odds over ho... 2 hr WeTheSheeple 1
More from around the web