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.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5175 Jul 2, 2013
Why is Pietro so obsessed with sex with his female family members?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5176 Jul 2, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Why is Pietro so obsessed with sex with his female family members?
I could make a joke like, "if only you saw my sister", but it'd be wasted on u, not to mention it might be viewed in poor taste. But it falls under the category of , "never knew that". So does this mean you're talking to me again, or only through other posters?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5177 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I could make a joke like, "if only you saw my sister", but it'd be wasted on u, not to mention it might be viewed in poor taste. But it falls under the category of , "never knew that". So does this mean you're talking to me again, or only through other posters?
Your sister may even like the attention.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5178 Jul 3, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Your sister may even like the attention.
Thanks Wastey, I knew I could count on you.:)

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5179 Jul 3, 2013
lides wrote:
They will fall soon. People like yourself don't have the wherewithal to offer any argument justifying them. They violate full faith and credit. I suspect that one of the new challenges to the state bans will make its way to the US Supreme Court and same sex marriage bans will be overturned on a broad basis, effectively rendering DOMA irrelevant.
I think it's more likely, we'll pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#5180 Jul 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I think it's more likely, we'll pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage.
Unconstitutional laws can be made Constitutional....Soon nation wide same sex marriage will be legal...If it bothers you so much I hear your kind will fit in in Iran real nice....Tyranny is the friend of far right religous slime....LEAVE THIS FREE NATION.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5181 Jul 3, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
The gay community's request to have their marriages federally recognized is NOT a request for "anything goes".
<quoted text>
Like what? The only effect I've seen is that people who are in a bad marriage can get out.
<quoted text>
This version of marriage has a real bias against children from unmarried parents. It also seems useless to married couples who have no children.
To suggest that it weakens ANYTHING for the state to uphold its compelling interest of treating gay citizens the same as ALL citizens is nothing but an insult. It's also just a retread of anti-interracial marriage arguments.
<quoted text>
"Siblings" and "spouses" describes two different relationships, one of which is already family. Someone in the UK justice system believed that they should not get the break, so argue it with them.
<quoted text>
How is that a function? If you stop at the word "joining", you've defined the function enough.
<quoted text>
But many gay couples WILL raise the next generation (RAISING children being more important than HAVING them). If straight couples need marriage to protect their children, then so do gay couples.
But no one needs a marriage to protect their children. Children are protected whether their parents are married or not.
<quoted text>
Siblings are already family. They don't need a contract to enshrine it further.
<quoted text>
American law is always changing... but you knew that.
<quoted text>
No joke, NJ has no incest laws. Many states already allow what you're worried gay marriage will cause.
<quoted text>
No ennumerating for you, huh? As usual.
Biology has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage does not exist in nature or biology, it's entirely a human construct. No other animal does it. Procreation isn't inhibited in the absence of marriage, nor is it bolstered by its presence.
<quoted text>
Yes, I'm sure that's how they decided to busy themselves. I'm sure it was THAT, rather than the fact that these are separate issues with their own complications.
Fantastic response.

“Emblem of the Brave and True”

Since: Sep 10

Los Angeles, CA

#5182 Jul 3, 2013
At what point do we stop allowing government to dictate our private morals? If homosexuality is immoral or lewd and though not harming those participating nor the society to whose general well being we structure moral code by then what restraint has a states legislature? What then prevents the governing authority to legislate one's private alcohol consumption or smoking habits. Should a state decide masturbation and pornagraphy equal in vice to sodomy? What limits it to not regulate private cursing, passing gas, or left handedness as offensive and immoral to society? This decision to allow a state to determine if a legal union can be made by two same sex people on account of whether or not the general state population in majority has determined deprave their divergence in private moralities from the normal sexual behavior. A majority can not dictate the validity of anothers priviedge and deny them full faith and credit by the merits of a loosely defined general sense of morality based on religious doctrine and not documented occurrences of actual harm to society. If we have nothing but theologic historia to define our cultures permissible behaviors and then etch them to our constitution prohibiting an immorality, what limits further tyranny by the majority? What protects people from an overreaching religious persuasion? To the states it is decided. This opens the door for debate on private moralities and how moral code is legislated.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5183 Jul 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I think it's more likely, we'll pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage.
With a congress that couldn't pass gas?

You've just proven that you are a moron.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5184 Jul 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://answers.yahoo.com/quest ion/index?qid=20090905124015AA feNpV
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
A bit of cut and paste for you:
In the United States, every state and the District of Columbia have some form of codified incest prohibition.
However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989, Ohio only targets parental figures, and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are over the age of 18. Yet Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years' imprisonment for those engaging in "sexual activities" with relatives closer than first cousins, and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for "sexual penetration" with certain blood relatives and even in-laws.
Georgia incest laws forbid intercourse between parents and children (including step), brothers and sisters (including half), and grandparents and grandchildren.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regard …
You seem to be laboring under the impression that this string is about incest. It isn't.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5185 Jul 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I think it's more likely, we'll pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage.
LOL!!! Brian_G_Idiot, that will never happen. Wanna no why? Because neither you, nor anyone else on your side has yet to present any actual threat that marriage is under!!

"Protect" marriage. What a load of bullshyt!!!!

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#5186 Jul 3, 2013
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
Unconstitutional laws can be made Constitutional....Soon nation wide same sex marriage will be legal...If it bothers you so much I hear your kind will fit in in Iran real nice....Tyranny is the friend of far right religous slime....LEAVE THIS FREE NATION.
Actually, TYRANNY is a friend of the Left. In this country we call it "OBAMACARE".

:)

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5187 Jul 3, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Why is Pietro so obsessed with sex with his female family members?
Because he's not dealing with a full deck. That's demonstrated daily by his repetitive nonsensical posts, and his belief that marriage is tied to incest and polygamy.

He's an idiot.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5188 Jul 3, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fantastic response.
Sparkle!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5189 Jul 3, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be laboring under the impression that this string is about incest. It isn't.
It would explain you.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5190 Jul 3, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because he's not dealing with a full deck. That's demonstrated daily by his repetitive nonsensical posts, and his belief that marriage is tied to incest and polygamy.
He's an idiot.
Hellllooooo....McFly, polygamy IS marriage, a valid form throughout time and place.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5191 Jul 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Wastey, I knew I could count on you.:)
Yea. I'm selling rat's asses. Ten for a dollar individually gift wrapped. Thought you might be interested.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5192 Jul 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hellllooooo....McFly, polygamy IS marriage, a valid form throughout time and place.
Sure Pietro. No doubt. One of the most interesting aspects of the whole arrangement is the fact that only one usually becomes the primary along with her progeny as heir and successor. I don't know of any traditional polygamy arrangements other than one man with multiple wives. Kind of paternal don't you think? While we are messing things up, how about a Poly marriage with several men and several women without regard to the exact number of each?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5193 Jul 3, 2013
Nomos Soter wrote:
At what point do we stop allowing government to dictate our private morals? If homosexuality is immoral or lewd and though not harming those participating nor the society to whose general well being we structure moral code by then what restraint has a states legislature? What then prevents the governing authority to legislate one's private alcohol consumption or smoking habits. Should a state decide masturbation and pornagraphy equal in vice to sodomy? What limits it to not regulate private cursing, passing gas, or left handedness as offensive and immoral to society? This decision to allow a state to determine if a legal union can be made by two same sex people on account of whether or not the general state population in majority has determined deprave their divergence in private moralities from the normal sexual behavior. A majority can not dictate the validity of anothers priviedge and deny them full faith and credit by the merits of a loosely defined general sense of morality based on religious doctrine and not documented occurrences of actual harm to society. If we have nothing but theologic historia to define our cultures permissible behaviors and then etch them to our constitution prohibiting an immorality, what limits further tyranny by the majority? What protects people from an overreaching religious persuasion? To the states it is decided. This opens the door for debate on private moralities and how moral code is legislated.
I liked your post. The sentiments were spot on, and the overreaching religious tyranny is something we battle on a daily basis.

If you don't mind, I was hoping I could just point out one thing as you proceed forward to represent right and justice!

You stated "if homosexuality is immoral or lewd" in a manner that implied that homosexuality is an act. It isn't. Homosexuality is an innate characteristic. Homosexual is something I am, not something I do.

This distinction is important. It's one created by the religiously intolerant as a way of trying to portray us as "different". The "behavior" that they love to try and tell us is deviant is "sex". It's the SAME behavior they engage in. But by deceitfully calling our sex "homosexual behavior", they get to pretend that we engage in some behavior that they don't. Which is a lie. The gender of the participants doesn't change what the behavior is called.

I'm a homosexual 24/7, not just when I have sex. Driving a car, brushing my teeth, getting the mail, putting on my socks, changing the channel....would all have to be considered "homosexual behaviors"!! In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of homosexuals that have never had sex yet. They are still homosexuals, even though they haven't engaged in this mythical "homosexual behavior".

You were spot on regarding "morality". Homosexuality has as much to do with morality as gravity does!!

We appreciate the support! Thanks for the post!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5194 Jul 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hellllooooo....McFly, polygamy IS marriage, a valid form throughout time and place.
Um, no you idiot, polygamy is marriageS, not a form of marriage. The wives are not married to each other you moron. Each pairing of husband and wives is an INDEPENDENT marriage. MULTIPLE marriages is not marriage. 1 does not equal greater than one.

Forget it. You're a moron. Carry on with your blathering. It's the same on this string as all your other strings. Pure idiocy.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Donald Trump: Brexit is sign of independence de... 3 min woodtick57 74
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 4 min Lawrence Wolf 867
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 5 min Rosa_Winkel 12,931
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Nuculur option 1,394,562
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min 2all 216,486
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min The Northener 199,180
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 7 min Maria 3,035
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Yeah 387,821
News Rebellious Democrats disrupt House, stage protest 1 hr Bump 233
More from around the web