Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6361 Jul 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the institution based on? If its all "ONE institution", it has to have certain characteristics applicable to all participants? What would those be?
One need simply look at the definition. It's a union, a ceremony and an institution of commitment. These don't change based on the gender components of the participants.

I'm done with you again. I forgot what a waste of time you are.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6362 Jul 21, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
One need simply look at the definition. It's a union, a ceremony and an institution of commitment. These don't change based on the gender components of the participants.
I'm done with you again. I forgot what a waste of time you are.
Oh Madone! The institution is based one the union of husband AND wife. Yes the gender does matter, it matters just as much to you, as to anyone else.

Please enlighten me, what is the institution of gay male marriage based on? What are the characteristics? After all, you have entered that particular institution. Here's your opportunity to help to educate the masses.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#6363 Jul 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Technically it's an opposite sex couple,not "heterosexual", they could be of mixed orientation
An opposite-sex couple is the same as a heterosexual couple......a "MIXED ORIENTATION" couple may include opposite-sex......but one is not who they claim to be!!!

And in today's world "MIXED ORIENTATION" marriages are not typically taking place!!!
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#6364 Jul 21, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
An opposite-sex couple is the same as a heterosexual couple......a "MIXED ORIENTATION" couple may include opposite-sex......but one is not who they claim to be!!!
How so? If the wife states she's bisexual, and the husband, heterosexual, that old make them a mixed orientation couple.
And in today's world "MIXED ORIENTATION" marriages are not typically taking place!!!
Typical? No, uncommon? Yes. Do they occur? Yes!

Diversity at its best.:)

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#6365 Jul 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How so? If the wife states she's bisexual, and the husband, heterosexual, that old make them a mixed orientation couple.
<quoted text>
Typical? No, uncommon? Yes. Do they occur? Yes!
Diversity at its best.:)
That's not what is considered "MIXED ORIENTATION" as I have discovered........just because she is bisexual matters not because she makes a conscious choice to be married to a man!!!

You really don't get it do ya Pete? Even if the couple is 2 men or 2 women......there is STILL diversity in their relationship!!!
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#6366 Jul 21, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what is considered "MIXED ORIENTATION" as I have discovered......
NorCal....there are websites addressing mixed orientation marriages, that would include the scenario I mentioned.
..just because she is bisexual matters not because she makes a conscious choice to be married to a man!!!
So if she were a lesbian married to a man, she would still be making a conscious choice, so what is your point?
You really don't get it do ya Pete? Even if the couple is 2 men or 2 women......there is STILL diversity in their relationship!!!
Not diversity of form, personality perhaps, but not form.

Any comments on the Weed Family?

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#6367 Jul 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
NorCal....there are websites addressing mixed orientation marriages, that would include the scenario I mentioned.
<quoted text>
So if she were a lesbian married to a man, she would still be making a conscious choice, so what is your point?
<quoted text>
Not diversity of form, personality perhaps, but not form.
Any comments on the Weed Family?
I'm sure there are....and there are probably websites that will disagree with your scenario as well.......lol!!!

My guess is in today's society......a Lesbian more than likely would NOT being marrying a man.......though it might still happen today and yes that would be her choice.......and that would in deed be a "MIXED ORIENTATION" marriage!!!

Actually Pete, diversity even if the same sex......why? Because 2 women are not identical, nor are 2 men.....not identical in physical form or personality or what pleases them......you think that because 2 women are together that they are pleased the same way.....and there not!!!

As for the Weed family......who cares? As Josh himself has stated over and over again.....he is a gay man who has NEVER been intimate with another man......and he married his best friend who happens to be a woman......beyond that, it means nothing except to Josh and his family. You can not expect that all Gays or Lesbians do this.......and again this would be considered a "MIXED ORIENTATION" marriage......but I have my own opinions about it, and his supposed marriage has nothing to do with mine nor does it apply to all Gays and Lesbians!!!
1 post removed
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6369 Jul 22, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, you are guessing. so i'll guess right along with you. i doubt that she would have a problem if for whatever reason a homosexual man wanted to form a legal union with any [one] women that she would not be the least bit concerned with it.
so once again she has an established business relationship with the customer involved. it has nothing to do with who or what he is but it has everything to do with the event.
no, i am not "guessing". if she'd have agreed to provide flowers for the wedding ceremony, the case wouldn't have been filed. if she'd have given another reason for not providing a service or flowers for the wedding, the case wouldn't have been filed.

she set the precedent of choosing to do business with the couple in prior transactions. so how is it that she can claim that homosexuality is against her relgious belief and then not perform another transaction with the same couple? either she is religiously offended by it or not.

money is money. period. end of story. apparantly she doesn't have that much use for is as she refused a job, so let her pay up if she doesn't need money in the first place.

you can't pick and choose your customers once you open your doors for business. your customers pick you or they don't. if you're in the business, i'd presume you're in it to make a profit. money is apolitical. it has no gender. it has no political party.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6370 Jul 22, 2013
barry wrote:
so now you want to apply "statistics" to a single case.
No, I just wanted to answer your question about whether or not she was making "a lot" of money from her flowers.
barry wrote:
"statistics say therefore it must be true in her case. really?
No. These statistics only give us a general idea of the costs of flowers on average. I have no idea what the cost was in her case, obviously.
barry wrote:
however you might be right. what do statistics say were the cost of the flowers involved in your statistical sample?
The statistics said that the average cost of flowers per wedding is $1460.00. That's a lot of money to throw away over pointless discrimination.
barry wrote:
what do statistics say would be the cost of labor involved?
The statistics for that weren't given, but that's MORE pointless money thrown away, over the "principle" of building division between people.
barry wrote:
your info is a little lacking as you try to make your point.
It was the handiest info I was able to find on short notice. Where are YOUR statistics to counter any of it?
barry wrote:
now as a Christian [surprised?]
Not at all. Religion is probably the number one excuse people give when they want a "reason" to discriminate and treat people who are different as untouchable outsiders.
barry wrote:
i generally give discounts to people associated with my church.
Wow, that's pretty reprehensible. Nepotism much?
barry wrote:
but i do the same for anyone who appears to be an upstanding citizen that is well respected in their community if i get the sense that perhaps they can't afford to pay the going rate as in widows.
If you "do the same for anyone", then there was no reason to mention that you give discounts to people associated with your church. Either you give your fellow church-goers special treatment, or you treat all customers the same. Which is it?
barry wrote:
however if i contract with a contractor, i want the job done right but i also want to have a sense that he might be still in business if i need him again.
Not really sure what that has to do with public merchants treating various customers with various levels of discrimination.
barry wrote:
so, i said all of that to simply say that if we as Christians are smart we are happy to pay what ever the fair price of a service is to get it done right and to assure that the contractor doesn't go broke in the process.
That still doesn't seem related to the issue of treating particular people as pariahs, even when they're law-abiding citizens.

Why is it that religion, which it seems SHOULD be a unifying force of compassion and community, instead only divides people into insular groups who look down on others? Why should a person's supernatural beliefs give them license to treat their fellow citizens as if we lived in a caste system? Why should religious people even WANT to treat people like this?

Maybe I have the wrong idea about religion, but it seems that religion should drive people to seek out ways to help their fellow humans whenever they can, instead of seeking out legal loopholes to shun them. Do religious people simply ask themselves "Who would Jesus refuse service to"? Shouldn't religion make people BETTER, by encouraging outreach and bridge-building, instead of making people WORSE through ostracization and xenophobia?

There's nothing to be proud of in figuring out who you can label as an "outsider".
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6371 Jul 22, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>first of all, the case of the florist has nothing to do with interstate business.
second of all, she declined to participate in or have any part with an event that she finds as being morally wrong. she never discriminated against the customer as the customer has an established history of doing business with her.
barry, you continue to show us just how blindly ignorant you choose to remain, despite all of our attempts to educate - even to the point of showing you the state's statute that explicetly says you can't discriminate because of gender preference.

but, please, do keep it up, particularly in your own business - we'll be reading about cases brought against you soon enough, if you continue your practices.

good luck. and your attoney's going be a very wealthy person.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6372 Jul 22, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>.....
however we always play by the rules. activities of choice are not covered by anti discrimination laws.....
this sticks out, barry.

the state of washington in it's statute that was enacted in 2009, well before it allowed same sex marriage, clearly stated that homosexuality was protected from discrimination. so now you understand that homosexuality is not "chosen". well well well. folks, his eyes are opening here to reality, eh?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6373 Jul 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue isn't stalking, the jury found George innocent because of the evidence; only two wounds on Tray, bruised knuckles and a bullet wound but George's head was pounded against the pavement and his face was battered.
Tray probably attacked George out of homophobia, fear of rape. That's the testimony of Rachel Jeantel.
1. zimmerman was found "not guilty" not "innocent" - there's a huge difference between the two.
2. if you look closely at the photos of the back of zimmerman's head, you'll see those wounds. every single one of those cuts had clean, or crisp edges - not ragged edges as would occur when having your head pounded. pounding flesh "explodes" flesh and creates ragged edges. kind of suspicious.
3. when the police arrived on the scene and later in martin's body examination, they found no blood on his hands. and that was the testimony of the police. also, again, kind of suspicious. if martin's wounds on his knuckles would've occurred as zimmerman claimed, then martin would've had blood on his knuckles.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6374 Jul 22, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
So Zimmerman had the right to shoot the man he'd stalked out of fear for his life.
The jury didn't buy the 'stalker George' story. Zimmerman doesn't look like a stalker.

.
nhjeff wrote:
But Martin didn't have the right to stand his ground for fear of rape?
Do you think that's why he jumped George too?

.
nhjeff wrote:
The only thing I can't figure out is whether you discount Martin's rights because he lost the fight (might makes right, even when you have to pull out a gun), because Martin is black, or because you just approve of vigilante shootings.
I just approve vigilante justice; that's the American way. It's nice when court justice agrees.

Martin lost his rights when he started pounding George's head against the street. That's when George shot him out of his mind afraid for his life.

Teach your children, don't beat up people if you don't want to be shot. Give them a fair shot at growing up, tell them the rules.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6375 Jul 22, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
My guess is in today's society......a Lesbian more than likely would NOT being marrying a man......
Of course not! She'd be kicked out of the she woman man haters club!:)
.though it might still happen today and yes that would be her choice.......and that would in deed be a "MIXED ORIENTATION" marriage!!!
Whaddya know......a validation!
Actually Pete, diversity even if the same sex......why? Because 2 women are not identical, nor are 2 men.....not identical in physical form or personality
Still two of a kind.
or what pleases them......you think that because 2 women are together that they are pleased the same way.....and there not!!!
Nothing pleases a woman....just ask any guy!:)
As for the Weed family......who cares?
Enough people to generate attention to his site, and family.
As Josh himself has stated over and over again.....he is a gay man who has NEVER been intimate with another man......and he married his best friend who happens to be a woman.....
A gay man who marries a woman, fathers children with her, and states he's happily married. Sounds like a success story.
.beyond that, it means nothing except to Josh and his family. You can not expect that all Gays or Lesbians do this.......
No.....but it does prove its not impossible.
and again this would be considered a "MIXED ORIENTATION" marriage......but I have my own opinions about it,
Ohhhhhhh.....do tell.
and his supposed marriage has nothing to do with mine nor does it apply to all Gays and Lesbians!!!
"Supposed"? I sense some contempt there.....tsk tsk.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6376 Jul 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The jury didn't buy the 'stalker George' story. Zimmerman doesn't look like a stalker.
.
<quoted text>Do you think that's why he jumped George too?
.
<quoted text>I just approve vigilante justice; that's the American way. It's nice when court justice agrees.
Martin lost his rights when he started pounding George's head against the street. That's when George shot him out of his mind afraid for his life.
Teach your children, don't beat up people if you don't want to be shot. Give them a fair shot at growing up, tell them the rules.
Better idea: Teach those little thugs of yours not to pick fights with people they can't beat. Then they won't have to shoot their way out of the mess they got themselves into.
1 post removed

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6378 Jul 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The jury didn't buy the 'stalker George' story. Zimmerman doesn't look like a stalker.
.
<quoted text>Do you think that's why he jumped George too?
.
<quoted text>I just approve vigilante justice; that's the American way. It's nice when court justice agrees.
Martin lost his rights when he started pounding George's head against the street. That's when George shot him out of his mind afraid for his life.
Teach your children, don't beat up people if you don't want to be shot. Give them a fair shot at growing up, tell them the rules.
The jury was stupid. Travon was the first to stand his ground. Zimmerman was a stalker. End of story.

NEXT

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6379 Jul 22, 2013
The AssTroll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
He jumped Zimmerman because he wanted to kick the Sh!t out of a creepy cracker that was following him. He had no idea that Zimmerman had a gun. One thing that was not allowed to be brought up at the trail, was the fact that Martin was a trouble maker that was always fighting. He was good at it and wasn't afraid of the white guy following him. It just didn't turn out as he had planned.
If not for the actions of Zimmerman, none of this would have happened. Zimmerman provoked everything that followed. Zimmerman was the troublemaker. It wasn't his personal property or neighborhood. He had no authority to follow or do any intentional torts against Trayvon.

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6380 Jul 22, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
If not for the actions of Zimmerman, none of this would have happened. Zimmerman provoked everything that followed. Zimmerman was the troublemaker. It wasn't his personal property or neighborhood. He had no authority to follow or do any intentional torts against Trayvon.
i've wondered since the verdict....what would a gun totin' he-man had done in martin's place?

whirled around & shot zimmerman without asking him anything?

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#6381 Jul 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not! She'd be kicked out of the she woman man haters club!:)

A gay man who marries a woman, fathers children with her, and states he's happily married. Sounds like a success story.
Who says Lesbians hate men? I know plenty of women who are Lesbians and have no issues with the opposite-sex.....they just aren't interested in them sexually!!!

Like I said, if Josh Weeds is happy....good for him.....but he's not the poster child for how to be straight.......he might be bisexual or questioning who he is, but seeing as he has NEVER been with a man, it's a great publicity grabber!!!
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#6382 Jul 22, 2013
A royal baby boy is born to the Dutchess of Cambridgre. I wonder if he was wrapped in blue, or the Union Jack?

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min DBWriter 1,261,811
News Meet the Candidate: Carly Fiorina 3 min barefoot2626 868
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 3 min Jaimie 416
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min Taletha 336,158
News Republican-led House panel seeks interview with... 4 min Cat74 20
News 2016 Republicans use Trump, TV to make debate cut 5 min barefoot2626 37
Time to go? 6 min barefoot2626 2,234
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min Winchester 189,720
More from around the web