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.

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#8616 Aug 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why aren't those letters in alphabetical order? Are two seperate letters, "G", and "L", necessary when an "H", would suffice?
Actually, the one letter doesn't suffice.......frankly, a Lesbian can be Gay(when the word "Gay" is used as slang for being a homosexual), but a Gay can NEVER be a Lesbian(because the word Lesbian specifically means a homosexual woman).......lol!!!

Really, so in your mind it should be BGILQT meaning Bisexual, Gay, Intersex, Lesbian, Questioning and Transgender makes sense to you?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8617 Aug 25, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the one letter doesn't suffice.......frankly, a Lesbian can be Gay(when the word "Gay" is used as slang for being a homosexual), but a Gay can NEVER be a Lesbian(because the word Lesbian specifically means a homosexual woman).......lol!!!
Really, so in your mind it should be BGILQT meaning Bisexual, Gay, Intersex, Lesbian, Questioning and Transgender makes sense to you?
At one time, "gay" included everyone who didn't identify as heterosexual. Most older gay women accept "lesbian" and "gay woman" as interchangeable terms. Then, so as not to be neglected, others wanted their own identifying terms included, leading to the alphabet soup approach. While the differences can be important internally, it sometimes seems more divisive than unifying of sexual minorities.

Since: Jan 10

Westerville, OH

#8618 Aug 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
See the pattern?
I definitely see a pattern. It’s a pattern of hate, bigotry and bible verse cherry picking in order to justify an irrational and hysterical viewpoint. You and your ilk’s attempt to vilify Gay Americans is shameless and unfounded.

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#8619 Aug 25, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
At one time, "gay" included everyone who didn't identify as heterosexual. Most older gay women accept "lesbian" and "gay woman" as interchangeable terms. Then, so as not to be neglected, others wanted their own identifying terms included, leading to the alphabet soup approach. While the differences can be important internally, it sometimes seems more divisive than unifying of sexual minorities.
I do agree with ya......it's just like with using the words "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" before the word marriage.....the only reason for doing this is to make something out of NOTHING......I have no issue being referred to as Gay or Lesbian or Homosexual......all basically have the same meaning and until I participated in a Gay Pride Parade back in 1990, I didn't know anything different......except for when I was joking with a co-worker who happened to be Gay....like myself...and I referred to him as a "fa@@ot" and his respond back to me was that he was not a bunch of sticks or twigs......since then, I educate myself before making certain types of comments.......anyways, the point of my comment wasn't to make an issue out of the words, but basically to let the person know that it was probably the media that made the initials and decided to make an issue between "GAY" and "LESBIAN".

Hope all is well with you and yours!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8620 Aug 25, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>And what the heck is Q? isn't that from Star Trek TNG? weren't they eternal beings
man, that is gonna be one long and dreadful marriage...
Ya know Woody, that makes sense.....I should've seen that one. TNG was okay, the original Enterprise is still the best.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8621 Aug 25, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the one letter doesn't suffice.......frankly, a Lesbian can be Gay(when the word "Gay" is used as slang for being a homosexual), but a Gay can NEVER be a Lesbian(because the word Lesbian specifically means a homosexual woman).......lol!!!
But both are homosexual. Don't forget there are male lesbians.:)
Really, so in your mind it should be BGILQT meaning Bisexual, Gay, Intersex, Lesbian, Questioning and Transgender makes sense to you?
It's a legit question, why is it in that order and not alphabetical?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8622 Aug 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya know Woody, that makes sense.....I should've seen that one. TNG was okay, the original Enterprise is still the best.
I knew i liked you for a reason, Petey....

I do have to admit, and i cringe a little when i say this, but the pre-qual movie of the original star trek was pretty good. i thought they did a great job of setting up the characters of one of the most played off of shows ever. not an easy job...

that really was some excellent screenplay writing.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8623 Aug 25, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
At one time, "gay" included everyone who didn't identify as heterosexual. Most older gay women accept "lesbian" and "gay woman" as interchangeable terms. Then, so as not to be neglected, others wanted their own identifying terms included, leading to the alphabet soup approach. While the differences can be important internally, it sometimes seems more divisive than unifying of sexual minorities.
Also at one time the sexualization of the word "gay" referenced various illicit opposite sex sexual practices. A "gay man" was a womanizer, a "gay woman" a prostitute, and a "gay house" a brothel.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gay

Usage note
In addition to its original and continuing senses of “merry, lively” and “bright or showy,” gay has had various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the 17th century. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel. This sexual world included homosexuals too, and gay as an adjective meaning “homosexual” may go back to the late 1930s.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8624 Aug 25, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I knew i liked you for a reason, Petey....
I do have to admit, and i cringe a little when i say this, but the pre-qual movie of the original star trek was pretty good. i thought they did a great job of setting up the characters of one of the most played off of shows ever. not an easy job...
that really was some excellent screenplay writing.
The special effects were cheeses, but the dialogue, made the show. TNG did improve as time went on, the first few seasons, were lame, as if conflict had disappeared from the galaxy. Boring without villains and valiant foes. Best Trek movie of all time......? Let's see if we're on the same page, or planet.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8625 Aug 25, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I do agree with ya......it's just like with using the words "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" before the word marriage.....the only reason for doing this is to make something out of NOTHING....
"Gay" and "marriage" are contradictory.....no marriage is happy! Sounds like a Henny Youngman one liner.
..I have no issue being referred to as Gay or Lesbian or Homosexual......all basically have the same meaning
Heterosexually challenged?
and until I participated in a Gay Pride Parade back in 1990, I didn't know anything different......except for when I was joking with a co-worker who happened to be Gay....like myself...and I referred to him as a "fa@@ot" and his respond back to me was that he was not a bunch of sticks or twigs.....
Or English cigarette.
.since then, I educate myself before making certain types of comments.......anyways, the point of my comment wasn't to make an issue out of the words, but basically to let the person know that it was probably the media that made the initials and decided to make an issue between "GAY" and "LESBIAN".
Hope all is well with you and yours!!!
I wonder if the "L" is first out of chivalry? Ladies first? Just a thought.

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#8626 Aug 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
But both are homosexual. Don't forget there are male lesbians.:)
<quoted text>
It's a legit question, why is it in that order and not alphabetical?
There are NO male Lesbians.......we may make jokes regarding heterosexual men being honorary Lesbians, but that's all it is!!!

Why don't you do some research on why the acronym is the way it is? You just might learn something!!!

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#8627 Aug 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
This subject and the fight is not funny and your comments clearly show just how insensitive you are regrading it!!!

I am NOT now nor EVER been heterosexually challenged, nor do I have any issues with men in general.......I just have NO desire or interest in being in a physical relationship with them or being intimate with them.......otherwise, I get a long just find with men!!!

The bottom line is this.......if you have an issue with marry someone of the Same-Sex......then don't, problem solved.

If thinking about what 2 consenting adult men do with each other disgusts you, then stop thinking about it.......problem solved.

See how easy that was.......lol!!!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8628 Aug 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The special effects were cheeses, but the dialogue, made the show. TNG did improve as time went on, the first few seasons, were lame, as if conflict had disappeared from the galaxy. Boring without villains and valiant foes. Best Trek movie of all time......? Let's see if we're on the same page, or planet.
oh, totally the first pre-quel of the original series.
although...the "Kaaaaaahhhhnnnnn... " one was pretty stellar (sorry for the pun) Star trek....the over-the-top Kirk, over-the-top villain Montelban...that was pretty classic old school Trek, but i think the new take on it gave it backround, substantiality. a sense of place, which as a landscape designer, i have learned is the most important aspect any foundation can have....a sense of place.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8629 Aug 26, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Because legally married couples DO NOT HAVE TO BE 'HUSBAND' AND 'WIFE'!!!!!!!!!
In 30 plus states they do, and for the marriage to be legally valid nationwide.
That is the legal reality
Ditto
. The notion that the terms 'husband' and 'wife' bear any special legal fundamental quality that would always and forever preclude the inclusion of same-sex couples in civil marriage is inane.
That statement is inane.
Are there states that currently only allow 'husband and wife' marriages? Yes.
Is that requirement (husband and wife) outside of the bounds of constitutional review by the Supreme Court? NO! The court could rule that 'husband and wife' marriages as the only option unconstitutional.
It could also rule two siblings could marry, or banning plural marriage is unconstitutional.
What is the chances that that the SCOTUS will get such a case within the next 5-10 years? Very high.
What is the chance that that ruling will strike down 'husband and wife' only marriages and allow 'husband and husband' and 'wife and wife' marriages? Very high, considering the wording of the DOMA ruling. And those odds increase as more and more states strike down their own 'husband and wife' only marriage laws.
As do those odd, that other restrictions will be struck down as well, to the point, that it could become pointless.
If the terms 'husband' and 'wife' are so important, then please indicate which legal Rights, Benefits, or Obligations are granted solely to either the husband or wife that is not granted jointly as SPOUSES.
The point is those, rights, be fits, and obligations are granted because of the nature relationship, and the state's interest therein. Without a compelling state interest, there's no need, nor obligation in recognition of the relationship to begin with. Such a compelling state interest does not exist with a same sex relationship.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8630 Aug 26, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>oh, totally the first pre-quel of the original series.
although...the "Kaaaaaahhhhnnnnn... " one was pretty stellar (sorry for the pun) Star trek....the over-the-top Kirk, over-the-top villain Montelban...that was pretty classic old school Trek, but i think the new take on it gave it backround, substantiality. a sense of place, which as a landscape designer, i have learned is the most important aspect any foundation can have....a sense of place.
Give that man a cee GAR! The Wrath of Kahn was without a doubt the best Trek movie, at least of the original crew, not to mention the refitted Constitution class cruiser, as it appeared in the movie, still the best ship of all the Treks, movies, and TV, in my opinion. As I watched the new Trek II, it slowly dawned on me what the plot was when they introduced "Carol Marcus"......hmmmmmm..... as a smile formed on my face as the "Khan" plot unfolded. I agree, very good update. I also like the interior layouts of the new Enterprise, it has more of a actually ship's layout, as opposed to a sci fi space ship. I would like to see more of the crew showcased, the enlisted personnel, not just commissioned officers.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8631 Aug 26, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
There are NO male Lesbians.......we may make jokes regarding heterosexual men being honorary Lesbians, but that's all it is!!!
Why don't you do some research on why the acronym is the way it is? You just might learn something!!!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php...

1. male lesbian

A male lesbian is a physiologically heteosexual male who wishes he'd been born a girl. He feels alienated by the social standards of gender roles. He may be a crossdresser or consider himself transgendered, but he is probably not transsexual. His ideal would be to be able to be his feminine self in a relationship with a biological female. If he is open about this, he may be ridiculed by both the gay and straight communities.

2. Male Lesbian

A man who Absolutely LOVES and Desires Women. But on the contrast does not relate to Men. As a teen he may have been very shy and could have also been view as gay because of his feminine characteristics. He is very interested in his own appearance ie: grooming, hair ,designer cloths ,etc. He does not like to watch the football Game. He would rather be talking or flirting with an attractive female. HE is not sure he wants to be a woman, but knows what he would do if he was one ,first his personality and interests would be the same, and second he could lighten up and be himself , third he would be a lesbian. He has a strong desire to please women, paticuarly the ones he is most emotionally attracted to.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8632 Aug 26, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
This subject and the fight is not funny and your comments clearly show just how insensitive you are regrading it!!!
As this issue demonstrates, words, and their meanings are, or appear to be, ever changing. Gay was once commonly understood to be, and defined as, "showy" , "lively", etc. Even it's sexual iced references described various sexual illicit sexual practices between men and women. Not anymore.....not it almost exclusively refers to homosexuality.
I am NOT now nor EVER been heterosexually challenged, nor do I have any issues with men in general.......I just have NO desire or interest in being in a physical relationship with them or being intimate with them.......otherwise, I get a long just find with men!!!
Hold on now....don't be so quick to take offense. Being able to see is the norm, those who cannot, are referred to as visually impaired, or challenged. Same with hearing, or any number of conditions. If the vast majority of people are attractive to the opposite sex......What percent of lesbians, based on your personal interactions, have had sex with men at some point in their lives?
The bottom line is this.......if you have an issue with marry someone of the Same-Sex......then don't, problem solved.
If thinking about what 2 consenting adult men do with each other disgusts you, then stop thinking about it.......problem solved.
See how easy that was.......lol!!!
I rather enjoy thinking about what two consenting attractive WOMEN do to each other.....now we're talking! Ciao mi amica.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8633 Aug 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Historical context, the argument of idiots.
Historical amnesia, the bed of sand upon which the arguments of fools are built.
1 post removed
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8635 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
In 30 plus states they do, and for the marriage to be legally valid nationwide.
...and that is never going to change, is it. Not very good at recognizing trends, are you? Are you Amish or something?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8636 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>

<quoted text>
The point is those, rights, be fits, and obligations are granted because of the nature relationship, and the state's interest therein. Without a compelling state interest, there's no need, nor obligation in recognition of the relationship to begin with. Such a compelling state interest does not exist with a same sex relationship.
Once again, you have it backward.

Fundamental human rights belong to everyone.

They can only be restricted when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated. Age, informed consent, number, and incest restrictions, have been shown to provide legitimate restrictions. Your gender restriction provides no such interest.

Procreation has never been a requirement for marriage in any state. Therefore, your continued attempts to make it a requirement now are irrational. This personal requirement of yours only fulfills the needs of your personal prejudice.

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 'We can't be intimidated' 7 min justice 14
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 9 min Dr Guru 197,031
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 10 min Fundie Fatwass De... 246
News The View that Putin's Advisor Has on Obama's Uk... (Nov '14) 21 min PolakPotrafi 3,249
News Turkey duped the US, and ISIS reaps rewards 23 min Filipsamovich 12
News Cheneys liken Iran nuclear deal to Munich pact 27 min Joe Balls 46
News Clarence Thomas: 'The elites' had to approve a ... (May '13) 29 min serfs up 11
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Yeah 1,275,921
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Blitzking 173,593
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 hr VorenusI 340,890
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr g wallace 193,743
News 'Anchor baby' fight scrambles Republican field 3 hr taletha 205
More from around the web