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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12424 Nov 5, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>it is agreed by all sides that she Knew of their orientation and had no problem doing business with them. it is the event not the persons. the event is not protected.
.
the event wasn't employing her, the participants were. It's the participants she refused to do business with. It's the participants she turned down.

Oh, and by the way, it is NOT "agreed by all sides" that she knew their orientation previously. It is only agreed that she had sold them flower arrangements previously.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12425 Nov 5, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>jonah, are you suggesting that she would provide flowers for two old heterosexual men who have no interest in sex but would want to form a legal union that would be recognized as a marriage in the great state of washington for the benefits that married couples have?
Um, shit for brains, you do realize that if there were two old heterosexual men who wanted to form a legal union for tax reasons, they could do it with women, right dear? In fact, people have been doing it for years.

And whether a couple that is getting married has no interest in sex is none of your business. You're concern for other people's sex lives is creepy.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12426 Nov 5, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you are ignorant. women rape women by forced penetration with a foreign object. that would be taking the place of a male.
Buttblossom, nothing about lesbian sex "takes the place of the male". The only ignorant on in this discussion is you.
barry wrote:
the point was there is no lesbian manner of rape that might be driven by hormones.
Rape is rape, it's an act of violence and control, it doesn't have different "manners" dolt.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12427 Nov 5, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, yet another new registered profile for you, all of one sole week old. How many have you had banned since your last visit here?
Is that your latest argument? He's wrong because he has a new registered profile?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12428 Nov 5, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
States don't designate relationships 'marriage'. For someone so obsessed with semantics you really need to learn the difference between 'relationship' and 'marriage'.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Some states have designated same sex relationships "marriage", but marriage is still overwhelmingly a a male female union.
My statement stands. Some states have chosen to designate same sex relationships "marriage" by dropping the conjugal requirement. Those same sex relationships were not viewed as "marriage" by the state prior to the elimination of the conjugal requirement.
Marriage is something states give to couples in a relationship when asked to do so by the couple.
Like a wedding gift? Just pull that big box labeled "marriage" off the shelf, wrap it up, stick a now on it and present it to the couple. Uhhhhh....huh
The issue is which couples in a relationship QUALIFY to get the marriage from the state.
The issue is whether or not the INDIVIDUAL man and woman meet the qualifications to enter into the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
Those on our side of the issue believe there is nothing about state granted marriage that disqualifies same-sex couples from receiving or getting married and the rights, benefits and responsibilities that accrue with the marriage.
Those on our side of the issue do not believe there is a compelling need to redefine marriage from a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, to a union of two spouses for life regardless of gender composition. It also raises the question if conjugality, as in husband and wife, is expendable, why not monogamy, as in two?

We are still waiting for a cogent, legal, argument from your side of the issue, other than because we want to.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12429 Nov 5, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
...Children still have nothing to do with marriage.
Priceless.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12430 Nov 5, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Buttblossom, nothing about lesbian sex "takes the place of the male". The only ignorant on in this discussion is you.
<quoted text>
Rape is rape, it's an act of violence and control, it doesn't have different "manners" dolt.
I'll defer to you as an expert on lesbian sex since I have little personal experience with it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12431 Nov 5, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
What a silly thing to say. We're not talking about a legally recognized union of husband and wife, are we?
Absolutely we're talking about that! The understanding of marriage since before the Birth of the Republic.
Men and women will still have the fundamental right to marry and still do in states that recognize same sex marriage.
They always had that fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. All men, and all women, you too.
Can you name a state that recognizes same sex marriage and denies opposite sex marriage?
Now THAT'S a silly question. Why would a state "deny opposite sex marriage"? Opposite sex, or conjugal marriage, is the foundation, frame of reference, the original model. It was the first!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#12432 Nov 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
My statement stands. Some states have chosen to designate same sex relationships "marriage" by dropping the conjugal requirement. Those same sex relationships were not viewed as "marriage" by the state prior to the elimination of the conjugal requirement.
Are you high?

Can infertile heterosexual couples marry in every state in the union?

If so, then your argument is down the tubes. Were there actually a "conjugal requirement" of marriage, then infertile heterosexual couples would be excluded from legal marriage. f course, there is no such requirement, you are merely making up BS to support your argument since you can't find facts to back your position, just like you can't offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couple the right to marry.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12433 Nov 5, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>but now california law says that we must recognize a man as a women if he says that he identifies, recognizes himself as a woman.
No, kumquat, that is NOT what the California law says. The California law states that the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM will recognize a woman born with male genitals as the woman she is and identifies as.

The California law doesn't affect "we" at all.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
i agree that is ridiculous.
Um, with whom are you agreeing? Yourself? Dolt much?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
that was my point but non the less it now is the law.
Your "point", and the law itself are two completely different things.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
btw, i would never call a man a women if i knew for sure what he was in the first place.
btw, I wouldn't expect many transgender people to be in your social circle. They would avoid you and your ignorance and your intolerance.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
and yes those scenarios if allowed to expand will affect what i do in this life.
Well, tough shit for you. Transgendered people will continue to be recognized and accommodated in the public sector. Your desire and intent to call them and recognize them as something the aren't won't really bother them. Smile dear, you've earned the Hazel Massery Award of the day. Hold on to it proudly dear.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12434 Nov 5, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a good analogy EITHER!!!
Why not? If boys are allowed to join the Girl Scouts, is the organization still the Girl Scouts?
Again, that is YOUR opinion.......but marriage over times has changed and it keeps changing and NOW it is INCLUSIVE of the right to marry for Gay and Lesbian couples.......and this is NOT the first time Gay couples have married......it has happened over time!!!!
All the changes to marriage over time, have been changes to the marital male female union. No other combination. Not two men, or three men, nor two women or three women.
Again, that is YOUR opinion......but just because you feel it is a duplication.....I and others know that is simply your spin on it. My wife and I may both be women, but we are FAR from being EXACTLY the same even if one is purely speaking on just anatomical similarities!!!
What spin? It IS A DUPLICATION OF GENDER! It's like removing one shoe from a pair of shoes and replacing it with the same (left or right) and still calling it a pair of shoes! A pair of two left, or two right shoes!

Is a pair of shoes, "a left & a right", "two lefts", or "two rights"? Imagine a ask the man/ woman on the street that question poll. Which pair wins?
Sorry Pete, but SEX isn't always or ONLY about making babies......it's about passion, and pleasure and even about pure animal instincts, along with desire......and if you are only having sex to make babies, well that may be part of your problem!!!
The bottom line is human reproduction is sexual, that's it primary function. Mankind continue to exist because sex makes babies. You and I are both products of male female sexual intercourse, aka coltus. All the other stuff is great but doesn't change the primary purpose. Besides do you think men would actually talk to women if not for that little fuzzy patch?:) Just a joke Nor.
Sorry Pete, but denying a Gay or Lesbian person the right to marry the person of their choosing regardless of the other person's gender is DISCRIMINATORY and denying them a right you freely have.....
You as a woman, HAVE THE SAME RIGHT as any other woman. How can you argue for the "right to marry regardless of other person's gender"? Isn't the whole idea is to "marry" someone of the same gender, and that one's sexual attraction/ orientation is innate? If that's true there should be no choice regarding gender. The state should require statements of sexual orientation and only allow marriage within one's stated orientation. If you're arguing for a CHOICE of gender, then you're contradicting yourself.
sorry, but yep...that is a violation of their Due Process and Equal Protection Clause!!!
So Bill de Blasio's, mayoral candidate for NYC, a self described former lesbian, had her due process violated when she married her husband? If a person with sssa marries someone of the opposite sex, is there a violation of their due process? Should the state bar such marriages in order to proud the participants?
Again, it matters NOT how many folks think or see or even believe marriage is and will always be between a man and a woman.....because it has NOT always been that way and it WON'T be that way going forward in history.......and one day, the younger generation will probably even laugh at the notion that a marriage between a man and a woman was viewed by some as something special.....when in fact MARRIAGE is something special and unique that the couple themselves define the parameters!!!
That assumes SSM will sustain itself over time, if history is any indication, previous societal acceptance of same sex relationships as "marriage" haven't lasted that long, nor sustained themselves. So why should this new modern version be any different? Time will tell. Who knows maybe plural marriage will be come legal. We may even reach a point when the state no longer licenses marriage.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12435 Nov 5, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i have been a highly respected sports official.
A sports god in your own mind I'm sure
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
some small schools in order to field a team have allowed girls to play on boys teams. that is the law if there is no equivalent team. court cases have since decided that boys should have the same opportunity to play on a girls team if no boys team exists. now the problem not associated with this conversation is that if a school has both teams then their all Girls team would end up playing against a team that may have some boys on it and the playing field is no longer level.
Why is it no longer level dear? Oh, that's right, in your world boys are better than girls at sports!!! Um, dumbbutt, the students, boys or girls would have to qualify for the team using the same benchmarks. They either qualify or they don't. Oh, and I'm not sure if you know this, but there are always advantages and disadvantages in school sports. The size of the school and number of available students would be one.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
however since you so ignorantly mock the physical dangers of a boy playing on a girls team i will condescend to explain to you that high school boys are almost always going to be bigger.
If the girls can't qualify, they can't qualify. If they qualify, then they play and the same dangers exist for both genders on the team.

Oh, and I wasn't mocking the physical dangers because you haven't established any. I was mocking you and your moronic 1950 mind frame.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
and if not bigger than they still will be stronger and faster.
The girl either qualifies or doesn't. There will always be students that are faster or stronger, and neither are directly correlated to their gender.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
in california that is no longer an issue.
The established standards for who qualifies for a sports team have been affected by this new law? I think not moron.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
we must now be sensitive to the feelings of someone who would raise a gender identity issue rather than the safety of all involved.
Yes, we all know how fundies HATE to have to be sensitive to other people's feelings. The outright hubris of your intolerance is hysterical. One can only picture Jesus moaning about how being sensitive to other people's feelings is a horrible thing.

Oh, and for the record, you haven't established any safety issues. The student either qualifies for the team or they don't, using the same exact standards.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
the california law does not cover just, the word you use is children, it covers anyone who still happens to be in high school.
Um, a lot of adults attending high school in your trailer park Barry? That would explain a lot.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
now, how long will it be before they expand it to state colleges and universities?
Most universities already have non-discrimination policies covering this in place. This is 2013 Barry.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
i see you claim that homosexuals and transvestites and i suppose those with a gender identity claim have self control.
Um, no one has mentioned transvestites Barry. Why are you bringing them up? Another prime example of how uneducated you are on anything being discussed here.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so i guess that you are implying that any problem would lie with the straight, heterosexuals.
Well, let's see....who's expressing a problem with the new law? LOL!!!
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
a problem is still a problem no matter who you want to blame.
Calling something a problem without establishing the cause/effect negative results doesn't make something a problem.

Go peddle your "sky is falling" routine to your fellow sheeple. No one else is buying it.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12436 Nov 5, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You must live in a really bad area. Women raping Women? Does that happen a lot in Alabama?
It would appear from his posts that the following are happening at abandon in his trailer park:

* Straight men marrying straight men for tax credits!

* People have their gender identity directly linked to their sexual orientation!

* Transgendered and transvestites are the same thing!

* Girls that are into sports are extremely dainty!

* Boys pretend to be transgendered so they can shower with girls

I also imagine there's a lot of banjo playing.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12437 Nov 5, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>once again you guys are distorting the truth. all of the public in general may use the pavilion. it was originally designed to provide a sheltered place to sit at the shore. it evolved into a place to hold events like a birthday party. they now have only stopped all weddings from using the pavilion. nothing more. anyone can come and sit or book it for a birthday party or some other event except weddings or commitment ceremonies.
so who really lost?
The people who would like to have their wedding there, both the straight and the gay couples. That's who lost.

Any other stupid questions we can answer for your buttblossom?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12438 Nov 5, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Now X-Box has an English teacher buddy critiquing my posts! Priceless. And more than a bit psycho.
Of course it's a narcissistic lie used for lack of an argument against marriage equality for consenting adults X-Box doesn't like. He just has enough sense not to want to go there.
English teacher buddy agrees and is mad too. Priceless.
Lack of an argument?

ahhahahahahaha
ahahahhahaha

Because you don't like the argument (because it makes you look stupid) I don't have an argument..... got it.

And once again I get to remind you... I think this is ELEVEN times now... I have nothing against the people involved in a polyamorous relationship. My problem is with the unintended consequences of legalized polygamy.

Are trying to set a new record for the number of times something must be repeated BEFORE it gets through your thick skull?

And where did I say my English teacher buddy was mad? He was astonished at your inability to comprehend what you read and how you mix up the points and fabricate your responses. It's really quite amazing.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12439 Nov 5, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It would appear from his posts that the following are happening at abandon in his trailer park:
* Straight men marrying straight men for tax credits!
* People have their gender identity directly linked to their sexual orientation!
* Transgendered and transvestites are the same thing!
* Girls that are into sports are extremely dainty!
* Boys pretend to be transgendered so they can shower with girls
I also imagine there's a lot of banjo playing.
lol

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12440 Nov 5, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>pictures might be interesting.
however you miss the point.
Only because you've failed to establish one. All you repeatedly do is demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about homosexuality. Absolutely nothing. And because you know nothing about homosexuality, you present feeble arguments based upon the nonsense you have created in your own mind about what you think homosexuality is. Since your starting point is invalid, everything you state based upon that starting point is stupid.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
the point is not how does one no if they might be a homosexual the point is, how does the rest of society know that they are a homosexual?
The rest of society knows (the correct spelling of the word btw) one is a homosexual when they do any of the following:

* state they are gay
* display pictures of their wedding somewhere in plain sight
* state that they think another person of the same gender is "hot" or "cute".
* Hold hands with the person they are dating.
* Have a gay bumper sticker.
* asking an HR director about domestic partner benefits, or signing up one's same gender spouse on an insurance form

Some other examples, but not always a clear indicator...

* play on a gay sports league
* wear gay supportive t shirt
* have drinks at a gay bar
* have a membership in a gay supportive organization
* attend a gay pride festival

There are many, many straight people that do all the things from the second list, but it would at least be a starting point for questioning it.

Your post seems to indicate that its very important that straight people be able to recognize gay people. It isn't. Your recognition is irrelevant. But don't let that stop you from trying to make it into an issue.

Are there any other ridiculously stupid questions we can clear up for you?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12441 Nov 5, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>really?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>that's an interesting comment. she "says" she is a boy but she would at least need help with hormones. so she thinks she is a boy but her body is telling her otherwise. sounds like she is confused.
she wants to become something that she is naturally not.
He already IS something, that you want to pretend he isn't, based solely on physical indicators that you have established as a benchmark of something that they are not a benchmark for.

Gender is established by the brain moron, not the genitals. Perhaps if you invested in some research and scientific information culled post 1950 you would know this.

But please, don't let facts get in the way of your continued delight in publically demonstrating how ridiculously uneducated you are on the matters being discussed.

Morons like you that peacock their ignorance are a HOOT!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12442 Nov 5, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of an argument?
ahhahahahahaha
ahahahhahaha
Because you don't like the argument (because it makes you look stupid) I don't have an argument..... got it.
And once again I get to remind you... I think this is ELEVEN times now... I have nothing against the people involved in a polyamorous relationship. My problem is with the unintended consequences of legalized polygamy.
Are trying to set a new record for the number of times something must be repeated BEFORE it gets through your thick skull?
And where did I say my English teacher buddy was mad? He was astonished at your inability to comprehend what you read and how you mix up the points and fabricate your responses. It's really quite amazing.
You're so silly. Like a dopey little kid. Making up a story about sharing my posts with an English teacher who agrees that polygamy shouldn't be allowed because Frankie has poor reading comprehension.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12443 Nov 5, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you make an unsubstantiated claim. so i{ll just narrow it down for you. i'll bet they never rented it out for any anti'Christian activities.
And marriages are now "anti Christian" activity? Guess so since they are now denying any. Who knew that weddings were "anti Christian" activity? Thanks for letting us know dolt.

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 This is why the first 100 days is a 'ridiculous... 1 min Geezer 45
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min VetnorsGate 1,522,327
News Donald Trump on first 100 days: It's a differen... 9 min Fcvk tRump 2
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 22 min AMERICAN SUNSHINE 265,267
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 32 min ThomasA 2,060
News Under Trump, ICE arrests soar for migrants with... 41 min Chilli J 225
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 48 min ThomasA 313,980
News Attorney General doesn't realize Hawaii is a state 1 hr spud 332
News Americans have rendered their verdict on the fi... 2 hr Retribution 106
More from around the web