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

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12412 Nov 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
It can't be that long, "gays" as an exclusive reference to individuals with same sex attraction, dates back to the mid 20th century.
Far, far older than any reference to "gays", a few thousand years.
Not everyone has your language disability, small Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is it discrimination towards same sex behavior, or "gays"?
Either way it affects gays.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What intellectually retarded people do, is project into the past modern beliefs, concepts, norms, cultural practices, etc, in an effort to support a modern political agenda.[/QUOTE
No, what intellectually retarded bigots like you is claim something can't happen in the past just because the modern word to describe it didn't exist.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]
No, they issue them based on a certain relationship, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
That doesn't describe all the arrangements that are recognized in the world today as marriage, much less all the ones in the past.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The state is well aware that the male female union produces offspring, men cannot get pregnant, and women do not produce sperm.
Which is why such children are recognized as blood kin regardless of the marital status of the biological parents. It's also why family law exists, since families and children are again treated the same regardless of the marital status of the parents.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If the "gender qualification" is removed from the fundamental right to marry, the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife which forms the foundation of the right to marry, the fundamental right o longer exists.
Fundamental rights don't cease to exist because of the pronouncements of ignorant @sswipes like you, small Peter. They're intrinsic to being human. Period.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#12413 Nov 4, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, simply your opinion, but NOT what I was commenting about......trolls in general are bad regardless of sexual orientation ......but again, you missed my point......and that ISN'T surprising!!!
No. You missed mine.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
1 post removed

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12415 Nov 4, 2013
ah verkligen wrote:
<quoted text>
smh
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TQ6HIDA4K...
...lol...
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?
1 post removed

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#12417 Nov 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Children have a great deal to with marriage, the conjugal as in husband and wife, version.
<< Post snipped due to a ridiculous amount of SPAM >>

One difference between you and I, Peter, is that your marriage doesn't interest me at all. I hope you and your spouse are very happy and that you have all the children that you wish.

Children still have nothing to do with marriage.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12418 Nov 4, 2013
ah verkligen wrote:
<quoted text>Does that dilute the hypocrisy enough for you to stomach it?
It wasn't my post you linked to so there's no hypocrisy on my part. Here's a hint: There is more than one gay person posting in Topix and they don't all have multiple registered ID's like you.
ah verkligen wrote:
What's your point? You wanna talk about me, and my profiles,
...or do you want to defend doing what one of your allies deems as a "failed" debate tactic?
Neither, actually. You seem to crave attention so I deign to give you some once in a while. As for how other poster's choose to engage in debate, that's a personal decision that's not binding on me. It is rather amusing, however, that you seem to consider yourself some sort of ethics enforcer and yet manage to get yourself banned regularly on a site that essentially has no terms of service governing posting behavior.
ah verkligen wrote:
Or maybe,....MAYbe, somehow,
....you'd like to discuss the TOPIC...???..
Hmmm?
I do discuss the topic AND insult stupid people, frequently within the same posts. I'm quite capable of multi-tasking.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#12419 Nov 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It can't be that long, "gays" as an exclusive reference to individuals with same sex attraction, dates back to the mid 20th century.
<quoted text>
Far, far older than any reference to "gays", a few thousand years.
<quoted text>
Is it discrimination towards same sex behavior, or "gays"?
<quoted text>
What intellectually retarded people do, is project into the past modern beliefs, concepts, norms, cultural practices, etc, in an effort to support a modern political agenda.
<quoted text>
No, they issue them based on a certain relationship, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. The state is well aware that the male female union produces offspring, men cannot get pregnant, and women do not produce sperm.
<quoted text>
If the "gender qualification" is removed from the fundamental right to marry, the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife which forms the foundation of the right to marry, the fundamental right o longer exists.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If the "gender qualification" is removed from the fundamental right to marry, the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife which forms the foundation of the right to marry, the fundamental right o longer exists.
What a silly thing to say. We're not talking about a legally recognized union of husband and wife, are we? Men and women will still have the fundamental right to marry and still do in states that recognize same sex marriage. Can you name a state that recognizes same sex marriage and denies opposite sex marriage?
2 posts removed

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#12422 Nov 5, 2013
ah verkligen wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, you mean, other than making them LEGITIMATE children, as opposed to,
...say,.....some petri dish science experiment...???...
All children are legitimately children.

Do you treat some children differently?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#12423 Nov 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Some states have designated same sex relationships "marriage", but marriage is still overwhelmingly a a male female union.
States don't designate relationships 'marriage'. For someone so obsessed with semantics you really need to learn the difference between 'relationship' and 'marriage'.

Marriage is something states give to couples in a relationship when asked to do so by the couple.

The issue is which couples in a relationship QUALIFY to get the marriage from the state.

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.

We are still waiting for a cogent, legal, argument from your side of the issue.

“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

Union City, 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

Union City, CA

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

Union City, 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!

“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.

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
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min Claude Monet 305,889
Obama Calls for Two Years of Free Community Col... 4 min xxxrayted 909
State of the Union spoilers: Obama's proposal f... 5 min spocko 189
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Waxman 1,174,770
Crossing the border to attend US schools 10 min L Morales 14
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Can't Contain Excitement ... 10 min mjjcpa 105
Erdogan invites Armenian leader to join Gallipo... 13 min AriArmen 197
Sarah Palin and her onetime fans on the right: ... 19 min Your Ex 237
Scott Walker has no college degree. That's norm... 30 min barefoot2626 831
More from around the web