Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52069 comments on the CBS2 story from Nov 30, 2010, titled Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions. In it, CBS2 reports that:

The Illinois House has approved a measure to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS2.

mary jo

Markham, IL

#36845 Jan 4, 2013
fred wrote:
<quoted text>i have been trying to bang that southern chick , but the ho is playin hard to get !!
YOU GOT TO RIDE A HARLEY AND HAVE A BIG NIGHT STICK TO GET INTO HER CAVE--JUST DRIVE IT ON IN..

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#36847 Jan 4, 2013
100percentFEDup wrote:
Nail in the coffin for the moral decay of society.
Another nail in the coffin. There are so many in there already due to a lot of things.
crzzzd

Rochester, PA

#36848 Jan 4, 2013
youtube.com/watch...
Its not how you play the Game its if you win or lose?
About Time
he he

Markham, IL

#36849 Jan 4, 2013
Southern Lady01 wrote:
<quoted text>
Another noodle in my muffin. There are so many in there already due to a lot of things.
ha ha

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#36851 Jan 5, 2013
Southern Lady01 wrote:
<quoted text>
Another nail in the coffin. There are so many in there already due to a lot of things.
One person's moral decay is another person's freedom and equality. You'll survive...
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

#36854 Jan 5, 2013
It's nice you acknowledge the truth.
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
One person's moral decay is another person's freedom and equality. You'll survive...

“Free to buy cake”

Since: Jul 07

wherever I like.

#36855 Jan 5, 2013
Southern Lady01 wrote:
<quoted text>
Another nail in the coffin. There are so many in there already due to a lot of things.
The sky is falling.
Chris M Gaines

Westville, IL

#36856 Jan 5, 2013
the fact king wrote:
<quoted text>So your saying "they" force you into putting your tongue up another mans *ss????? I think you do it willingly..........
folks dont let the fact king fool you he is a rim job pro he does me once week above the uptowner in charleston il

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#36857 Jan 5, 2013
remyg77 wrote:
They turned this bill down didn't they?
Yes, they sure did. God will always win. Want to know more? Just read the Huffington Post Article.

“Free to buy cake”

Since: Jul 07

wherever I like.

#36858 Jan 5, 2013
Southern Lady01 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they sure did. God will always win. Want to know more? Just read the Huffington Post Article.
God IS winning. Just look at the states and nations that already have equality. Try as you might, fundamental talibangelists will never be able to keep God down.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#36859 Jan 5, 2013
Yes, God is winning. Thank you Jesus!!!

“Free to buy cake”

Since: Jul 07

wherever I like.

#36863 Jan 5, 2013
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
....
Thank God no 22 YO straight kid has ever gotten drunk, injured himself, and then tried to blame someone else.

You're a spineless, pointless POS. Have a lovely day, troll doll.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#36865 Jan 5, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Several problems with your hypotheses:
A) Sexual orientation and musical appreciation are obviously not analogous to each other.
B) Being gay is no guarantee that procreation will not happen (gay people are not sterile) just as heterosexuality is no guarantee of procreation.
C) Your premise assumes that "normalcy" revolves around procreation as the ne plus ultra of existence. Not only is that far from an objective judgement, not to say a very depressing one also, but you must include heterosexuals who cannot or choose not to procreate as well into that group.

*Stanford evolutionist wrote;

This is unforgivably feeble-minded reasoning and quite frankly, troubling.

You say that being gay is no guarantee against procreation. I'm disturbed by this comment. Homosexual activity does not and can not result in offspring.

Unless you know of cases of male anal sex resulting in fertilization within a male's anal canal, or a woman's tongue containing sperm which she deposits into another woman's vagina through the act of oral sex, I think it's VERY safe to say homosexuality is not reproductive.

This is almost too ridiculous to discuss.

Now, you do bring up the (meretricious) argument that being heterosexual is no guarantee of procreation.

The reason this argument is invalid is because in the example of the heterosexual who decides not to have children, it was the heterosexual's decision for reasons UNRELATED to his genetically predisposed proclivities. Thus this decision is no fault of evolution, as the heterosexual was armed with the correct sexual urges needed to reproduce. Whether he takes that and runs with it, is irrelevant.

While gays may have the ability,(functioning genitals) this is certainly NOT enough. In order to fully promote action, evolution equips two qualities: Ability (just mentioned) AND willingness. The gay is missing the correct WILLINGNESS -the genetic urge to have heterosexual relations. This wrong wiring IS a genetic defect.

Remember healthy instincts differ from defective ones in that healthy instincts are the ones that yield very strong urges towards INCREASING the likelihood of survival.

We have hunger throughout the day because it's a healthy urge to push us to seek nourishment. We have the same urge with thirst as we need hydration. If our brains are healthy we should have a similar hunger for heterosexual sex because it is also pushes us towards survival based behavior: sex that can result pregnancy.

OF COURSE wiring that promotes urges towards the gender that can't lead to pregnancy is anti-survival and consequently defective.

These issues are very black and white. To deny them is to deny the will of evolution.

Now, it's time to put the heat lamp on you.

It is easily proven how homosexuality is an evolutionary defect. As I've said a thousand times, It serves absolutely no productive function in furthering the human species.

In fact it's highly destructive because the afflicted person is damned to stop their genes from entering the next generation AND the genes of their lovers as well.

Aside from rather blindly cheerleading for homosexuality because it's your 'home team,' what practical reason do you have that leads you to believe it's worthy of defense?
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

#36867 Jan 5, 2013
Gay activists boycott AMWAY after president donates $500,000 to traditional marriage

Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:22 EST
Comments ()
Tags: amway, doug devos, fred karger, national organization for marriage

Amway's Doug Devos

August 10, 2012 – Amway President Doug DeVos donated half a million dollars to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). On August 3, his donation came under attack by gay activist Fred Karger’s Rights Equal Rights organization in the form of a global boycott.

The reason for the boycott, according to RightsEqualRights.com , is to “support our friends and…keep pressure on the mega-donors to NOM and other likeminded organizations and individuals who so vigorously oppose Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) equality.”

NOM has recently urged boycotts of Starbucks and General Mills, who have donated significant sums of money to supporting gay “marriage,” which Rights Equal Rights gives as further reason for the boycott of Amway.

But the difference, according to NOM President Brian Brown, is that “unlike our opponents, we do not target whole companies for the actions of an individual business executive in that company. But Starbucks has taken a corporate position in support of redefining marriage for all of society.”

A spokeswoman for Amway emphasised this difference between private and corporate action.“As private citizens, the DeVos family supports causes and organizations that advocate for policies aligned to their personal beliefs,” she said.

“[The family believes] one of the highest callings of any individual is to express their own personal beliefs as a participant in the democratic process.”

Karger, however, appears determined to continue with the boycott, calling NOM a “known hate group” in an August 9 Huffington Post article.

While NOM says its mission is “to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it,” Karger says its “goal appears to be harming Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Americans.”

“NOM constantly defends anti-LGBT companies like its ally Chick-fil-A and its owner for hateful and bigoted comments and actions,” said Karger.“NOM has that right under our First Amendment and so do we.”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

The Rights Equal Rights website states,“A global boycott of Amway will let others know that there are consequences of giving massive amounts of money to take away the rights of a minority.”

Amway has responded, clarifying that it does not discriminate in any way.

“Our employees and distributors come from all walks of life and represent an incredibly diverse set of backgrounds,” said the spokeswoman for Amway.“The Amway opportunity is open to everyone.”

Karger has directed four previous boycotts against other major donors to NOM and Yes on Proposition 8. Two of those donors have settled, donating a like amount to LGBT organizations. One of those companies, Bolthouse Farms, gave $110,000 to homosexualist groups after donating $100,000 to Yes on Proposition 8.

“As…with our four other boycott targets,” Karger says,“we at Rights Equal Rights remain open to a possible settlement of the Amway/Alticor Boycott at any time.”

Amway stands by the statement that Doug DeVos has a right to donate his personal money where he wishes.
mary jo

Markham, IL

#36868 Jan 5, 2013
Southern Lady01 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they sure did. God will always win. Want to know more? Just read the Huffington Post Article.
whos huffing on the post ?? you ?? hee heee
Gays Run the World

Alpharetta, GA

#36869 Jan 5, 2013
KiMare wrote:
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Several problems with your hypotheses:
A) Sexual orientation and musical appreciation are obviously not analogous to each other.
B) Being gay is no guarantee that procreation will not happen (gay people are not sterile) just as heterosexuality is no guarantee of procreation.
C) Your premise assumes that "normalcy" revolves around procreation as the ne plus ultra of existence. Not only is that far from an objective judgement, not to say a very depressing one also, but you must include heterosexuals who cannot or choose not to procreate as well into that group.
*Stanford evolutionist wrote;
This is unforgivably feeble-minded reasoning and quite frankly, troubling.
You say that being gay is no guarantee against procreation. I'm disturbed by this comment. Homosexual activity does not and can not result in offspring.
Unless you know of cases of male anal sex resulting in fertilization within a male's anal canal, or a woman's tongue containing sperm which she deposits into another woman's vagina through the act of oral sex, I think it's VERY safe to say homosexuality is not reproductive.
This is almost too ridiculous to discuss.
Now, you do bring up the (meretricious) argument that being heterosexual is no guarantee of procreation.
The reason this argument is invalid is because in the example of the heterosexual who decides not to have children, it was the heterosexual's decision for reasons UNRELATED to his genetically predisposed proclivities. Thus this decision is no fault of evolution, as the heterosexual was armed with the correct sexual urges needed to reproduce. Whether he takes that and runs with it, is irrelevant.
While gays may have the ability,(functioning genitals) this is certainly NOT enough. In order to fully promote action, evolution equips two qualities: Ability (just mentioned) AND willingness. The gay is missing the correct WILLINGNESS -the genetic urge to have heterosexual relations. This wrong wiring IS a genetic defect.
Remember healthy instincts differ from defective ones in that healthy instincts are the ones that yield very strong urges towards INCREASING the likelihood of survival.
We have hunger throughout the day because it's a healthy urge to push us to seek nourishment. We have the same urge with thirst as we need hydration. If our brains are healthy we should have a similar hunger for heterosexual sex because it is also pushes us towards survival based behavior: sex that can result pregnancy.
OF COURSE wiring that promotes urges towards the gender that can't lead to pregnancy is anti-survival and consequently defective.
These issues are very black and white. To deny them is to deny the will of evolution.
Now, it's time to put the heat lamp on you.
It is easily proven how homosexuality is an evolutionary defect. As I've said a thousand times, It serves absolutely no productive function in furthering the human species.
In fact it's highly destructive because the afflicted person is damned to stop their genes from entering the next generation AND the genes of their lovers as well.
Aside from rather blindly cheerleading for homosexuality because it's your 'home team,' what practical reason do you have that leads you to believe it's worthy of defense?
Malarky!!!
.
We just keep a few straighties around for amusement
.
We don't need your sorry homophobic @ss for reproduction
.
We have this:
http://www.quitecurious.com/wp-content/galler...
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

#36870 Jan 5, 2013
You can believe it sister. They brag about same sex marriage being made legal in Maryland, Maine and Washington but thanks to those laws this can never happen in those 3 states:

.

Lesbians sue to force Catholic hospital to provide same-sex benefits, undermine DOMA

Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:28 EST
Comments (63)
Tags: bill donohue, catholic hospitals, doma, same-sex 'marriage'



NEW YORK, NEW YORK, June 21, 2012 - A New York lesbian couple has sued to force a Catholic hospital to provide them with insurance benefits by challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The same-sex couple has filed a lawsuit against Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield and St. Joseph’s Medical Center because one of St. Joseph’s divisions, St. Vincent’s Westchester, denied them spousal benefits.

The plaintiffs, who have chosen to remain anonymous, are seeking past and future benefits and a declaration that they are entitled to receive them.

Though New York recognizes same-sex marriage, self-insured employers such as St. Joseph’s may still refuse to recognize them because they are governed by federal regulations, rather than state regulations.
Bill Donohue, Catholic League president, defends marriage.
Bill Donohue, Catholic League president, defends marriage.

The lawsuit alleges that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal regulations, is discriminatory and unconstitutional, and therefore cannot justify the hospital’s policy.“It’s just not socially fair,” the employee told the New York Times.

Catholic League President Bill Donohue strongly condemned the lawsuit on Wednesday in a statement calling it an infringement on the hospital’s rights made possible by “sleuth, deception, and a wholesale disregard for the democratic process” and suggesting homosexual activists were the ones trampling on diversity.

“It is not the Catholic Church that is seeking to impose its agenda on others” Donohue said.“It is homosexual activists who voluntarily join a Catholic institution and then seek to upend its strictures.” He noted the employee “surely knew all along…the teachings of Catholicism” on the issues of marriage and homosexuality before coming to the hospital.

DOMA has long been a high-priority target for advocates of redefining marriage. The federal Department of Justice has come under fire for refusing to defend the law in court throughout President Barack Obama’s time in office.

In July 2011, the administration called for the law to be overturned, arguing that the bill signed by President Bill Clinton was “motivated in large part by animus toward gay and lesbian individuals.”

Last month, the First Circuit Court of Appeals struck down DOMA’s federal marriage definition, ruling that benefits could not be denied to gay couples in states that recognize same-sex marriage. However, the court upheld the section of the law protecting states’ right to define marriage for themselves.
Southern Lady01 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they sure did. God will always win. Want to know more? Just read the Huffington Post Article.
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

#36871 Jan 5, 2013
The opinion, written by a judge appointed by President George H.W. Bush, specifically denied the bill was motivated by prejudice.

Critics said at the time that the rest of his ruling was severely flawed. Liberty Counsel senior counsel Harry Mihet noted the inconsistency of ruling that “states remain free to decide the meaning of marriage for themselves and to ban homosexual ‘marriage,’ as 31 states have already done, but somehow the federal government does not have that same freedom to decide for itself…what marriage means.”

Alliance Defense Fund legal counsel Dale Schowengerdt observed that the federal government’s authority to exclude polygamy from marriage’s definition has historically been recognized, while Family Research Council President Tony Perkins argued that DOMA should be subjected to the “rational basis test,” a commonly-accepted legal standard that would recognize government’s rational interest in fostering unions that provide children with a mother and a father.

The assault on DOMA raises serious concerns for religious liberty, as well. A ruling against DOMA and St. Joseph would mean that not even religious employers who bear full financial responsibility for their own services have the right to conform those services to their religious convictions.

In October 2011, Bishop William Lori testified before a the House Judiciary subcommittee that the rhetoric used by the Justice Department against DOMA also pose a deeper threat to religious freedom.

“If the label of ‘bigot’ sticks to our Church and many other churches – especially in court, under the Constitution – because of their teaching on marriage,” he argued,“the result will be church-state conflicts for many years to come.”.

.
Here's the Maryland law, they all read the same:

.

2012 Presidential General Election Question Text
Last Updated 11/07/2012 03:06:01 PM

Return to Election Result Index
NR: not reported

Return to State Ballot Question(s)

Civil Marriage Protection Act (Ch. 2 of the 2012 Legislative Session)
Referendum Petition
Question 06

Establishes that Maryland's civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.
For the Referred Law
Against the Referred Law

.
Those legislators in those 3 states showed them a new meaning of anal sex!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#36872 Jan 5, 2013
Gays Run the World wrote:
<quoted text>
Malarky!!!
.
We just keep a few straighties around for amusement
.
We don't need your sorry homophobic @ss for reproduction
.
We have this:
http://www.quitecurious.com/wp-content/galler...
I wasn't thinking of anyone's ass, I was thinking of the child absent one parent and one gender.

What are you thinking?

Sad.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#36873 Jan 5, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't thinking of anyone's ass, I was thinking of the child absent one parent and one gender.
What are you thinking?
Sad.
One out of every three hetero families has only one parent
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossst...
.
So gays raise the bar

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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Stomping Liberal ... 1,264,383
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 13 min Ariel Sharon 70,149
amy august 2 56 min Blunt Advice 5
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Jacques Ottawa 194,696
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr Sublime1 100,305
Abby August 3 1 hr Blunt Advice 7
Ask Amy August 3 1 hr Sublime1 8
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages