Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52064 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38059 Feb 28, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Marriage means different things to different people. Everyone is free to attach whatever meaning they choose for themselves, to their own marriage.
But from a legal perspective, marriage it is a fundamental right of the individual.
The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.
Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny.
Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Gender is not a restriction.
While churches may place any restrictions they choose on their own ceremonies, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated.
Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate qualification. Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.
Gay couples are seeking to be treated equally under the laws currently in effect, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.
Neither tradition nor gender provides a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.
BS

At the most fundamental level, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a defective desolate contradiction to the very focus of evolution. Literally 'unmarriage'.

No matter how blusterous you pontificate with gay twirl legality, you have yet to get past first base.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38060 Feb 28, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> How about we eliminate YOUR benfits and only give benefits to gay couples?
How about you man up and get your own benefits like marriage did. Leave the protections of mothers and children alone!

Snicker.
blue bird bus

United States

#38061 Feb 28, 2013
The rainbow tribe says welcome home; lovin you...now let's get them joints passed around main circle and usher in the coming of the anti christ. Go ki mare you are really moving this site into the future. I'm proud of you. You are a gay revolutionist. The beatles sang were talking about a evil lution. Never mind all that let me get a hit off the global joint so I can sing strawberrie fields forever. Gooo ki mare you tell em. All we are saying is give gay a chance....everybody is talking about bagism, everybody is talking about fagism, the ism the ism ism ism. Goooo ki mare. Youu are ny worst nightmare
blue bird bus

United States

#38062 Feb 28, 2013
Middle finger
blue bird bus

United States

#38063 Feb 28, 2013
All you homosexuals are going to break the internet system if you keep typing away at this crap. A system overload was on the news today...stop. if we mess up the www.com what will we do with our lives? Stair at the wall ? How about we do zen buddism and chant ohhhhmmmmmmm all day instead
blue bird bus

United States

#38065 Feb 28, 2013
Lilith_Satans_Who_re wrote:
What???
. Oh my......you can't read can you ? That was a test. If you can read and write that means nothing to me.....you don't know how to think,because you are not free. You have been manufactured by your american culture. Made in the u.s.a is sewed into your forehead. Wake up lilith satan whatever you are
blue bird bus

United States

#38067 Feb 28, 2013
While you ponder on that satan. I'm gonna have more beer. And maybe take a hit off the bong. Free your minds. What we are doing is a evil lution. Such dorks. Beer scares you....them drunks are too rowdy. Drunks are stupid.
blue bird bus

United States

#38068 Feb 28, 2013
Jim morrison in the movie the doors with val kilmer. The television set is going bonkers with army helicpoters on the news vietnam is raging like a beast caged in the heart of the city, people are peace protesting, hey jim hey jim hey jim..............everyone is in his face like evil clowns triening to make him cry. Hey jim just sell out. Hey jim just sell your soul to car commercial. Hey jim...be a sober dork like us. So any way morrison blurts out ; I think I'm having a nervious breakdown. Right then and there he became free you dork dork dork dorks
blue bird bus

United States

#38069 Feb 28, 2013
Yes, bring the nurse so I can fondle her. it should be against the law to think. They should have a new police force on patrol for thought crimnals. Maybe topix in the future will be a alert system for thought crime. A bait trap...
blue bird bus

United States

#38070 Feb 28, 2013
Maybe I'm on the list now by argueing with you dorks. Done gave them my intel. Operations. Why is it sanity is always the question ? Is it against the law to think so insane? Maybe that is what thought crime is you stupid dork.....come to my house so I can get you drunk. Well do beer bongs all night. Do you want my address???
blue bird bus

United States

#38071 Feb 28, 2013
Ill give you all my address I ain't a dork. A scared american...I ain't that dork no sir. Need my phone number???? Come on dorks. Computer geeks. Geeks no life. Scared little rabbits. Like rob zombie said ruuuuunnnn rabbit run

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38073 Feb 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

As to mimicking heterosexual sex, every aspect of homosexual sex can only do so.
Damn, my pussy lips are bleeding again!!!
Honey, we don't mimic heterosexual activity; we do it way better. You should be so lucky.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#38074 Feb 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course homosexuals have reproduced silly girl! However, I said A 'homosexual couple' cannot procreate. The only option is that one of them utilizes a default opposite gender substitute. The result is a child who is deliberately destitute one natural parent and one parental gender for the sake of the homosexual couple. Criminally atrocious narcissism.
You keep saying anal sex is not demeaning, then you get offended when I just suggest you to experience it. Seems to me you are proving yourself wrong...
Did you really suggest that speaking of anything else as demeaning diminishes the issue of rape??? I won't say you are blonde, but my lip is bleeding right now...
If you think something I've said is unscientific, simply post a rebuttal from a legitimate source. It is easy for anyone to do but blondes...
Heads up honey, not just some humans limit mating behavior to sex, but ALL animals do too. The constraint of marriage is not just to address the likely consequence of children, but to mark the vow of monogamy and the pursuit of sexual union that embraces body, mind and spirit. Something a vast number consider sacred. Something that distinguishes human sex from animals.
As to mimicking heterosexual sex, every aspect of homosexual sex can only do so. They are absent the natural opposite partner. At every level, the complementary half is missing.
Damn, my lip is bleeding again!!!
Smile.
"You keep saying anal sex is not demeaning, then you get offended when I just suggest you to experience it. Seems to me you are proving yourself wrong..."

I have no earthly idea where the fuck this came from. When did I ever say I had never had anal sex, or get offended, or any of that at all? Since you are incapable of carrying on intelligent discourse, I am disengaging from this conversation. Seek psychosexual therapy ASAP. I can recommend some resources for you to work out your cisgender projecting.
ILmILF

United States

#38075 Mar 1, 2013
You should all be ashamed of yourselves ..!.;

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38076 Mar 1, 2013
AnnieSprinkle wrote:
<quoted text>
"You keep saying anal sex is not demeaning, then you get offended when I just suggest you to experience it. Seems to me you are proving yourself wrong..."
I have no earthly idea where the fuck this came from. When did I ever say I had never had anal sex, or get offended, or any of that at all? Since you are incapable of carrying on intelligent discourse, I am disengaging from this conversation. Seek psychosexual therapy ASAP. I can recommend some resources for you to work out your cisgender projecting.
I'd say you are just tucking your tail and running, but there is no way to tuck that tail...

Bye.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#38077 Mar 1, 2013
But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...
come on

Chicago, IL

#38078 Mar 1, 2013
Tuck tuck tuck.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#38079 Mar 1, 2013
Obscured by the fact that the Obama Administration submitted a brief against Prop 8 is the brief the American Sociological Association submitted.…ASA’s brief destroys claims made that same-sex households are inferior when it comes to raising children, which is a major argument for those pushing Prop 8. The ASA especially calls out the Mark Regnerus study, which is the recent controversial study claiming children raised in same-sex households suffer adverse efffects. Supporters of Prop 8 made this study a huge part of their arguments in spite of fact that it has been discredited.

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2013/03...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#38080 Mar 1, 2013
ASA said the following about the Regnerus study in its brief (pgs. 26-29):
First, the Regnerus study does not specifically examine children born or adopted into same-sex parent families, but instead examines children who, from the time they were born until they were 18 or moved out, had a parent who at any time had “a same-sex romantic relationship.”. As Regnerus noted, the majority of the individuals characterized by him as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite- sex unions whose parent subsequently had a same-sex relationship. In other words, Regnerus did not study or analyze the children of two same-sex parents.
Second, when the Regnerus study compared the children of parents who at one point had a “same-sex romantic relationship,” most of whom had experienced a family dissolution or single motherhood, to children raised by two biological, married opposite-sex parents, the study stripped away all divorced, single, and stepparent families from the opposite-sex group, leaving only stable, married, opposite-sex families as the comparison... Thus, it was hardly surprising that the opposite-sex group had better outcomes given that stability is a key predictor of positive child wellbeing. By so doing, the Regnerus study makes inappropriate apples-to-oranges comparisons.
Third, Regnerus’s first published analysis of his research data failed to consider whether the children lived with, or were raised by, the parent who was, at some point, apparently involved in “a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex” and that same-sex partner. Instead, Regnerus categorized children as raised by a parent in a same-sex romantic relationship regardless of whether they were in fact raised by the parent and the parent’s same-sex romantic partner and regardless of the amount of time that they spent under the parent’s care. As a result, so long as an adult child believed that he or she had had a parent who had a relationship with someone of the same sex, then he or she was counted by Regnerus as having been “raised by” a parent in a same-sex relationship.
Fourth, in contrast to every other study on same-sex parenting, Regnerus identified parents who had purportedly engaged in a same-sex romantic relationship based solely on the child’s own retrospective report of the parent’s romantic relationships, made once the child was an adult. This unusual measurement strategy ignored the fact that the child may have limited and inaccurate recollections of the parents’ distant romantic past.
Finally, the study fails to account for the fact that the negative outcomes may have been caused by other childhood events or events later in the individual’s adult life, particularly given that the vast majority (thirty-seven of forty) of the outcomes measured were adult and not childhood outcomes. Factors other than same-sex parenting are likely to explain these negative outcomes in the Regnerus study. Regnerus himself concludes that “I am thus not suggesting that growing up with a lesbian mother or gay father causes suboptimal outcomes because of the sexual orientation or sexual behavior of the parent.”
In sum, by conflating (1) children raised by same-sex parents with (2) individuals who reportedly had a parent who had “a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex,” and referring to such individuals as children of “lesbian mothers” or “gay fathers,” the Regnerus study obscures the fact that it did not specifically examine children raised by two same-sex parents. Accordingly, it cannot speak to the impact of same-sex parenting on child outcomes.”

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2013/03...
lil jon

Saint Louis, MO

#38081 Mar 1, 2013
Suzy has a mom and dad for parents. I explained to her "it is not normal to live that way".
I love my daddies.

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 RealDave 1,263,358
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 14 min PEllen 100,298
Song Title Game (Dec '11) 14 min boundary painter 1,197
Ask Amy July 31 16 min boundary painter 4
abby7-31-15 20 min boundary painter 4
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 37 min Enter 194,507
Fun Song Combos (Sep '12) 55 min boundary painter 454
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages