Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52086 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.

go get em

Neponset, IL

#39759 Jun 14, 2013
By the way it's easy to be a perfect aXXhole...when you have to deal with morons like you and cdc.

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#39760 Jun 14, 2013
go get em wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you..thank you
I'll be here all this week-end and all next just to piss you off.
You really shouldn't pick on children....even if they ARE little brats ;)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#39762 Jun 14, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>If heterosexuals who can not or do not procreate are allowed to be married. The procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Then why is it that you require homosexuals to procreate??
Homosexuals cannot mutually procreate. Ever.

The ponderous propensity of married couples do.

You could never be the byproduct of a ss relationship. Marriage is clearly a distinct relationship.

This isn't complicated for most people.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Bubba Smith

Paris, IL

#39763 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare you have never ever been laid in your life have you?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#39764 Jun 15, 2013
Bubba Smith wrote:
KiMare you have never ever been laid in your life have you?
The lesbian in me hasn't, but the straight man has two sons.

I still get lots of offers because I look like Bruce Willis with the smirk.

Smile.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#39765 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Homosexuals cannot mutually procreate. Ever.
And? Procreation is neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of marriage, and heterosexual couples incapable of procreation are regularly allowed to marry.
KiMare wrote:
The ponderous propensity of married couples do.
Is marriage required for procreation? Apparently the CDC thinks that nearly half of births are to out of wedlock parents. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
KiMare wrote:
You could never be the byproduct of a ss relationship.
And?
KiMare wrote:
Marriage is clearly a distinct relationship.
It is, but you have yet to indicate so little as a rational basis to exclude same sex couples.
KiMare wrote:
This isn't complicated for most people.
It isn't difficult at all. The constitution mandates equality under the law. One wonders why you are being so obtuse when you haven't a legal leg to stand upon?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#39766 Jun 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
And? Procreation is neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of marriage, and heterosexual couples incapable of procreation are regularly allowed to marry.
<quoted text>
Is marriage required for procreation? Apparently the CDC thinks that nearly half of births are to out of wedlock parents. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
<quoted text>
And?
<quoted text>
It is, but you have yet to indicate so little as a rational basis to exclude same sex couples.
<quoted text>
It isn't difficult at all. The constitution mandates equality under the law. One wonders why you are being so obtuse when you haven't a legal leg to stand upon?
If I have no legal leg to stand on, why is a legal change necessary to allow ss couples to impose an impostor relationship on marriage?
centralia

Mount Vernon, IL

#39767 Jun 15, 2013
go get em wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you..thank you
I'll be here all this week-end and all next just to piss you off.
What's the worst thing about "go get em" mom having sex with him ? When she says she's had better. lol.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#39769 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If I have no legal leg to stand on, why is a legal change necessary to allow ss couples to impose an impostor relationship on marriage?
If gay folks can make your marriage an "imposter" simply by legally marrying, then your marriage wasn't worth much to start.

Wasn't your marriage based on a divorce, already making it one of those "imposter" marriages Jesus talks about?

Hypocrite.

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#39770 Jun 15, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>You don't make enough to pay income taxes do you?
LOL, I see. So people whose points of view differ significantly from yours are most likely too stupid to ever be gainfully employed? Is that the inference you're making? If so or if not, please clarify your question and your reason for asking it?

"I disagree with you so rather than offer a well-reasoned response, I'll just try to insult you! That should do the trick!"

Batch, you are utterly incapable of insulting me. Clearly you're inclined to make an attempt and, in the process, make yourself look foolish. By all means, continue with that strategy. Only your credibility will suffer for it.
centralia

Mount Vernon, IL

#39771 Jun 15, 2013
Religionthebiglie wrote:
<quoted text>
You really shouldn't pick on children....even if they ARE little brats ;)
Daddy ,Daddy, Said "Religiothebiglie". What's a pervert? Shut up and keep sucking. lol.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#39772 Jun 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
If gay folks can make your marriage an "imposter" simply by legally marrying, then your marriage wasn't worth much to start.
Wasn't your marriage based on a divorce, already making it one of those "imposter" marriages Jesus talks about?
Hypocrite.
Never divorced.

Marriage defines a distinct relationship in society. The only impostor would be calling a mutually sterile pointless duplicate gendered couple 'married'.

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#39773 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If I have no legal leg to stand on, why is a legal change necessary to allow ss couples to impose an impostor relationship on marriage?
For the same reasons so many other other laws have been changed and amendments have been added to the original Constitution; existing laws are at odds with Constitutional law. Why was a "legal change necessary" to allow bi-racial couples to marry? Different reason? Weren't the original state-by-state laws against interracial marriage based on adherence to laws in the Bible? Should it be legal for states, on their own, to deny rights to people based on Biblical law?

Now, of course, please think of some ways to try to insult me - albeit unsuccessfully - for asking such questions. We're all used to your rebuking style by now.

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#39774 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Never divorced.
Marriage defines a distinct relationship in society. The only impostor would be calling a mutually sterile pointless duplicate gendered couple 'married'.
Ok, so if a same-sex couple who enter into a legally-binding civil contract by which they are recognized by law as partners in a spousal relationship and thereby entitled to the same legal rights, protections, and taxation guidelines as heterosexual couples who are legally "married", but they solemnly promise never to utter the word 'marriage' in connection with their own civil arrangement, it's all good?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#39775 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Never divorced.
Marriage defines a distinct relationship in society. The only impostor would be calling a mutually sterile pointless duplicate gendered couple 'married'.
I'm sorry, I thought the woman you were with was divorced. She wasn't? Was that just a rumor?

And LOL.

Really?

Too funny.

You cannot with any sanity provethat other folk's marriages - people you will never meet - are "impostor" simply because you don't like them. And gay folks are not any more likely to be sterile than any straight person. And, yes, are no more likely to produce children then ANY sterile married heterosexual couple.

Since children are not required for any marriage license, your worrying about the fertility of other married couples is too silly.

And NO humans are ever "duplicate".

We are all wonderfully unique.

Can't do any better than this silliness?

I know you can't, that's why you continue to repeat the same absurd stuff.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Oxford, MI

#39777 Jun 15, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>LOL, I see. So people whose points of view differ significantly from yours are most likely too stupid to ever be gainfully employed? Is that the inference you're making? If so or if not, please clarify your question and your reason for asking it?
"I disagree with you so rather than offer a well-reasoned response, I'll just try to insult you! That should do the trick!"
Batch, you are utterly incapable of insulting me. Clearly you're inclined to make an attempt and, in the process, make yourself look foolish. By all means, continue with that strategy. Only your credibility will suffer for it.
Just making the observation.... Joe Biden told America had to have "skin in the game", then the stats are half the country pays no income tax and also qualify for an Earned Income Tax Credit.... So who pays the bills? There are makers and takers and the takers will usually vote against makers. People may have jobs but not pay into the game..... That makes them zero liability voters..... No insults here, just merely using facts...... You got any? Don't use moral equivalence please....... Facts and not emotion is what is needed..... Is your Chicagoland going to fall like Detroit?

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#39778 Jun 15, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Just making the observation....
What observations are you able to make from my posts?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Joe Biden told America had to have "skin in the game", then the stats are half the country pays no income tax and also qualify for an Earned Income Tax Credit.... So who pays the bills?
Well, we who pay income taxes pay the bills. And this has exactly what to do with the topic at hand? Are you saying those who are in favor of equal rights are less likely to be taxpayers?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text> There are makers and takers and the takers will usually vote against makers.
Oh, I see. So same-sex couples would be, in your view, "takers". Got it.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text> People may have jobs but not pay into the game..... That makes them zero liability voters.....
I'm sure there must be some point you're trying to make here, but what that might be eludes me. Sorry. I'm just not smart enough to understand what you're trying to say.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text> No insults here, just merely using facts......
What facts do you have about me that would prompt you to assume I pay no income tax?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text> You got any?
Sure. How many would you like?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text> Don't use moral equivalence please.......
It appears to me that those who against same-sex marriage are the ones vomiting up their versions of morality in these discussions.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text> Facts and not emotion is what is needed.....
Sorry, I couldn't make sense out of that sentence and can therefore offer no response.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Is your Chicagoland going to fall like Detroit?
I don't and couldn't live in Chicago. I live in Rockford, a very different kind of place.
Question

Frankfort, IL

#39779 Jun 15, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Just making the observation.... Joe Biden told America had to have "skin in the game", then the stats are half the country pays no income tax and also qualify for an Earned Income Tax Credit.... So who pays the bills? There are makers and takers and the takers will usually vote against makers. People may have jobs but not pay into the game..... That makes them zero liability voters..... No insults here, just merely using facts...... You got any? Don't use moral equivalence please....... Facts and not emotion is what is needed..... Is your Chicagoland going to fall like Detroit?
this is the absolute truth. Bullseye!!

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#39780 Jun 16, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>For the same reasons so many other other laws have been changed and amendments have been added to the original Constitution; existing laws are at odds with Constitutional law. Why was a "legal change necessary" to allow bi-racial couples to marry? Different reason? Weren't the original state-by-state laws against interracial marriage based on adherence to laws in the Bible? Should it be legal for states, on their own, to deny rights to people based on Biblical law?
Now, of course, please think of some ways to try to insult me - albeit unsuccessfully - for asking such questions. We're all used to your rebuking style by now.
Lide pretended the legal decision is a done deal. So do you. It's not.

I frankly don't care what this Court decides. I simply point out the vast distinction between ss coupleand marriage that no law can change.

Neither of you can argue those differences.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#39781 Jun 16, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, so if a same-sex couple who enter into a legally-binding civil contract by which they are recognized by law as partners in a spousal relationship and thereby entitled to the same legal rights, protections, and taxation guidelines as heterosexual couples who are legally "married", but they solemnly promise never to utter the word 'marriage' in connection with their own civil arrangement, it's all good?
Ss couples have every right and opportunity to establish their own legitimate rights. They should not be the same as marriage because the relationship is distinct.

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) 5 min Yeah 1,278,288
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 25 min Joe Balls 197,105
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Mothra 54,601
News Should prostitution be less illegal-or more? 1 hr robert 4
"Slave clothes" My New, Original Work by Patric... 2 hr Outlaw Entitlements 2
Kim K has such a large azz, it turns me OFF. 2 hr Condoms unnecessary 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 6 hr contrary opinion 100,673
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages