Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

Nov 30, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: CBS2

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

Comments
36,201 - 36,220 of 49,525 Comments Last updated 13 min ago
Kresimir

Irvine, CA

#42261 Sep 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Evolution is a process of constant mutation. Some mutations have a positive effect, and others do not. All have a cause and effect that scientist seek to evaluate. They are not benign as you attempt to insinuate.
2. Additionally, homosexuality relates to sexuality while left-handedness is believed to relate primarily to survival. They are a repeating mutation.
Here is an example of a overview of left-handedness. You find me a similar one on homosexuality.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...
Reading your post further, I have to resent your appeal to science, since it's obvious you're not a scientist where it counts. Your very first sentence illustrates a very shallow understanding of evolutionary biology. Evolution is not "a process of constant mutation"...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#42262 Sep 25, 2013
Kresimir wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think he's trolling, just severely misinformed and having difficulty reconciling his personal conceptions of how the world should work with the current reality. It sounds like trolling because he's basically trying to defend the indefensible.
Notice the reliance on dehumanization and stigmatization.

This goes far beyond a resistance to assimilate new information, to promoting a prejudice intended to justify harming those viewed as less than deserving of equal human rights.

Many have tried, but your efforts are appreciated, and exposing prejudice as irrational is always a worthy effort, whether the person promoting prejudice benefits and grows or not.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42263 Sep 25, 2013
Kresimir wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you miss the forest for the trees. In this day and age, does it really matter if a certain trait served some evolutionary purpose some millions of years ago? Are we living in those same conditions under which natural selection operated? Do we care so much about past evolutionarily advantageous traits that we'll let it translate into social discrimination? Those are rhetorical questions by the way, since it seems like literary subtlety is rather counterproductive here.
Here we go again...

YOU brought up the evolutionary comparison. Now it doesn't matter???

Only because you don't care about truth, science or reality. You have made your decision.

Further, your attempt to minimize is silly stupid! Mating behavior is not just any old evolutionary trait you can take or leave. It is no different than saying we can take or leave breathing air, or drinking water.

Here is what you keep trying to slime around and can't;

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective and total failure of mating behavior.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42264 Sep 25, 2013
Kresimir wrote:
<quoted text>
Reading your post further, I have to resent your appeal to science, since it's obvious you're not a scientist where it counts. Your very first sentence illustrates a very shallow understanding of evolutionary biology. Evolution is not "a process of constant mutation"...
You 'resent'???

LOL, too funny.

Here, start with Evolution 101;

Read both pages

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/...
Kresimir

Irvine, CA

#42265 Sep 25, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice the reliance on dehumanization and stigmatization.
This goes far beyond a resistance to assimilate new information, to promoting a prejudice intended to justify harming those viewed as less than deserving of equal human rights.
Many have tried, but your efforts are appreciated, and exposing prejudice as irrational is always a worthy effort, whether the person promoting prejudice benefits and grows or not.
Thanks. Out of curiosity I decided to visit the California forums, since I don't normally post here. It's the same people posting the same ignorant stuff. Some people just absolutely refuse to admit when they're wrong.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You also need to learn the difference between identity and culture, or more likely, quit the deceitful attempt to shift the point.
I addressed your other points when I noted your red herrings.
A culture encompasses an identity. You could replace the word "culture" with "identity" in my previous post and the point would still stand.

None of what I posted was red herrings. It's just you that refuses to see the larger context and instead focuses on the narrow and trivial stuff such as same sex couples not being able to procreate inside their marriage (yet).

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42266 Sep 25, 2013
Kresimir wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. Out of curiosity I decided to visit the California forums, since I don't normally post here. It's the same people posting the same ignorant stuff. Some people just absolutely refuse to admit when they're wrong.
<quoted text>
A culture encompasses an identity. You could replace the word "culture" with "identity" in my previous post and the point would still stand.
None of what I posted was red herrings. It's just you that refuses to see the larger context and instead focuses on the narrow and trivial stuff such as same sex couples not being able to procreate inside their marriage (yet).
Culture and identity are very distinct. They do not equate.

You keep trying to avoid the points you responded to and change to others. I'm not letting you.

Procreation is not 'trivial' to marriage.
Kresimir

Irvine, CA

#42267 Sep 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You 'resent'???
LOL, too funny.
Here, start with Evolution 101;
Read both pages
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/...
I resent it, yes, because too often I see social conservatives rejecting science as a whole while clinging to shallow (and usually incorrect) interpretations of it when it will suit their worldview. Social Darwinism for example.

Mutations make up only a small part of the forces which drive evolution. You also have things like genetic drift, and natural selection which I already mentioned, which are much bigger contributors.

Oh... and I haven't addressed this:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective and total failure of mating behavior.
because this is a crackpot conjecture that you pulled out of your ass, with no scientific basis whatsoever.
Kresimir

Irvine, CA

#42268 Sep 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Culture and identity are very distinct. They do not equate.
This is true. I said that a culture encompasses an identity. If you have your own culture, then you have your own identity.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is not 'trivial' to marriage.
You can have procreation without marriage. You can have marriage without procreation. Marriage is a social faculty, while procreation is a biological one. It might be your personal opinion that their correlation should hold primacy, but that's just it. In today's society, marriage is about love, companionship, and ultimately happiness. Procreation is a secondary concern at best.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42269 Sep 25, 2013
Kresimir wrote:
<quoted text>
I resent it, yes, because too often I see social conservatives rejecting science as a whole while clinging to shallow (and usually incorrect) interpretations of it when it will suit their worldview. Social Darwinism for example.
Mutations make up only a small part of the forces which drive evolution. You also have things like genetic drift, and natural selection which I already mentioned, which are much bigger contributors.
Oh... and I haven't addressed this:
<quoted text>
because this is a crackpot conjecture that you pulled out of your ass, with no scientific basis whatsoever.
That's interesting, because so far, you have been the one avoiding and then misstating science.

You are so desperate. Mutations make up a 'small part'? You keep exposing your idiocy. Mutations are an integral part of evolution as are the ones you mentioned and more.

Please be specific about my statement, and make sure you show EVERY part having ABSOLUTELY no scientific basis. Otherwise, your opinion has absolutely no basis...

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42270 Sep 25, 2013
Kresimir wrote:
<quoted text>
This is true. I said that a culture encompasses an identity. If you have your own culture, then you have your own identity.
<quoted text>
You can have procreation without marriage. You can have marriage without procreation. Marriage is a social faculty, while procreation is a biological one. It might be your personal opinion that their correlation should hold primacy, but that's just it. In today's society, marriage is about love, companionship, and ultimately happiness. Procreation is a secondary concern at best.
Marriage in a culture has it's own identity. Ss couples have their own identity as you stated. They do not identify with marriage.

In fact, marriage is a cross cultural identity. Ss couple have never been even openly accepted in a single culture from start to finish. Something that devastatingly exposes their lack of identity with marriage.

Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist were it not for children. Humanity would digress to lower life forms who take little responsibility for their offspring.

You are talking out of your ass again...
Kresimir

Irvine, CA

#42271 Sep 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That's interesting, because so far, you have been the one avoiding and then misstating science.
You are so desperate. Mutations make up a 'small part'? You keep exposing your idiocy. Mutations are an integral part of evolution as are the ones you mentioned and more.
Please be specific about my statement, and make sure you show EVERY part having ABSOLUTELY no scientific basis. Otherwise, your opinion has absolutely no basis...
Smile.
Your exact words were "Evolution is a process of constant mutation". This is patently false, as it implies that mutations are the primary driver of evolution, or that evolution itself is constantly mutating. Now you're making a little more sense, but that's not the impression you were giving me before.

Still, there this. You're the one with the bizarre claim correlating marriage with evolution. You tell me why you think this is a valid statement.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42272 Sep 25, 2013
Kresimir wrote:
<quoted text>
Your exact words were "Evolution is a process of constant mutation". This is patently false, as it implies that mutations are the primary driver of evolution, or that evolution itself is constantly mutating. Now you're making a little more sense, but that's not the impression you were giving me before.
Still, there this. You're the one with the bizarre claim correlating marriage with evolution. You tell me why you think this is a valid statement.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-...

I said marriage is a constraint on mating behavior. You claimed every part was false, why do I need to explain something you supposedly know?
Kresimir

Irvine, CA

#42273 Sep 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-...
I said marriage is a constraint on mating behavior. You claimed every part was false, why do I need to explain something you supposedly know?
You don't need to explain to me what mutation does, or its significance. Anyone who passed high-school biology could tell you that.

What you need to explain is why you think marriage is a constraint on "evolutionary" mating behavior "at its most basic essence". Since you can't explain its merits, I'll give you its faults.

All animals reproduce sexually. Some animals find mates before they reproduce. No animals "marry", in the human sense.

Because for humans, whose emotions and social interactions are much more complex than any other animal, marriage, at its most basic essence, is about commitment. Social commitment. Not a commitment to have sex (men with ED), not a commitment to have children (post-menopausal women), but a commitment to each other. And when you consider this, denying marriage to two people who happen to be the same gender makes no sense.

Back in the middle ages, where society placed a large emphasis on nobility through family heritage, marriage was a socially-approved way to legitimize one's bloodline. Do we still talk about concepts like legitimate children vs. bastards today? Maybe if you live in Saudi Arabia. But the point is, in today's enlightened society, marriages and progeny are no longer considered to have a cause-and-effect relationship, not in theory, and not in practice. And these concepts are enshrined within the US DoI, in the phrase "all men are created equal", as is the idea of allowing ss couples to participate in civil institutions such as marriage.

So your statement, regarding marriage primarily being about constraining evolutionary mating behavior, is incorrect and beyond simplistic. Not surprising, when you try to draw sociological conclusions from biological premises.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42274 Sep 26, 2013
Kresimir wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't need to explain to me what mutation does, or its significance. Anyone who passed high-school biology could tell you that.
What you need to explain is why you think marriage is a constraint on "evolutionary" mating behavior "at its most basic essence". Since you can't explain its merits, I'll give you its faults.
All animals reproduce sexually. Some animals find mates before they reproduce. No animals "marry", in the human sense.
Because for humans, whose emotions and social interactions are much more complex than any other animal, marriage, at its most basic essence, is about commitment. Social commitment. Not a commitment to have sex (men with ED), not a commitment to have children (post-menopausal women), but a commitment to each other. And when you consider this, denying marriage to two people who happen to be the same gender makes no sense.
Back in the middle ages, where society placed a large emphasis on nobility through family heritage, marriage was a socially-approved way to legitimize one's bloodline. Do we still talk about concepts like legitimate children vs. bastards today? Maybe if you live in Saudi Arabia. But the point is, in today's enlightened society, marriages and progeny are no longer considered to have a cause-and-effect relationship, not in theory, and not in practice. And these concepts are enshrined within the US DoI, in the phrase "all men are created equal", as is the idea of allowing ss couples to participate in civil institutions such as marriage.
So your statement, regarding marriage primarily being about constraining evolutionary mating behavior, is incorrect and beyond simplistic. Not surprising, when you try to draw sociological conclusions from biological premises.
Apparently not everyone learned about evolution, since I've had to correct you each step of the way...

I love the classic 'nobility' example. It is a gay twirl history mistake. How many Nobles do you think existed in the middle ages? You forget that marriage has existed in every single culture in all of known human history.

http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/bussandschmit...

As to drawing sociological conclusions from biological premises, you might want to read up on mating behavior before you go further with that claim...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#42275 Sep 26, 2013
"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution." (Supreme Court in Windsor)

First and foremost, in the US, marriage is a fundamental right of all persons.
Mother Superior

Saint Louis, MO

#42276 Sep 26, 2013
Good Dental Health?
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution." (Supreme Court in Windsor)
First and foremost, in the US, marriage is a fundamental right of all persons.
CDC

Saint Louis, MO

#42278 Sep 26, 2013
AGENDEYE: Seems pretty obvious.
Kresimir

Irvine, CA

#42279 Sep 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently not everyone learned about evolution, since I've had to correct you each step of the way...
I love the classic 'nobility' example. It is a gay twirl history mistake. How many Nobles do you think existed in the middle ages? You forget that marriage has existed in every single culture in all of known human history.
http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/bussandschmit...
As to drawing sociological conclusions from biological premises, you might want to read up on mating behavior before you go further with that claim...
You correcting me? On the contrary. You're the one who made it sound like evolution was all about mutations, then posted links about the definition of the terms mutation and evolution instead of how they actually pertain to each other. Here's a hint: you will find no academic source that tells you "evolution is a process of mutation".
Who do you think cared more about the popular legitimacy of their marriages, the nobility or the peasantry? Your claim of marriage being "cross-cultural" is tenuous at best, since your definition of marriage is a modern one that's you've retroactively applied to generalize your argument. Marriage did not carry the same meaning for pre-Columbian Americans as it did for most Europeans, if that word could even be used in both contexts.
Besides, serfdom was a kind of "cross-cultural constraint" as well. Should we be arguing for its preservation, too?
The point that I keep trying to get across and you keep refusing to acknowledge is that the history of marriage as a social construct no longer holds any relevance. Marriages have come to signify something different to the general population today than they did 500 years ago. Ss couples want to get married for the same reason os couples do nowadays. And it's more than that; having the ability to marry is a crucial step on the way to full social acceptance for them. If you oppose this, you show bigotry in the simplest sense of the word, whether you realize it or not.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42280 Sep 26, 2013
Kresimir wrote:
<quoted text>
You correcting me? On the contrary. You're the one who made it sound like evolution was all about mutations, then posted links about the definition of the terms mutation and evolution instead of how they actually pertain to each other. Here's a hint: you will find no academic source that tells you "evolution is a process of mutation".
Who do you think cared more about the popular legitimacy of their marriages, the nobility or the peasantry? Your claim of marriage being "cross-cultural" is tenuous at best, since your definition of marriage is a modern one that's you've retroactively applied to generalize your argument. Marriage did not carry the same meaning for pre-Columbian Americans as it did for most Europeans, if that word could even be used in both contexts.
Besides, serfdom was a kind of "cross-cultural constraint" as well. Should we be arguing for its preservation, too?
The point that I keep trying to get across and you keep refusing to acknowledge is that the history of marriage as a social construct no longer holds any relevance. Marriages have come to signify something different to the general population today than they did 500 years ago. Ss couples want to get married for the same reason os couples do nowadays. And it's more than that; having the ability to marry is a crucial step on the way to full social acceptance for them. If you oppose this, you show bigotry in the simplest sense of the word, whether you realize it or not.
I'm sorry, but I never restricted evolution to mutation, I simply and accurately noted is critical presence in the process.

The point I keep proving to you is that no matter where you gay twirl to, I keep proving you wrong.

You claimed every single part of my statement was wrong.

Then you claimed the constraint of marriage on evolution was wrong.

Now you are ignoring those incorrect claims, and make the idiotic claim that mating behavior no longer needs the constraint of marriage for humans. This in the face of drastic declines in the social health of our children. Not to mention that mating behavior only applies to heterosexual couples in a functional way.

Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage. Clearly not the same.

I suggest gays grow the balls to develop their own relationship and stop the hateful troll attacks like you just made because someone stands with history and science.
Jennifer

Ashburn, VA

#42281 Sep 26, 2013
Contact dr ataikhuo if you have any spiritual problem and he will help you, because he has helped me a lot. Email him via
(drataikhuotempleofspiritualis t@hotmail.com) and you will be happy

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min TheIndependentMaj... 1,100,338
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 19 min wojar 177,401
Diversity is a codeword for white genocide 1 hr ABSOLUTELYjigsWON 2
last post wins! (Apr '13) 1 hr boundary painter 333
Quinn allows increased tax on cell phones in sh... 1 hr WhenAtCUBRatesRoc... 2
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 1 hr boundary painter 1,257
ISIS Plans to Blow Up an Entire American City a... 1 hr I choose shytcago 42
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr trying to keep up 97,936
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••