Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

Nov 30, 2010 Full story: CBS2 51,889

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

Read more

“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
Kresimir

Irvine, CA

#42282 Sep 26, 2013
Before you go and make new unsubstantiated claims, at this point, I'm just going to briefly recap some of the things you've said. Just to humor your accusation that I'm dancing around the issues.
KiMare wrote:
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
A flawed premise at best. Maybe if you replaced the word "basic" with "primal". But even then, you would have to rely on a modern definition of marriage to make that statement work. Marriage today is better described as a social arrangement, and has been for centuries.
KiMare wrote:
Ss couples are a defective and total failure of mating behavior.
Baseless and irrelevant. Nobody gives a damn about proper "mating behavior". Seriously, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
KiMare wrote:
You claimed every single part of my statement was wrong.
If part of a statement is wrong, then the statement as a whole is wrong.
KiMare wrote:
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.
Following your logic, we should start banning people from drinking anything other than water.
KiMare wrote:
Ss couple have never been even openly accepted in a single culture from start to finish.
Another broad, incorrect statement spawned from your own bias.
KiMare wrote:
Something that devastatingly exposes their lack of identity with marriage.
Confusing cause with effect.
KiMare wrote:
Humanity would digress to lower life forms...
More baseless ranting.
KiMare wrote:
no matter where you gay twirl to...
Hey, I think your bias is showing again.
KiMare wrote:
I keep proving you wrong.
Sure. Go ahead and declare you're right. Because that's how debate works.
KiMare wrote:
Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
You know, I intended to be courteous when I first posted, but you ooze vitriol with every word you type. Tell me why I, or anyone for that matter, should continue taking you seriously.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42283 Sep 27, 2013
Kresimir wrote:
Before you go and make new unsubstantiated claims, at this point, I'm just going to briefly recap some of the things you've said. Just to humor your accusation that I'm dancing around the issues.
<quoted text>
A flawed premise at best. Maybe if you replaced the word "basic" with "primal". But even then, you would have to rely on a modern definition of marriage to make that statement work. Marriage today is better described as a social arrangement, and has been for centuries.
<quoted text>
Baseless and irrelevant. Nobody gives a damn about proper "mating behavior". Seriously, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
<quoted text>
If part of a statement is wrong, then the statement as a whole is wrong.
<quoted text>
Following your logic, we should start banning people from drinking anything other than water.
<quoted text>
Another broad, incorrect statement spawned from your own bias.
<quoted text>
Confusing cause with effect.
<quoted text>
More baseless ranting.
<quoted text>
Hey, I think your bias is showing again.
<quoted text>
Sure. Go ahead and declare you're right. Because that's how debate works.
<quoted text>
You know, I intended to be courteous when I first posted, but you ooze vitriol with every word you type. Tell me why I, or anyone for that matter, should continue taking you seriously.
1. Your unvalidated opinion. I posted a paper on the purpose and history of marriage that specifically used the term marriage as a constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Moreover, social scientists state that marriage would not exist were it not for children.

2. Another unvalidated opinion preceded by the arrogant attempt to speak for everybody. You clearly show no knowledge of the function of mating behavior. Ss couples are a futile and fruitless expression of mating behavior.

3. False. My statement contains many points. One being wrong does not make them all wrong.

4. Not so. Words describe reality. Mating behavior, drinking, breathing all describe specific things. My statement bans nothing, it simply and accurately describes a behavior, followed by a clear failure of the behavior.

5. Your foolish, unvalidated opinion again. The study I posted on evolutionary mating behavior notes marriage has existed in every single culture in recorded human history. In fact, it stated that the practice likely existed among humans for 10 million years! Even in gay twirl history, only brief and extremely rare incidents of gay couples (less of ss marriage) are noted. No historian makes the claim that ss couples accepted as married existed in any culture from start to finish.

6. Confusing cause with effect? How so?

7. A partial quote. YOU have noted that animals do not practice marriage! "Ranting"??? Unrestrained mating behavior would not equate humans with animal mating behavior?

8. Based on your responses so far, the ranting and denial is yours...

9. The facts don't lie.

10. I'm sorry, but that is not an insult, it is an accurate statement of fact that you clearly are in idiotic denial of;

Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.

6.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#42284 Sep 27, 2013
Kresimir wrote:
You know, I intended to be courteous when I first posted, but you ooze vitriol with every word you type. Tell me why I, or anyone for that matter, should continue taking you seriously.
Bang. On. The. Money.

Vitriol and hatred are the sub-text in every single post of KiMerde's. Yet, zhe gets zher panties in a twist when someone calls zher on the carpet or is rude to zher (note the use of gender nuetral pronouns?).

Better still is the claim that zhe's really concerned about our welfare and THAT's why zhe's here.

Zhe is a fauxny Christian and an internet troll of the lowest degree. No matter, zher opinions have failed to have any effect on the marriages of gay couples across this country.

Powerless, impotent KiMerde.

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) 4 min EasyEed 1,207,858
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 8 min RACE 5,827
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 10 min SpaceBlues 52,420
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 50 min Rogue Scholar 05 185,967
Word (Dec '08) 2 hr Non _cents 5,160
abby 3-31-15 3 hr blunt advice 8
amy 3-31-15 3 hr blunt advice 9
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]