Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

Nov 30, 2010 Full story: CBS2 50,041

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

Full Story
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.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#42285 Sep 27, 2013
The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual, even when there is no possibility of having sex. Neither procreation nor mating behavior are required for marriage to remain a fundamental right of the individual.

First Circuit Appeals: "Although the House Report is filled with encomia to heterosexual marriage, DOMA does not increase benefits to opposite-sex couples--whose marriages may in any event be childless, unstable or both--or explain how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage. Certainly, the denial will not affect the gender choices of those seeking marriage. This is not merely a matter of poor fit of remedy to perceived problem, Lee Optical, 348 U.S. at 487-88; City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 446-50, but a lack of any demonstrated connection between DOMA's treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage."

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...

Supreme Court: "The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from the Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved." (Windsor)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42286 Sep 27, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual, even when there is no possibility of having sex. Neither procreation nor mating behavior are required for marriage to remain a fundamental right of the individual.
First Circuit Appeals: "Although the House Report is filled with encomia to heterosexual marriage, DOMA does not increase benefits to opposite-sex couples--whose marriages may in any event be childless, unstable or both--or explain how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage. Certainly, the denial will not affect the gender choices of those seeking marriage. This is not merely a matter of poor fit of remedy to perceived problem, Lee Optical, 348 U.S. at 487-88; City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 446-50, but a lack of any demonstrated connection between DOMA's treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage."
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...
Supreme Court: "The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from the Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved." (Windsor)
And still, this remains unchanged:

SS couples are only ever a mutually sterile duplicate gendered half of marriage.

What faux court ruling will change that?

Smile.
JanPaytonBurnoMi lls

Paris, IL

#42287 Sep 27, 2013
I need a real woman who will be my friend and please me also who I can share my most innocent thoughts with so is there such a woman like that?
Kresimir

Irvine, CA

#42288 Sep 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
SS couples are ... pointless... half of marriage.
What faux court ruling will change that?
It certainly has been changed in every practical sense. You can pound your fists all you want, but the majority has spoken.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42289 Sep 27, 2013
Kresimir wrote:
<quoted text>
It certainly has been changed in every practical sense. You can pound your fists all you want, but the majority has spoken.
Given up?

Just censor the facts and spout your denial in a gay twirl hissy fit?

Doesn't change this fact;

Ss couples are still only ever a mutually sterile, pointelessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#42290 Sep 27, 2013
New Jersey today: "Judge Mary Jacobson of the Mercer County Superior Court ruled Friday that gay couples can marry in the Garden State starting October 21.

Jacobson said she made her decision in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on United States v. Windsor, but the ruling is likely to be appealed.

"This unequal treatment requires that New Jersey extend civil marriage to same-sex couples to satisfy equal protection guarantees of the New Jersy Constitution as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis," wrote the judge. "Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/new-...

Marriage remains a fundamental right of all persons. Gender is an irrational restriction.
Kresimir

Irvine, CA

#42291 Sep 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Given up?
Just censor the facts and spout your denial in a gay twirl hissy fit?
Doesn't change this fact;
Ss couples are still only ever a mutually sterile, pointelessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Nope, just telling it like it is. Sounds like you're the one with the tantrum problems.

Anyway, now that I've witnessed the depth of your incompetence first-hand, I think I'm going to get back to the important things in life. You know, like not trying to standardize people's "mating behaviors".

But of course, what more could one expect from someone who bums on topix 24 hours a day?

Ta-ta. After this, please, don't hesitate to declare victory to yourself; again. Wouldn't want to positively annihilate your hard-earned reputation (built around "every single [gay forum] in recorded human history" no doubt).

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42292 Sep 27, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
New Jersey today: "Judge Mary Jacobson of the Mercer County Superior Court ruled Friday that gay couples can marry in the Garden State starting October 21.
Jacobson said she made her decision in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on United States v. Windsor, but the ruling is likely to be appealed.
"This unequal treatment requires that New Jersey extend civil marriage to same-sex couples to satisfy equal protection guarantees of the New Jersy Constitution as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis," wrote the judge. "Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/new-...
Marriage remains a fundamental right of all persons. Gender is an irrational restriction.
"Gender is an irrational restriction" for mating behavior.

Utter idiocy.

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

Ss couples are a defective complete and total failure of mating behavior. Clearly not equal.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42293 Sep 27, 2013
Kresimir wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, just telling it like it is. Sounds like you're the one with the tantrum problems.
Anyway, now that I've witnessed the depth of your incompetence first-hand, I think I'm going to get back to the important things in life. You know, like not trying to standardize people's "mating behaviors".
But of course, what more could one expect from someone who bums on topix 24 hours a day?
Ta-ta. After this, please, don't hesitate to declare victory to yourself; again. Wouldn't want to positively annihilate your hard-earned reputation (built around "every single [gay forum] in recorded human history" no doubt).
Good luck, I hope you will check out the things we talked about. never hurts to be informed about issues that directly affect you.

If I can help you any way, let me know.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#42294 Sep 27, 2013
New Jersey today: "Judge Mary Jacobson of the Mercer County Superior Court ruled Friday that gay couples can marry in the Garden State starting October 21.

Jacobson said she made her decision in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on United States v. Windsor, but the ruling is likely to be appealed.

"This unequal treatment requires that New Jersey extend civil marriage to same-sex couples to satisfy equal protection guarantees of the New Jersy Constitution as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis," wrote the judge. "Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/new-...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#42295 Sep 27, 2013
Because mating behavior is not a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right of all persons, gender is an irrational restriction for marriage.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a fundamental legal right of all persons.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42296 Sep 27, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Because mating behavior is not a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right of all persons, gender is an irrational restriction for marriage.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a fundamental legal right of all persons.
Marriage describes a specific relationship.

Ss couples don't equate.

1% have no place to dictate what marriage does or does not entail, or demand that fundamental elements no longer apply.

In the end, ss couples are only ever a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

freshroast666@gmail.com

#42297 Sep 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>I remember when the Church rose up against divorce.
Of which church do you speak? Are you referring to the Catholic Church? Whatever church you're referring to, when was that?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text> Most couples worked through the ups and downs of marriage because of God, and maybe more so, because of the children.
I don't think that has changed much. Most married couples still do at least try to work through the ups and downs. Roughly half of them finally throw in nowadays. It was the acknowledgement of "irreconcilable differences" as legitimate grounds for divorce that may have caused the increase in the divorce rate.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text> But then psychologists claimed divorce had no affect on children.
If they ever did claim that - I'm not saying they never did - they certainly know better now.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>And the government intervened with no fault divorce.
The government was simply responding to the demands of its constituents.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>And the Church decided it was more important to welcome divorced people than to protect the life-long devastation it imparts on children.
The church had little choice but to adapt its doctrines so it's membership could find ways to adapt to the changes of society.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>I remember when the Church rallied against legalizing abortion. The shame of immorality reined in promiscuity. But doctors said the cost of back alley abortions was too great.
And the government intervened once again.
I don't think "intervened" is quite the right word. The government - more specifically the Supreme Court - ruled that the moment a life begins is well after the moment of conception and that any thoughts to the contrary were guided by religious beliefs and therefore not of compelling interest to the state.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>And the Church decided not being harsh was more important than 40 million children being murdered.[/QUOTEIi don't think that's quite what the church decided. But what could the church do?[QUOTE who="KiMare"]<quo ted text>Now the Church is being challenged to call ss couples the same as marriage.
That is simply not true. No church will ever be required to call, same-sex couples married. Nor will any church ever be required to perform such marriages.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>The courts say mutually sterile, duplicated gendered halves are equal to marriage.
That is also untrue. The courts are saying that all people, regardless of their orientation or gender, have the equal right to become each other's legal spouses.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>And the government is once again poised to intervene.
To the extent that the rights of people to become each other's legal next of kin would be hindered by religious thought, the government must step in and uphold the Constitutional rights for all of us. How is that a bad thing?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>And the Pope is recommending that once again the Church step back.
The pope hasn't said that. He has said, though, that Catholics ought not judge homosexual people. His stance on same-sex marriage has not yet softened, however, and likely will not anytime soon.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>Can't help but wonder what on earth that means for children.
What is it you foresee?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
All that is left is, "...and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21
Isn't that the logical response when we have brutalized the bonds of marriage and family at the expense of children?
I'm afraid it's a bit unclear to me and lots of other people just how same-sex marriage affects the institution of marriage, family, or children in any meaningfully negative way. Should our laws be a reflection of church doctrines?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42298 Sep 28, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>Of which church do you speak? Are you referring to the Catholic Church? Whatever church you're referring to, when was that? <quoted text>I don't think that has changed much. Most married couples still do at least try to work through the ups and downs. Roughly half of them finally throw in nowadays. It was the acknowledgement of "irreconcilable differences" as legitimate grounds for divorce that may have caused the increase in the divorce rate. <quoted text>If they ever did claim that - I'm not saying they never did - they certainly know better now.<quoted text>The government was simply responding to the demands of its constituents.<quoted text> The church had little choice but to adapt its doctrines so it's membership could find ways to adapt to the changes of society.<quoted text>I don't think "intervened" is quite the right word. The government - more specifically the Supreme Court - ruled that the moment a life begins is well after the moment of conception and that any thoughts to the contrary were guided by religious beliefs and therefore not of compelling interest to the state. <quoted text>That is simply not true. No church will ever be required to call, same-sex couples married. Nor will any church ever be required to perform such marriages.<quoted text>That is also untrue. The courts are saying that all people, regardless of their orientation or gender, have the equal right to become each other's legal spouses.<quoted text>To the extent that the rights of people to become each other's legal next of kin would be hindered by religious thought, the government must step in and uphold the Constitutional rights for all of us. How is that a bad thing?<quoted text>The pope hasn't said that. He has said, though, that Catholics ought not judge homosexual people. His stance on same-sex marriage has not yet softened, however, and likely will not anytime soon.<quoted text>What is it you foresee?<quoted text>I'm afraid it's a bit unclear to me and lots of other people just how same-sex marriage affects the institution of marriage, family, or children in any meaningfully negative way. Should our laws be a reflection of church doctrines?
I have lived through these transitions. I use to save articles that recorded the arguments and the transition of views as these events occurred. You clearly are ignorant of what occurred during those events.

1. Society, not just churches, were adamantly opposed to divorce. The argument was that children would be better off not being in an unhappy marriage. In other words, the impact on children was denied, the same way it is asserted that children are not a consideration of marriage.

Just an additional note; The idea that a woman can work full time outside the home and still be a mother is the very same mind-set.

2. Do you know the divorce rate from the 60's compared to now?

3. Irreconcilable differences WERE always considered.'No fault' was the new view.

4. Kind of late for the children now, don't you think? So you want to experiment on children again by excluding them as a factor in marriage???

5. The Church has a responsibility to hold society to a better standard and protect the weak. It failed.

6. The argument was that limited abortion was a slippery slide that would lead to unlimited abortion. We now have third trimester partial birth abortion. Something that was adamantly denied when abortion was legalized.

It is adamantly denied that Churches will not be silenced or required to perform ss weddings. Something already occurring in Canada.

7. The government IS saying that ss couples are equal to marriage. If it was saying what you claim, it is clear discrimination to limit relatives and the number of partners, not to mention animals.

8. A paper 'next of kin' is a vast difference from biological kin. Not to mention the lack of a parenting role that is the only way to create a genuine next of kin.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42299 Sep 28, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>Of which church do you speak? Are you referring to the Catholic Church? Whatever church you're referring to, when was that? <quoted text>I don't think that has changed much. Most married couples still do at least try to work through the ups and downs. Roughly half of them finally throw in nowadays. It was the acknowledgement of "irreconcilable differences" as legitimate grounds for divorce that may have caused the increase in the divorce rate. <quoted text>If they ever did claim that - I'm not saying they never did - they certainly know better now.<quoted text>The government was simply responding to the demands of its constituents.<quoted text> The church had little choice but to adapt its doctrines so it's membership could find ways to adapt to the changes of society.<quoted text>I don't think "intervened" is quite the right word. The government - more specifically the Supreme Court - ruled that the moment a life begins is well after the moment of conception and that any thoughts to the contrary were guided by religious beliefs and therefore not of compelling interest to the state. <quoted text>That is simply not true. No church will ever be required to call, same-sex couples married. Nor will any church ever be required to perform such marriages.<quoted text>That is also untrue. The courts are saying that all people, regardless of their orientation or gender, have the equal right to become each other's legal spouses.<quoted text>To the extent that the rights of people to become each other's legal next of kin would be hindered by religious thought, the government must step in and uphold the Constitutional rights for all of us. How is that a bad thing?<quoted text>The pope hasn't said that. He has said, though, that Catholics ought not judge homosexual people. His stance on same-sex marriage has not yet softened, however, and likely will not anytime soon.<quoted text>What is it you foresee?<quoted text>I'm afraid it's a bit unclear to me and lots of other people just how same-sex marriage affects the institution of marriage, family, or children in any meaningfully negative way. Should our laws be a reflection of church doctrines?
9. You contradict yourself and misrepresent what the Pope said. Let's say it this way; The Pope has asked the Church to be silent about their judgment. That is what I said.

10. This is what the Bible predicts and I see perfect reason to occur;

I simply and accurately point out that if you destroy the sense of value of life, and negate the closest relationships we can possess, is it any wonder children pick that value system up and return the favor?

You deny that blood is thicker than water. You assert that there is no difference between the only person in life you will know as a biological mother or father, with any Tom and Dick. And the child says,'okay'.

That is the only way to understand a prophecy that indicates the loss of that distinction with a bitter and violent response.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#42300 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Given up?
Just censor the facts and spout your denial in a gay twirl hissy fit?
Doesn't change this fact;
Ss couples are still only ever a mutually sterile, pointelessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
A definition created by yourself and believed only by yourself, doesn't hold much intellectual weight, now does it?

Geesh.

And you are silly enough to repeat it again and again, simply because it makes you feel better about yourself. You should work on your own weaknesses and insecurity first, before you involve yourself so much in the lives of the people you dislike.

But, I guess we can't expect much rationality from an obsessive personality. Your obsessions control you and your thought processes, with an iron glove.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42301 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't change this fact;
Ss couples are still only ever a mutually sterile, pointelessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
A definition created by yourself and believed only by yourself, doesn't hold much intellectual weight, now does it?
Geesh.
And you are silly enough to repeat it again and again, simply because it makes you feel better about yourself. You should work on your own weaknesses and insecurity first, before you involve yourself so much in the lives of the people you dislike.
But, I guess we can't expect much rationality from an obsessive personality. Your obsessions control you and your thought processes, with an iron glove.
Not a definition, a simple statement of fact. What part is untrue?

Smile.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 21 min Tony Rome 1,115,141
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 23 min JOEL 69,520
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Earthling-1 47,007
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 3 hr Mandela 68,560
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr loose cannon 178,586
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr RACE 98,345
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 5 hr RACE 639
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

Chicago Jobs

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 ]