Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52073 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.

Destroy All Homosexuals

Prague, Czech Republic

#48734 Jan 18, 2014
Running Alive wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhh....But the majority of Americans now support marriage equality stupid ! Hows that make you feel being in the minority loser ? Seems you hate our Constitution huh ? Tell us all,what's it like to suffer from schizophrenia and anti-personality disorder ? Seek professional help before you hurt yourself or some innocent person,YOU are one sick puppy and that's a fact !
Only in your sick warped and freak mind. Americans do NOT support as you say - fooking pathological liar is all that you are. HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!.... sick.... very very sick. I wish death upon evils like you.
Earth Angel

Kenosha, WI

#48735 Jan 18, 2014
rabnew wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't really like the use of the word 'defect'...I prefer to say they are a minority. That would be like saying that redheads are a defect or midgets'. They are not defective, but rather a minority.
i too was struggling with the word defect too . There is a level of insult when using it that way.
And believe it or not i'm against insults on either side.

But the word minority doesn't imply in the context of the sexuality of homosexuals to be different then heterosexuals.
Homosexuals by number are in the minority that is already a given.
But their methodology of sex is really what KiMare was talking about.
Medically speaking it would be defective in the sense it could not possible cause reproduction.
In a clinical sense the point of sex is reproduction. Pleasure is just an added bonus.
Therefore technically speaking the term defect would be correct when discussing the acts of sex that gay use.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#48736 Jan 18, 2014
Earth Angel wrote:
obviously some here either really don't know or just want to confuse the subjects so i'll try and make a few of them clear.
The confusion is all yours. There was no forcing of anything. The pastor willingly performed the ceremony. His congregation (the Church) willing allowed him to do so. The building (the church) said nothing. Only LATER did his denomination censure him.

Nobody was forced to do anything.

I think you're trying to make the point that the pastor chose to perform a wedding ceremony in a denomination that doesn't recognized them, but you're too stupid to know how to phrase it.

Did I FORCE you to read this post, or did you choose to? If I forced you, then you'd better get an attorney.
Earth Angel

Kenosha, WI

#48737 Jan 18, 2014
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
The confusion is all yours. There was no forcing of anything. The pastor willingly performed the ceremony. His congregation (the Church) willing allowed him to do so. The building (the church) said nothing. Only LATER did his denomination censure him.
Nobody was forced to do anything.
I think you're trying to make the point that the pastor chose to perform a wedding ceremony in a denomination that doesn't recognized them, but you're too stupid to know how to phrase it.
Did I FORCE you to read this post, or did you choose to? If I forced you, then you'd better get an attorney.
yet another dodge.
as i sad Dusty others are willing to talk about it.
your comments are not important.
I've already PROVED by definition it was by force and more to the point how it open the door to it happening again and again LEGALLY
try and dodge that. Wait don't bother. Your comments are silly.
Others post SERIOUSLY on this issue
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#48738 Jan 18, 2014
Earth Angel wrote:
<quoted text>
more then once i've stated it as simple as i can.
see one of the posts above for how its FORCED onto that church.
and how it will be again forced on that church and any other churches that don't want gay marriages.
its really not that hard. Stop trying to mimic Dusty and think for yourself.
Look, stupido.... the pastor of that church performed the wedding for his son. Nobody FORCED him to marry them. The couple had a legal marriage license from the State. THAT license is what makes them legally married. There was no force! Did the pastor disobey his superiors? Yes. And he was disciplined.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#48739 Jan 18, 2014
Earth Angel wrote:
<quoted text>
yet another dodge.
as i sad Dusty others are willing to talk about it.
your comments are not important.
I've already PROVED by definition it was by force and more to the point how it open the door to it happening again and again LEGALLY
try and dodge that. Wait don't bother. Your comments are silly.
Others post SERIOUSLY on this issue
You didn't prove shit, you flaming dumbass. Churches have always been free to marry or not marry anyone they please. They can't be legally 'forced' by the government. The government has no jurisdiction over the church.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#48740 Jan 18, 2014
Earth Angel wrote:
<quoted text>
please read i really wrote and DON'T add things i never said.
for example i never said anywhere in my question that a religious blessing was required.
Nor did i imply anyone was forced to be married in a church.
it was about a particular religion that for the 2ND time had one of their churches forced unknowingly by its pastor/priest to perform a marriage that was totally against what that church wanted.
so my question is pick one
1 ) should the pastor/priest be defrocked and that marriage be annulled
2 ) if the marriage stands then pastor/priest be allowed to marry against that churches wishes. Hence the gay agenda. Forcing churches to have gay marriages allowed when its against their religion.
THERE IS NO OTHER REAL CHOICE HERE
and to define force ( since most of you can't seem to accept that )
force is anytime someone or some thing ( in this case the church ) does an act they clearly did not want to do or have done by them by someone else.
In this case the church had a marriage forced without their consent within their building by a priest/pastor who knew it was wrong to do so.
if i go into your house and do something when you didn't want me to its a force entry even if the door is unlocked and i did nothing more then watch tv
Sweet wounded Jesus! The pastor married them, not the church. The pastor wasn't forced.
well

Round Lake, IL

#48741 Jan 18, 2014
Earth Angel wrote:
<quoted text>
i had a strange experience too. My wife and grew up knowing each other same schools, church, friends etc So even though we both moved we wanted to get married in old church. We coax our retired pastor into accepting to do it. However the new pastor in that church refused since we no longer were members in that church. And also because he didn't want another pastor working his church. So we went to our church and got married there.
I knew it was you Mystery Man...why don't you go back to that screen name? Were you banned? Are you living with your daughter now?
Earth Angel

Kenosha, WI

#48744 Jan 18, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, stupido.... the pastor of that church performed the wedding for his son. Nobody FORCED him to marry them. The couple had a legal marriage license from the State. THAT license is what makes them legally married. There was no force! Did the pastor disobey his superiors? Yes. And he was disciplined.
show me where i said the pastor/priest was forced
you missed entirely what i was talking about
are you trying to be like Dusty ?
Earth Angel

Kenosha, WI

#48745 Jan 18, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't prove shit, you flaming dumbass. Churches have always been free to marry or not marry anyone they please. They can't be legally 'forced' by the government. The government has no jurisdiction over the church.
yes they do Obama already forcing the nuns to accept Obamacare requirements
but thats off topic
i'm still right
Earth Angel

Kenosha, WI

#48746 Jan 18, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweet wounded Jesus! The pastor married them, not the church. The pastor wasn't forced.
are trying to be stupid to take this off topic ?
never said that post where i did
Earth Angel

Kenosha, WI

#48747 Jan 18, 2014
well wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew it was you Mystery Man...why don't you go back to that screen name? Were you banned? Are you living with your daughter now?
no idea what this about but my screen name is a similar version of the one i used during Christmas.
Earth Angel

Kenosha, WI

#48748 Jan 18, 2014
In The Year 2525 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not a church of God. Its a cult.
if you are referring to the Methodist Church in the article it is a recognized church and the Methodist are a recognized religion.
And they have the legal right to marry people.
well

Round Lake, IL

#48749 Jan 18, 2014
Earth Angel wrote:
<quoted text>
no idea what this about but my screen name is a similar version of the one i used during Christmas.
Mystery Man wrote:
<quoted text>
My late wife and i wanted to get married in the same Lutheran Church we both grew up in, baptised in, and were confirmed in.
We even had our old pastor of that Church willing to come out of retirement to do the wedding.
But the then current pastor said no since
1 ) our old pastor was retired and no longer connected with his old church
2 ) both my wife and i were no longer going to that church ( we both had moved away )
So we finally had to both join another church just to get married in it.
I guess i can relate to how the gays feel about how hard it can be to get married.
Anyway i still believe its up to the church to call the shots on marriage within their church.
Otherwise i really could care less.
I'm ok with whatever else the gays want to do.
There ya go sweetie...Mystery Man is well known for taking an already dead topic and beating it to death with his idiotic point of view. He is also known as The Village Idiot and has been banned multiple times. My favorite was the time he reviewed a restaurant he never even attended and attacked everyone who disagreed with him.
Just Saying

Waterloo, IL

#48750 Jan 18, 2014
well wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
There ya go sweetie...Mystery Man is well known for taking an already dead topic and beating it to death with his idiotic point of view. He is also known as The Village Idiot and has been banned multiple times. My favorite was the time he reviewed a restaurant he never even attended and attacked everyone who disagreed with him.
The only true subject here is queer unions. Marriage is a man and a woman....period. Not a single state in the union, including California has passed gay marriage by popular vote. Only the liberal fruitcake courts have made it possible. It's destroying the moral fiber of this country.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#48751 Jan 18, 2014
Earth Angel wrote:
<quoted text>
show me where i said the pastor/priest was forced
you missed entirely what i was talking about
are you trying to be like Dusty ?
How do you force "the church"? That's what your claim was. Please tell me how the man forced "the church" to perform the ceremony. Did "the church" write the vows?

You stubbornly cling to your ASSinine argument.
Earth Angel

Kenosha, WI

#48752 Jan 18, 2014
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you force "the church"? That's what your claim was. Please tell me how the man forced "the church" to perform the ceremony. Did "the church" write the vows?
You stubbornly cling to your ASSinine argument.
Is that suppose to be a clever insult ?
and again you're just trying to dodge the real issue
this is the 2 ND time the Methodist church has faced this situation.
The pastor/priest/or whatever floats your boat KNEW what he was doing wrong.
Not only was he wrong to perform any such marriage but he used the church to do it in.
He was inside a church without permission
Preforming a act he was not allowed to perform.
That in itself is a crime. An illegal act.
When you enter a building you when you don't have a right to be in at that time it is considered by law to be a forcible entry.even if no breakage was involve
And then he compound it by performing an act that the building owners would not allow and the church has the legal right not to allow it.
I hope this is simple enough for you. I'm sure now that the church is going after him those charges will be included. Unless there is a plea deal which probably will be case.
BTW the church is going after him legally so i must be right.

But this is was just dodge by you to hide this point
My point was if you side with the priest/pastor and the gay couple its PROVES the gay agenda
IF you side with the church that pastor/priest should be defrocked and the marriage annulled
there is no other real choice
and all you nonsense dodging won't hide these points.
AGAIN PICK ONE if you got the guts

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#48753 Jan 18, 2014
Earth Angel wrote:
<quoted text>
yes they do Obama already forcing the nuns to accept Obamacare requirements
but thats off topic
i'm still right
I don't think you have read the articles regarding this case. The nuns are in no way required to pay for the contraception. They want to ensure that their employees cannot have access to free birth control from their endurance companies, even though the nuns are not paying for it.

Hardly fair to their poor employees, especially since most Catholics support contraceptives.

"We defer to the Department of Justice on litigation matters, but remain confident that our final rules strike the balance of providing women with free contraceptive coverage while preventing non-profit religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage from having to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage," a White House official told NBC News.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#48754 Jan 18, 2014
Earth Angel wrote:
<quoted text>

He was inside a church without permission
Preforming[sic] a[sic] act he was not allowed to perform.
That in itself is a crime. An illegal act.
It was the Pastor's building. He had a right to be there. He broke no crime, drama queen. And performing a SS Marriage is not against the law, therefore NOT illegal.

Cling to your argument, Earth Anal, it just continues to expose your lunacy. Further, every post you make wins converts for marriage equality. There's a reason your side is losing this battle, and you're the reason.
Sterkfontein Swartkrans

Furlong, PA

#48755 Jan 18, 2014
Just Saying wrote:
<quoted text>
The only true subject here is queer unions. Marriage is a man and a woman....period. Not a single state in the union, including California has passed gay marriage by popular vote. Only the liberal fruitcake courts have made it possible. It's destroying the moral fiber of this country.
Does your boyfriend know how you feel?

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 The abandoned Bel Air Drive In movie theatre. C... (Jan '08) 1 hr Babs 21
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr PEllen 8,077
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 1 hr PEllen 2,250
Word (Dec '08) 1 hr PEllen 5,976
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr PEllen 101,726
Ask Amy 4-30-16 1 hr PEllen 1
Abby 4-30-16 1 hr PEllen 1
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Jacques Orleans 212,978
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages