Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52072 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.

truth

Saint Louis, MO

#54004 Apr 8, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie.
Every time I have seen it, I have responded. In fact, the article I posted even notes your suggestion AND GIVES REASON FOR WHY IT HAS PROBLEMS.
But hey, you are clearly in denial. Here is another smack on the head:
http://popsych.org/5-weak-ideas-about-the-ori...
"Selection Pressures: Sexually Antagonistic Selection
This brings us to the final selection pressure. Here, the idea is that a gene is detrimental when it’s inherited by one sex, but beneficial in the other. This is another theoretically plausible suggestions with some consistent evidence behind it (but the account isn’t anywhere near complete, and only considers male homosexuality). Unfortunately for this suggestion, like the above hypothesis, it also suffers from the concordance rate data. It would also require that females consistently more than make up for the detriment to the male offspring, reproductively. Remember, this isn’t just a matter of slight disadvantages; this is a matter of effective sterility. Further, such sexually antagonistic issues tend to be weeded out over time, as any new modifications that can avoid the costs associated with expression in males will be selected for. Even if this was a viable account, then, it would still be far from a complete one, as it would not be able to explain why some of the twin pairs turn out concordant, but most don’t, why these reproductive costs have yet to be eliminated, and it’s missing an account of female homosexuality."
SMile.
Let's see. An article from a religious source questioning the science on illogical grounds, or the scientific journal article reporting the truth. Who should we believe?
truth

Saint Louis, MO

#54005 Apr 8, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie.
Every time I have seen it, I have responded. In fact, the article I posted even notes your suggestion AND GIVES REASON FOR WHY IT HAS PROBLEMS.
But hey, you are clearly in denial. Here is another smack on the head:
http://popsych.org/5-weak-ideas-about-the-ori...
"Selection Pressures: Sexually Antagonistic Selection
This brings us to the final selection pressure. Here, the idea is that a gene is detrimental when it’s inherited by one sex, but beneficial in the other. This is another theoretically plausible suggestions with some consistent evidence behind it (but the account isn’t anywhere near complete, and only considers male homosexuality). Unfortunately for this suggestion, like the above hypothesis, it also suffers from the concordance rate data. It would also require that females consistently more than make up for the detriment to the male offspring, reproductively. Remember, this isn’t just a matter of slight disadvantages; this is a matter of effective sterility. Further, such sexually antagonistic issues tend to be weeded out over time, as any new modifications that can avoid the costs associated with expression in males will be selected for. Even if this was a viable account, then, it would still be far from a complete one, as it would not be able to explain why some of the twin pairs turn out concordant, but most don’t, why these reproductive costs have yet to be eliminated, and it’s missing an account of female homosexuality."
SMile.
Unfortunately for this suggestion, like the above hypothesis, it also suffers from the concordance rate data.

Actually no. The article I posted does not suffer from that. Try again, sweety,
Mad taxpayer

Dayton, OH

#54006 Apr 8, 2014
I honestly dont care about gay marriage no different than my marriage. You have the right to pursue happiness. But being that i am married i will tell all couples seeking to get married there is a marriage tax penalty when you become a family the government sticks it to you tax wise.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#54007 Apr 8, 2014
truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately for this suggestion, like the above hypothesis, it also suffers from the concordance rate data.
Actually no. The article I posted does not suffer from that. Try again, sweety,
Actually, I've posted two articles that give several reasons to question the hypothesis. The most significant is that it does nothing to address the other gender side of homosexuality.

Moreover, you are attempting to assert that the purpose of homosexuality is proven. A lie.

But to top it off, your answer is the gene that gives straight women fecundity makes gay men a mating behavior failure. And most women now counter the effect... A pointless purpose...
truth

Saint Louis, MO

#54008 Apr 9, 2014
I sure is dumb.
Universal Truth

Beverly, MA

#54009 Apr 9, 2014
Just because you have the ability to breed, does not mean that you should. So do us all a favor and use birth control.
truth

Saint Louis, MO

#54010 Apr 9, 2014
Is it OK to F myself without birth control?
Universal Truth wrote:
Just because you have the ability to breed, does not mean that you should. So do us all a favor and use birth control.
Xavier Breath

Benton, IL

#54011 Apr 9, 2014
truth wrote:
Is it OK to F myself without birth control?
<quoted text>
Well that all depends, you're not planning getting your self pregnant are you? Gay people is taking advantage of their self all the time now, ever sense they been able to marry their self. Nobody from the opposite sex is good enough for them.
truth

Granite City, IL

#54012 Apr 9, 2014
truth wrote:
Is it OK to F myself without birth control?
<quoted text>
You're very hateful, and I still support gay marriage.

Such a sad, pathetic little troll you are. No trolling skills at all. It must suck to be so mentally ill that you need to spread hate on the internet and then be so completely incompetent at doing so.
truth

Granite City, IL

#54013 Apr 9, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> Well that all depends, you're not planning getting your self pregnant are you? Gay people is taking advantage of their self all the time now, ever sense they been able to marry their self. Nobody from the opposite sex is good enough for them.
That's CDC playing games again. He's pretty lame. Not even brave enough to say what he thinks under his own screen name. He's just a scared little boy, who couldn't handle himself in a real fight.
truth

Granite City, IL

#54014 Apr 9, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I've posted two articles that give several reasons to question the hypothesis. The most significant is that it does nothing to address the other gender side of homosexuality.
Moreover, you are attempting to assert that the purpose of homosexuality is proven. A lie.
But to top it off, your answer is the gene that gives straight women fecundity makes gay men a mating behavior failure. And most women now counter the effect... A pointless purpose...
No, I never asserted that. You tried to claim that no one had any ideas as to why homosexuality didn't limit itself. I posted an article that proved yours was full of crap. And no, my answer is not that.That is your BS interpretaion and attempt to control the conversation by denying the reality of the point Iwas making and spinning it into something else. Because you can't argue against reality any other way. You're a liar and a coward, plain and simple. You can try to spin it any way you like in that messed up little brain of yours, but you are only lying to yourself and then insisting that the rest of the world buys into your lie because you are just so damn special. Isn't that right my little narcissistic friend?

To think that a dumb hillbilly truck driver is going to come here and try to correct a scientific paper while armed only with his opinions and faith is beyond laughable. To imagine that someone who was kicked out of his pulpit for adultery has any moral authority to speak is even more laughable.
truth

Granite City, IL

#54015 Apr 9, 2014
And the hypocrisy of you trying to say something about ignoring female homosexuality is even more funny, considering that your entire argument has been predicated on exactly that since the beginning of this forum.
truth

Granite City, IL

#54016 Apr 9, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I've posted two articles that give several reasons to question the hypothesis. The most significant is that it does nothing to address the other gender side of homosexuality.
Moreover, you are attempting to assert that the purpose of homosexuality is proven. A lie.
But to top it off, your answer is the gene that gives straight women fecundity makes gay men a mating behavior failure. And most women now counter the effect... A pointless purpose...
I notice also that you fail to address my original point. Which is that you were lying about my article.

It never fails. Almost every one of your posts contain some form of lying. You are unrepentant liar.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#54017 Apr 9, 2014
If ss couples want to be considered married, they will always be rated as the inferior version, lacking the fruit and diversity in traditional marriage. However, a rational person would consider just those two distinctions so severe, it instead makes ss marriage an oxymoron.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#54019 Apr 10, 2014
KiMare wrote:
If ss couples want to be considered married, they will always be rated as the inferior version, lacking the fruit and diversity in traditional marriage. However, a rational person would consider just those two distinctions so severe, it instead makes ss marriage an oxymoron.
A schizophrenic hermaphrodite with 3 forged sanity certificates is giving us advice about "rational" people?

Troll on, Hunty.
Ace

Benton, IL

#54020 Apr 10, 2014
God Expects Us to Judge

"The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment." (Psa. 37:30) A righteous person will talk of judgment. He will not REFUSE to judge. He will talk judgment.

"Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken. Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph." (Amos 5:14-15) How can you hate the evil and love the good if you refuse to judge? You can't. You are SINNING when you refuse to judge.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#54021 Apr 10, 2014
Won't same sex couples feel inferior next to diverse gendered couples, especially when the latter have children?
A cultural relationship is defined by specific details. There is significant differences between a diverse gendered couple and a duplicate gendered couple. There is also a profound difference between a relationship that bears fruit, and one that never does.
An example for just part of the question is the difficulty a heterosexual couple unable to bear children experiences.
CDC

Saint Louis, MO

#54022 Apr 10, 2014
go F yourself mo fo !
U b dum.
I b smert
U stupid hillbelly.
Nevertheless, I still support SSM.
truth wrote:
<quoted text>
You're very hateful, and I still support gay marriage.
Such a sad, pathetic little troll you are. No trolling skills at all. It must suck to be so mentally ill that you need to spread hate on the internet and then be so completely incompetent at doing so.
truth

Granite City, IL

#54023 Apr 10, 2014
So hateful.

So hypocritical.

Such a liar.

And such an incompetent troll.

SMIRK.
truth

Granite City, IL

#54024 Apr 10, 2014
Poor Kimare. He lost again.

He tried posting an article saying no one understands homosexuality. I posted a scientific journal article that proves otherwise.

He then attacks that article and says it has design flaws that it does not in fact have. It was a pathetic attempt to take the criticism of another study that he found after doing a google search and then trying to cut and paste it over to this article.

The article was about an observed effect on fecundity rates of female relatives of male homosexuals.

Kimare cries that it does nothing to explain female homosexuality. Well, duh! The paper is about male homosexuality. That is their topic of study. Of course it doesn't explain female homosexuality. They weren't studying lesbians.

Now we get back the same, tired old regurgitation of Greg's misguided, bigoted opinions.

It's just too easy kicking his old, senile, hillbilly ass.

SMIRK

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) 7 min Teaman 1,394,854
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 8 min GEORGIA 8,854
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 8 min Cheftell 70,714
News Chicago Reacts to Orlando Shooting 13 min Mite Be 17
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 17 min tina anne 60,036
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 36 min CrunchyBacon 102,452
Louis trashes the broad. 1 hr bozo 9
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Rogue Scholar 05 216,614
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages