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
46,781 - 46,800 of 49,466 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
truth

Saint Louis, MO

#53999 Apr 8, 2014
Your error is assuming genetics operates at an individual and not a population level. You really shouldn't be commenting about this with such a poor grasp of the subject matter. You only succeed in making yourself look like a fool.
Ace

Christopher, IL

#54000 Apr 8, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You belong in a mental hospital.
At least i'm not gay, that makes you having bigger mental problems than me.

Xavier Breath, try staying inside the lines when you color.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#54001 Apr 8, 2014
truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Quit being an idiot. I have posted this at least 10 times. Your refusal to acknowledge it does not make it any less real.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F1...
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 itís inherited by one sex, but beneficial in the other. This is another theoretically plausible suggestions with some consistent evidence behind it (but the account isnít 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 isnít 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 donít, why these reproductive costs have yet to be eliminated, and itís missing an account of female homosexuality."

SMile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#54002 Apr 8, 2014
truth wrote:
Your error is assuming genetics operates at an individual and not a population level. You really shouldn't be commenting about this with such a poor grasp of the subject matter. You only succeed in making yourself look like a fool.
I assume no such thing.

You succeed in making yourself a liar and an idiot.

Smile.
truth

Saint Louis, MO

#54003 Apr 8, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume no such thing.
You succeed in making yourself a liar and an idiot.
Smile.
Oh, you mean instead of addressing the study you decided to go ad hominem? Typical.

That's what happens when our dumb, hillbilly, truck driver friend tries to talk science and gets bitch slapped.
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 itís inherited by one sex, but beneficial in the other. This is another theoretically plausible suggestions with some consistent evidence behind it (but the account isnít 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 isnít 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 donít, why these reproductive costs have yet to be eliminated, and itís 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 itís inherited by one sex, but beneficial in the other. This is another theoretically plausible suggestions with some consistent evidence behind it (but the account isnít 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 isnít 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 donít, why these reproductive costs have yet to be eliminated, and itís 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

Christopher, 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.

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 TSM 1,099,901
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 7 min litesong 46,296
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 14 min the wandering girl 4,664
Abby 8-29 24 min edogxxx 2
Amy 8-29 30 min edogxxx 2
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 32 min YesWeCan 68,357
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 35 min edogxxx 97,918
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Donnie 177,357
•••
•••

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 ]
•••