Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52074 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.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#41580 Aug 6, 2013
its still pumpity pumpity Babe,
CDC

Saint Louis, MO

#41581 Aug 6, 2013
AGENDAWARPED - A too far gone agendist.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Same thing I said before. The fact universal principals can be found among all of the other biblical laws we ignore, does not mean it was the source of those laws.
You didn't address why most of the 10 commandments are not law, and the ones that are, are also universal, and why the thousands of other biblical laws are not civil laws.
Ironically, the golden rule, which can be found in all ethical belief systems and is promoted as the most important rule of all in the bible, is ignored and contradicted when we refuse to treat the marriages of same sex couples equally under the laws in effect for opposite sex couples.

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#41582 Aug 6, 2013
I'm gone for a few weeks and come back to see KiMare is still regurgitating the same nonsensical statements. Shocking. Not.

Does anyone here (other than KiMare) have any idea what exactly a "cross cultural constraint" is and how it applies to evolutionary mating behavior? Does anyone (other than KiMare) know what "evolutionary mating behavior" is?

Does anyone here (other than KiMare) know what a "defective failure" of mating behavior is? Can a failure be defective?

Does anyone here (other than KiMare) understand why the marriage of two people of the same gender constitutes an "oxymoron"?

He has said many times - ad nauseum - that to claim rights one must establish equality (as if being a human being isn't enough). In our society, only those who are guilty of crimes can be denied rights. Why have any people ever had to fight for their rights in this country? Did African-Americans have to "establish" their equality to finally be granted the same rights caucasians had been enjoying? How about women? How about people with physical limitations? Who decided that handicapped people should have equal access to anything? When did they "establish" their equality?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#41583 Aug 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
To claim the rights, you have to establish equality. You can't.
I don't used the Bible to prove SS marriage is an oxymoron, I use science.
Matt 19 gives the option of celibacy as opposed to life long marriage between a male and female.
<quoted text>
We are not talking about basic human rights, we are talking about special rights for a unique relationship.
That is why gender, children and number are part of the discrimination.
Again, marriage is a fundamental right of all persons. This is a fact of law. SCOTUS: Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“The decision to marry is a fundamental right”

Your desire to make it a privilege is not supported by the law. There is no requirement for procreation or even sexual activity or ability, therefore the gender restriction provides no legitimate governmental interest.
cubeshaker

Bolingbrook, IL

#41584 Aug 6, 2013
beers wrote:
<quoted text>
Well to me it starts right in the first part if the bible.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said:“This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.(Genesis 2:21-24 NKJV)
So... Each religion has their own belief on how the world was started. Doesn't make the Bible correct. And since we are not a theocracy it REALLY does not matter what any persons holy book says.

Now let me ask you this.. you "believing" in the Bible...do women at your church cover their heads while in church or while praying?
Lawyer

United States

#41585 Aug 6, 2013
Come on

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#41586 Aug 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, marriage is a fundamental right of all persons. This is a fact of law. SCOTUS: Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“The decision to marry is a fundamental right”
Your desire to make it a privilege is not supported by the law. There is no requirement for procreation or even sexual activity or ability, therefore the gender restriction provides no legitimate governmental interest.
I simply point out that many people and the number are discriminated against.

However, at its most basic essence and anything there after, marriage is distinct from SS couples.

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#41587 Aug 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>However, at its most basic essence and anything there after, marriage is distinct from SS couples.
Yep. Distinct indeed. Marriage is the joining of two people in a legally binding contract whereby they become each other's legal next of kin. A same-sex couple is simply two people of the same gender. Make sense, KiMare. It's not that hard. "At their most basic essence", apples are distinct from brake drums, cats from turnips.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#41588 Aug 6, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. Distinct indeed. Marriage is the joining of two people in a legally binding contract whereby they become each other's legal next of kin. A same-sex couple is simply two people of the same gender. Make sense, KiMare. It's not that hard. "At their most basic essence", apples are distinct from brake drums, cats from turnips.
LOL,

Yeah, that's why we get married, to become 'next of kin'.

This is where you go from 'marriage is a contract'???

Damn, homosexuals know so much about marriage!
Big Bubba

Paris, IL

#41589 Aug 6, 2013
Three gay men died, and were going to be cremated. Their lovers happened to be at the funeral home at the same time, and were discussing what they planned to do with the ashes.

The first man said, "My Ryan loved to fly, so I'm going up in a plane and scatter his ashes in the sky."

The second man said, "My Ross was a good fisherman, so I'm going to scatter his ashes in our favorite lake."

The third man said, "My Jack was such a good lover, I think I'm going to dump his ashes in a pot of chili, so he can tear my ass up just one more time."
JanSmells Dogs Not SoMuch

San Luis Obispo, CA

#41591 Aug 6, 2013
Big Bubba wrote:
Three gay men died, and were going to be cremated. Their lovers happened to be at the funeral home at the same time, and were discussing what they planned to do with the ashes.
The first man said, "My Ryan loved to fly, so I'm going up in a plane and scatter his ashes in the sky."
The second man said, "My Ross was a good fisherman, so I'm going to scatter his ashes in our favorite lake."
The third man said, "My Jack was such a good lover, I think I'm going to dump his ashes in a pot of chili, so he can tear my ass up just one more time."
Bet your boy factless loved this one! How is he in these days of exile and shame now that you are all he has since his wife left him. Besides those SHEEP he speaks highly of. We miss him!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!! BUH BYE FACTLESS!!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#41592 Aug 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply point out that many people and the number are discriminated against.
However, at its most basic essence and anything there after, marriage is distinct from SS couples.
All individuals have the right to marry under the same restrictions, and restrictions on being currently married, age, informed consent, and incest, have been shown to be legitimate restrictions. Gender is not a legitimate restriction. Your personal "essence" is not the essence of the law. Ability to have sex is not a requirement. That is your personal prejudice.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#41593 Aug 6, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
I'm gone for a few weeks and come back to see KiMare is still regurgitating the same nonsensical statements. Shocking. Not.
Does anyone here (other than KiMare) have any idea what exactly a "cross cultural constraint" is and how it applies to evolutionary mating behavior? Does anyone (other than KiMare) know what "evolutionary mating behavior" is?
Does anyone here (other than KiMare) know what a "defective failure" of mating behavior is? Can a failure be defective?
Does anyone here (other than KiMare) understand why the marriage of two people of the same gender constitutes an "oxymoron"?
He has said many times - ad nauseum - that to claim rights one must establish equality (as if being a human being isn't enough). In our society, only those who are guilty of crimes can be denied rights. Why have any people ever had to fight for their rights in this country? Did African-Americans have to "establish" their equality to finally be granted the same rights caucasians had been enjoying? How about women? How about people with physical limitations? Who decided that handicapped people should have equal access to anything? When did they "establish" their equality?
Just more elaborate rationalizations to excuse denial of equal rights to an unpopular group. They rely on procreation, as if it was required for marriage, ignoring even the ability to have sex is not a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right.

Interestingly, because marriage is a fundamental right, the state cannot take it away even when one party beats the other to a pulp and lands in jail. Even child abusers and rapists are not divorced by the state, even though the state may lock them up for life for the abuse of their spouse and children. And if divorced by the spouse, they still have the right to get married again.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#41594 Aug 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

Yeah, that's why we get married, to become 'next of kin'.
And yet, ironically, you have claimed in your past posts that SS couples will NEVER be next of kin like heterosexual couples.

You flip-flopped, KiMerde, and you hoped nobody would notice.

But we did, Hunty, we did notice your flip-flop.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#41596 Aug 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
All individuals have the right to marry under the same restrictions, and restrictions on being currently married, age, informed consent, and incest, have been shown to be legitimate restrictions. Gender is not a legitimate restriction. Your personal "essence" is not the essence of the law. Ability to have sex is not a requirement. That is your personal prejudice.
I made no reference to age. I did specifically note that the number under your dumbing down of marriage is discriminatory.

You also know that the issue of children involved in incest has been removed by the homosexual redefinition of marriage. Moreover, procreation is not a requirement of marriage, right? Or did you want to make an exception for one class of people???

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#41597 Aug 7, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, ironically, you have claimed in your past posts that SS couples will NEVER be next of kin like heterosexual couples.
You flip-flopped, KiMerde, and you hoped nobody would notice.
But we did, Hunty, we did notice your flip-flop.
I made the point that couples get married to HAVE next of kin. I've never heard of someone getting married to be LEGAL next of kin.

I didn't flip-flop, you gay twirled.

Again.
Freedom

Belleville, IL

#41598 Aug 7, 2013
Who cares, it does not effect anyone else. Freedom of choice.
CDC

Saint Louis, MO

#41599 Aug 7, 2013
AGENDATTACK - The constant pounding the non-agendist takes from the agendabigots.
Anyone differing from their AGENDA OPINION is beaten down. The agendists are a cruel mean spirited group of haters.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#41601 Aug 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I made the point that couples get married to HAVE next of kin. I've never heard of someone getting married to be LEGAL next of kin.
I didn't flip-flop, you gay twirled.
Again.
Hunty, you flip-flip more than a beached bluegill.
CDC

Saint Louis, MO

#41602 Aug 7, 2013
Just another AGENDATTACK HA!!!
Sparkle_is_stripper wrote:
<quoted text>you do realize that no one reads your crap right.... just saying... they just see your login id and move on knowing its gonna be another stupid agenda something
next

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.

Canton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Topless 'Midget' Wrestling Costs Bar Its License (Sep '08) Aug 14 Jillian Dworak 14
Ryan Voice (Apr '13) Aug 14 Jillian Dworak 9
biggest regret... please help :( (Jul '15) Aug 14 Bean 2
News Greenwood Cemetery map is offered to help locat... (May '06) Jan '16 sandra 11
Certa pro (Jan '16) Jan '16 Bang bang 1
Review: Spoon River Pest Control Inc (Nov '15) Nov '15 Ronnie Corbon 2
Dr. Dwayne P. Bernard Grahm hospital (Sep '14) Oct '15 Kykysmom 3

Canton Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Canton Mortgages