Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52086 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.

sharon

Saint Louis, MO

#38130 Mar 8, 2013
I remember the night I bailed you out of jail.
What made you steal a ladder and do that to a horse?
You are one sick freak!
the fact king wrote:
<quoted text>Had to change your name AGAIN didn't ya sharon......Whats a matter they ban you AGAIN.....if you would quit talking about how much you & your son LOVE donkey c*cks MAYBE they would quit banning ya........JUST A THOUGHT LOSER.......
sharon

Saint Louis, MO

#38133 Mar 8, 2013
At least you did not hurt the horse. You and you small wee wee pee pee.
the fact king wrote:
yes the horses name was sharon and she was tighter than you so whats that say about your nasty vagina now sharon
Whiny babies

Saint Louis, MO

#38134 Mar 8, 2013
I was BORN ugly and have been discriminated against DAILY. That's life.....get use to it!
Of course it's not fair....get use to it!
What a bunch of Whiners!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38135 Mar 8, 2013
Whiny babies wrote:
I was BORN ugly and have been discriminated against DAILY. That's life.....get use to it!
Of course it's not fair....get use to it!
What a bunch of Whiners!
Your face doesn't make you ugly, but your attitude does.
the fact king

Terre Haute, IN

#38136 Mar 8, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Your face doesn't make you ugly, but your attitude does.
I have a face you can set on
Whiny babies

Saint Louis, MO

#38137 Mar 8, 2013
Back at ya....A HOLE!
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Your face doesn't make you ugly, but your attitude does.
the fact king

Terre Haute, IN

#38138 Mar 8, 2013
I do give rim jobs
question

Saint Louis, MO

#38139 Mar 8, 2013
Have you ever rimmed yourself?
the fact king wrote:
I do give rim jobs
booie booie

Ballwin, MO

#38141 Mar 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

And STILL, no logical response.

Just look at the gay twirl ad homoan attacks above.

A desperate attempt to stop light that is kicking the sh/t out of darkness!

Oh, and proving that the biggest blondes live in Texas! And there ain't nothing but steers and queers in Texas. There ain't no horns on me, maybe I should go

Smile.
daddy where are you?
I thinking

Phenix City, AL

#38142 Mar 8, 2013
Love

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38145 Mar 9, 2013
8.If you pretend duplicating sexuality is the same as blending masculinity and femininity

Rev Ken; Any so-called duplication of sexuality stereotypically ignores the basis for relationship which is specific to the individuals as consenting adults.

KiMare'a wrote; It is interesting that you generalize the meaning of 'sexuality' and 'relationship' to a meaningless opinion of anyone. The only thing it does is expose the duplicity of your argument...

The fact of the matter is, the range of masculine to feminine sexuality has been distinguished by social scientists with at least two hundred specific characteristics. Those differences are so vast, marriage has been portrayed as the union of Mars and Venus.

What you ignore is that evolution fundamentally operates on the basis of mutation. Some mutations enable survival, others are defective dead ends. There is no morality in that difference, it is simply a biological reality. GLBT's exist at the crossover point of masculinity and femininity holding about 4% of the population. That is an incredibly narrow position to not qualify for duplication. Especially when you remove bisexuals and transsexuals who readily admit a biological sexuality confusion.

Nor do I ignore the basis of any relationship. I rightly distinguish between relationships. As noted before, so does the law. It is why we have gender, age, relationship and number requirements regarding marriage.

You make the incredibly silly assertion that 'consenting adults' can define their relationship any way they want and society has to acquiesce to it.

Not trying to be crude, but by mentioning 'consent', you simply expose the inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning expression of sexuality at the most intimate physical level, a gay couple is the union of Uranus and Uranus. Hardly a comparison with the complimentary design of a male and female sexual union.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38146 Mar 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
You make the incredibly silly assertion that 'consenting adults' can define their relationship any way they want and society has to acquiesce to it.
Not trying to be crude, but by mentioning 'consent', you simply expose the inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning expression of sexuality at the most intimate physical level, a gay couple is the union of Uranus and Uranus. Hardly a comparison with the complimentary design of a male and female sexual union.
Society has accepted gay marriage. In several years, this will be a non issue. In several years, you'll still be an irrelevant screaming troll. Again, you attempt to reduce SSM to anal sex, Kuntmary.

I'm your smell mangina and I approve this message.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38147 Mar 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Not trying to be crude,.....
REALLY?! WHY TURN OVER A NEW LEAF TODAY?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38148 Mar 9, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Society has accepted gay marriage. In several years, this will be a non issue. In several years, you'll still be an irrelevant screaming troll. Again, you attempt to reduce SSM to anal sex, Kuntmary.
I'm your smell mangina and I approve this message.
1. Society has not accepted gay 'marriage'.

2. I did not reduce ss'M' to anal sex, you reduced marriage to a friendship.

3. I pointed out the difference between natural sex and inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning sex.

Your thinking is what stinks.

Snicker.

Since: Mar 13

Moline, IL

#38149 Mar 9, 2013
If you don't want gay marriage, then don't do it. Worry about yourself .
gay

Tucker, GA

#38150 Mar 9, 2013
I'm not

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38152 Mar 9, 2013
thisgaygirl_ wrote:
If you don't want gay marriage, then don't do it. Worry about yourself .
No.

Quite trying to impose an imposter relationship on marriage.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a direct defective contradiction to the very core goal of evolution. Literally 'unmarriage'.

Smile.
KiMareisanAnalRi ng

Belleville, IL

#38154 Mar 10, 2013
Hetero wrote:
<quoted text>
Anal sex is demeaning my wife's ass (pun intended). I've been married to the same woman for over 30 years in a totally monogamous relationship and, I can assure you, her orgasmic intensity is often greater with anal than with vaginal. She also immensely enjoys the occasional rim job I give her.
Smirk

Sneer

Audible Fart

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#38155 Mar 10, 2013
"In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#38156 Mar 10, 2013
"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

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.

Des Plaines Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr THE DEVIL 1,277,191
News Doctor disciplined for allegedly chastising Chi... (Jul '09) 2 hr thenose 160
News Suburbs spread farther afield as more families ... (Nov '07) 3 hr fedupcracker 6
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Joe Balls 196,955
Debate: Marijuana - Oak Park, IL (Aug '10) 3 hr fedupcracker 17
Peter Traczyk took his own life in the local fo... (Feb '15) 3 hr fedupcracker 2
News Arrests made after Two-Month burglary Spree in ... 3 hr fedupcracker 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Des Plaines Mortgages