Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52049 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37899 Feb 23, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage establishes legal kinship
.
What species is your pet?
Racial discrimination was already addressed.

You claim children are not an issue.

What harm can you prove?

Smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#37900 Feb 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
More specifically, here is the difference between non-childbearing heterosexual couples and gay couples;
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.
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 is simply silly.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples do not just fail in the primary essence of marriage, out of all relationships, they are the oxymoron of marriage.
Moreover, if you remove the element of procreation, you dumb down marriage to just a friendship.
No offense, just being clear about what we are talking about.
Smile.
Oh hunty, absolutely every one of your opinions has been debunked previously. For instance, your assertion that removing procreation dumbs down a relationship to being just a friendship is pure BS. Further, it's insulting to millions of people who can't, or won't, have children.

Why do you continue to humiliate inner lesbian with this whole nutz and berries and twigs argument? It's tedious and ill-conceived. Do you think that SCOTUS would consider the use of this argument in a court?

Still out of Massingil douche. Can you ask the missus to pick up some more.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#37901 Feb 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So the handicapped and illiterate don't qualify for marriage?
Smile.
So the handicapped and illiterate can't give informed consent?

You'll troll any old argument, just for troll's sake.
My My

United States

#37902 Feb 23, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh hunty, absolutely every one of your opinions has been debunked previously. For instance, your assertion that removing procreation dumbs down a relationship to being just a friendship is pure BS. Further, it's insulting to millions of people who can't, or won't, have children.
Why do you continue to humiliate inner lesbian with this whole nutz and berries and twigs argument? It's tedious and ill-conceived. Do you think that SCOTUS would consider the use of this argument in a court?
Still out of Massingil douche. Can you ask the missus to pick up some more.
. Some little turd rolled out of the wrong side of bed this morning!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#37903 Feb 23, 2013
My My wrote:
<quoted text>. Some little turd rolled out of the wrong side of bed this morning!
Go back to bed and try again! ;-)
Andrew Singer

Morgan Hill, CA

#37906 Feb 23, 2013
the REAL fact king wrote:
lock up all the gay men and keep the good looking lesbians that's what i say that's how it is here in coles county
You just want all the gay boys locked up, factless, because the next time you are incarcerated for jacking a 10-year-old boy (I predict next week!), you will have lots of pretty boys to give blowjobs to in exchange for credits on your Link card. Better watch it, factless. You are making Big Bubba jealous. Remember, he made you tattoo his name on your gigantic ass. So, I guess it is Big Bubba that OWNS YOUR ASS, factless!

Run along. You are done here, factless.
qaxyax

Monessen, PA

#37907 Feb 23, 2013

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#37908 Feb 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
When your pet can understand and sign a legal contract, you can marry it.
However, normal folks don't have your problem understanding the difference between humans and animals.
Don't forget the pet must meet the age requirement as well, in addition to the ability to demonstrate informed consent. And of course not be closely related by blood, or already married. But any pet that can meet the restrictions, just might decide to divorce them and take half of their stuff!:)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#37909 Feb 23, 2013
At the most basic legal essence, marriage is a fundamental right of the individual.

The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.

Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny.

Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related, or currently married.

Procreation ability is not a requirement, and people who cannot procreate get married every day.

Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted.

Denial of equal treatment under the law provides no benefit to opposite sex couple families.

It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#37910 Feb 23, 2013
“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” (SCOTUS 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992))

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#37911 Feb 23, 2013
While the Supreme Court has recognized children often do better when their parents are provided the protections of marriage, they have never required children for marriage to remain a fundamental right.

They have even made it clear, marriage remains a fundamental right even when the ability to procreate or even have sex, is absent. Inability to have sex is not a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right, according to the Supreme Court.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37914 Feb 24, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
At the most basic legal essence, marriage is a fundamental right of the individual.
The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.
Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny.
Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related, or currently married.
Procreation ability is not a requirement, and people who cannot procreate get married every day.
Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted.
Denial of equal treatment under the law provides no benefit to opposite sex couple families.
It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.
BS.

Marriage, at it's most basic essence is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a defective contradiction of the core goal of evolution.

If you remove children from marriage, you make it nothing more than a friendship, now segregated only by number from every other relationship. Hardly a supportable legal move.

Moreover, you remove the one distinction that marriage has historically contained. The only one that SCOTUS noted was of legitimate government interest. Procreation. There is no longer a legal distinction for the one natural and best setting for human fruit.

Smile.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#37915 Feb 24, 2013
the fact king wrote:
gays and lesbians should not ever I mean ever have any children around them they taint the gene pool and warp their minds God is real your just a wet dream
Punctuation, grammar and spelling can all be your friends.

I mean, you'll still be an idiot, but it won't be so obvious.

Oh, who am I kidding - it'll still be obvious.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#37916 Feb 24, 2013
Despite the repeated assertion biological procreation is the basis for marriage, no such requirement has ever been included in our laws, and sterile couples as well as those who cannot even have sex due to physical limitations or even incarceration, are still allowed to marry.

Marriage provides security to both parties of the marriage in over a thousand legal ways. It protects them if something happens to the other person, or if the other person decides to leave. Most elderly people who get married have no intention or desire to include children, and so do many younger straight couples.

Children enjoy certain protections through marriage, but they have never been a requirement, nor been the sole purpose of marriage. No matter how created or adopted, children benefit from marriage, but they are not required.

The supreme court has made it clear, procreation ability or even ability to have sex, is not required for marriage to remain a fundamental right of all persons.

Any procreation argument fails as a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment to couples who can't or don't want to have children. Nor does a biological requirement qualify for denial of equal treatment to children who are created with assistance, or adopted.

Denial of equal treatment under the laws currently in effect, provides no benefit to opposite sex couples. It only harms same sex couples needlessly.

"While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." ( In Re Marriage Cases, p.117)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37917 Feb 24, 2013
More specifically, here is the difference between non-childbearing heterosexual couples and gay couples;

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.

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 is simply silly.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples do not just fail in the primary essence of marriage, out of all relationships, they are the oxymoron of marriage.

Moreover, if you remove the element of procreation, you dumb down marriage to just a friendship.

No offense, just being clear about what we are talking about.

Smile.
the blue bird bus

Dahinda, IL

#37918 Feb 24, 2013
When they finally build the new religion john lennon sang about in"imagine",things will make more sence to us because at this nexus of time our minds are crippled through a slow process of time using mindcontrol methods that if explained you'd All start throwing tomatoes and beer bottles at the blue bus.I'm refraining my tongue in patience! Because I know religion and politics are two dangerious lovers fighting in marriage.I'm the child scared when dad and mom start argueing and screaming about the gay issue; how do we make rightious love god didn't ordain? The gay thing was harmless when married through the state because the state could care less about god when you start parading gays down the aisle of the church towards a pastor with a bible don't be surprised if he throws the book at the question of gay marriage keep it simple with a court house marriage don't smear two dicks in gods face
the blue bird bus

United States

#37919 Feb 24, 2013
In george orwells world animal farm; "some animals are created more equal than other animals". I can't believe non of you have figured that out yet...consider how long it took from when they first wrote the constitution blabbering on about how we are equal,should have freedom,that the government is the servant,....what mirror image nonsence!!!!back in the bad ol days you could vote only if you were a big pig owning land wearing fancy crap running a piece of the show with money ect..women and blacks were not equal even in the minds that forged our nation. I can sence beer bottles are flying at me already.
the blue bird bus

United States

#37920 Feb 24, 2013
We are still all shackled togeather on the blue bird bus being transfered to a differant new prison. If they the powers that be wanted you to be equel and be a free people we still wouldn't be fighting in the streets even to this day for human rights such as gay marriage and guns guns guns !!! If they wrote it on the white house wall freedoms are a priveledge enjoyed only by club members who have a lot of $$$$ lucky to be born in high class obey the rules they wrote then I could relaxe and agree. But I get pissed off when uncle sam pisses in my face and tells me its just raining son...
the blue bird bus

Dahinda, IL

#37921 Feb 24, 2013
If they painted that down at washington on the barn wall america would go all "barn yard crazy"...soooo they whisper in your ears while you sleep walk to work or while you're lazy watching t.v. ; it sings a song like this, you are created equel,you are a free people,you can vote,you can even shoot a gun at a deer you are america !!! Maybe most of you out there can do these but not us who ride the blue bird. We are basicaly reduced down to a silly mind game of f for fucked felony meaning you are no longer a american but a prisoner here that cannot leave a free land. I know I know this is too much thinking for you all.go run along with the sheeple and graze on freedoms plains
gay

Rockford, IL

#37922 Feb 24, 2013
No, homosexual. Calling homosexuals 'gays' is ridiculous. There is nothing gay about it. Calling them gay is not logical. Nothing but an attempt to 'normalize' the behavior. Open your eyes and see through it.

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.

Joliet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
It's On!!!!! 10 min Slap a Ho 23
Detente 31 min Robert Thomas 57
~New Lenox Double Word Fun~ 35 min MPMMB 233
Let’s get rid of mueller already! 36 min Robert Thomas 18
Caged Migrant Children 47 min Robert Thomas 12
Kim Jung-un’s letter 5 hr like for sure 42
All the Clinton crimes that the Trump's have done. (Oct '17) 5 hr Sharky 15

Joliet Jobs

Personal Finance

Joliet Mortgages