Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

[KiMare]

The IL Senate is known for the wisdom or lack thereof of it's votes...

Smirk.

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

The IL Senate is known for the wisdom or lack thereof of it's votes...
Smirk.

Well, here's where your opinion is, yet again, irrelevant.

[The Troll Stopper]

mother superior wrote:

"GO F YOURSELF"
Bless you my dear.
<quoted text>

Wow, I'll bet that reaponse must surely have taxed your intellectual capacity to its very limit!

[KiMare]

Marengo Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, here's where your opinion is, yet again, irrelevant.

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

Gay couples are the picture of defective failure. Mating behavior gone abusive with NOTHING to show for it.

This is not an opinion, it is simple reality. No vote changed that. Or ever will.

Smile.

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are the picture of defective failure. Mating behavior gone abusive with NOTHING to show for it.
This is not an opinion, it is simple reality. No vote changed that. Or ever will.
Smile.

Given your opinion, we still have marriage equality. What will you be doing about that?

[Marengo Jon]

I'm with Dusty on this one. In spite of all of your verbal ejaculations, what effect does your opinion have on my marriage?

Not unlike Westboro Baptist, you're actually helping our cause.

Is that your grand plan?

[Spanky]

sic wrote:

Fox News is not liberal, it's conservative. It's the only news channel where you get the truth. Unlike the Obama news channel's (nbc,cbs,abc,cnn,msnbc,hln.)

Truth according to Fox News and what they believe. They use half truths and then make up wild stories to cause mass hysteria in all the freaks who watch it in an effort to keep them watching.
I love how Fox News watchers always say the other news networks are biased. I hope someday you people wake up and realize that they are the only people reporting those things because they are not true!

[shameful]

Yum have you ever heard of eternal life? Dont know about you but HELL is some where i want to stay away from it is FOREVER.Read the bible people.

[Virgin First Fruit]

shameful wrote:

Yum have you ever heard of eternal life? Dont know about you but HELL is some where i want to stay away from it is FOREVER.Read the bible people.

Sorry
.
We're not into unacceptable adult behavior

[Not Yet Equal]

Marengo Jon wrote:

I'm with Dusty on this one. In spite of all of your verbal ejaculations, what effect does your opinion have on my marriage?
Not unlike Westboro Baptist, you're actually helping our cause.
Is that your grand plan?

Did you hear that even rabidly anti-gay WBC, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court which documents that marriage took place under the written law before the time of Noah?

From their brief: "Another Midrash says that males just didn't sodomize other males, but that they signed ketobot (marriage contracts) legalizing these re-lationships."

[Dusty Mangina]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you hear that even rabidly anti-gay WBC, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court which documents that marriage took place under the written law before the time of Noah?
From their brief: "Another Midrash says that males just didn't sodomize other males, but that they signed ketobot (marriage contracts) legalizing these re-lationships."

I had not heard that and thank you for sharing.

[Not Yet Equal]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are the picture of defective failure. Mating behavior gone abusive with NOTHING to show for it.
This is not an opinion, it is simple reality. No vote changed that. Or ever will.
Smile.

Your version of reality is not reflected in any US law. Therefore it is just your personal opinion. Procreation intent or ability has never been a requirement.

No matter how you choose to conceptualize marriage for yourself, legally it is a fundamental right of the individual. While churches may place any restrictions on their own ceremonies they choose, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated.

While procreation has never been a requirement for marriage, 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 nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. The only eligibility requirement is being human. Reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Gay people qualify.

Gay people are asking to be treated equally under the laws, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.

Neither tradition nor gender provides a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.

[Virgin First Fruit]

zander714 wrote:

It will be interesting to see what the divorce rate will be. That will be another right that they will get to enjoy too!

Gays have been marrying legally for the last 8 years
http://makeitequal.org/
.
Divorce is extremely rare

[Mother Superior]

Here's what's funny:
I've said the same before.
And you had the same response.
We both look a little foolish now.
Go get'em troll stopper.

The Troll Stopper wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, I'll bet that reaponse must surely have taxed your intellectual capacity to its very limit!

[KiMare]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
Given your opinion, we still have marriage equality. What will you be doing about that?

'Marriage equity'?

Two people. Anything else?

All I see is an imposter relationship masquerading as a marriage when it is nothing more than a friendship.

Smirk.

[KiMare]

Marengo Jon wrote:

I'm with Dusty on this one. In spite of all of your verbal ejaculations, what effect does your opinion have on my marriage?
Not unlike Westboro Baptist, you're actually helping our cause.
Is that your grand plan?

You don't have a marriage.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

That hardly sounds like Westboro...

Smile.

[KiMare]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Your version of reality is not reflected in any US law. Therefore it is just your personal opinion. Procreation intent or ability has never been a requirement.
No matter how you choose to conceptualize marriage for yourself, legally it is a fundamental right of the individual. While churches may place any restrictions on their own ceremonies they choose, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated.
While procreation has never been a requirement for marriage, 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 nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.
Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. The only eligibility requirement is being human. Reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Gay people qualify.
Gay people are asking to be treated equally under the laws, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.
Neither tradition nor gender provides a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.

I have no need to equate a scientific statement with law. It is however reflected in many of the partial quotes you use of SCOTUS.

You are in denial. I make you embarrassed by exposing it

Smile.

[Not Yet Equal]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
I have no need to equate a scientific statement with law. It is however reflected in many of the partial quotes you use of SCOTUS.
You are in denial. I make you embarrassed by exposing it
Smile.

I feel no embarrassment in demonstrating your attempts to justify harming others needlessly through denial of equal treatment under the law, is irrational and based on your personal prejudice.

Nor do I delight in exposing your irrational prejudice. I only bother because the prejudice and discrimination you promote results in real harm to real people.

You still fail to demonstrate any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage to same gender couples. Clearly, it is you who remains in denial.

[mother superior]

You strengthen the beast by feeding it responses.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
I feel no embarrassment in demonstrating your attempts to justify harming others needlessly through denial of equal treatment under the law, is irrational and based on your personal prejudice.
Nor do I delight in exposing your irrational prejudice. I only bother because the prejudice and discrimination you promote results in real harm to real people.
You still fail to demonstrate any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage to same gender couples. Clearly, it is you who remains in denial.

[Not Yet Equal]

mother superior wrote:

You strengthen the beast by feeding it responses.
<quoted text>

My bad.
The sad thing is, I know better, and usually resist.

My fear is that someone who doesn't know better might drop by and think there is merit to the excuses. So every now and then, I feel the need to respond.

I'll also claim the excuse others are feeding it as well, but I know that is a poor one. Even abuse is reinforcement, though I promise my motives were pure. I'll try to do better.