Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

[Quest]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course. That is why every culture that ever existed has done so with marriage.
However, imposing a defect on evolutionary mating behavior isn't a constriction, it is stupidity.
Smirk.

That didn't make much sense. Marriage has changed drastically from culture to culture, and what we value today about marriage certainly wasn't the norm through much of history.

What you need to do is explain, rationally, why gay couples marrying TODAY will harm OUR culture in any way.

Why would legal marriage for gay couples be bad for them, provide LESS security for their kids, less support for the elderly gay couples? Then, after you prove that marriage is harmful ONLY to gay couples and their families, you would need to prove that married gay couples are harmful to our society.

Good luck. So far, no one else has been able to do that.

[Quest]

KiMare wrote:

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

So, straight people need constraint on their mating behaviors, and marraige is successful at that goal?

I think you might want to research the stats a bit more. The fornication that straight folks seem to engage in before, during, and after marriage seem to prove that your "restraint" just isn't working.

Gay folks legally marrying won't affect the mating habits of heterosexuals. If they want to clean up their act, they will need to learn to do it on their own.

[bobby]

same sex marriage simply says to civilization 'it is okay to allow mistakes'

there's a place to form a legal bond with another person, but allowing such an existance on paper simply says to civilization 'there is absolutely zero legal value while spending time with said person'

that leads to value of effort diminished because people wont value their time with high regard unless there is a piece of paper granting permission.
with that, less beauty happens.

people's floating willpower is constrained because of somebody's needing thirst to see it all registered, a real smack in the face for any monitoring system that can simply record two people spending time together to conclude 'obviously these two value eachother's time'

[Dusty Mangina]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
That didn't make much sense. Marriage has changed drastically from culture to culture, and what we value today about marriage certainly wasn't the norm through much of history.
What you need to do is explain, rationally, why gay couples marrying TODAY will harm OUR culture in any way.
Why would legal marriage for gay couples be bad for them, provide LESS security for their kids, less support for the elderly gay couples? Then, after you prove that marriage is harmful ONLY to gay couples and their families, you would need to prove that married gay couples are harmful to our society.
Good luck. So far, no one else has been able to do that.

For the sake of argument, Kuntmary likes to pretend that marriage had always been exactly as it is now. Acknowledging the evolutionary status of marriage diminishes his pretend argument.

[little freddy]

I see both of daddies kiss all the time. When I tried to kiss my best friend Joey he got mad.

[Dusty Mangina]

little freddy wrote:

I see both of daddies kiss all the time. When I tried to kiss my best friend Joey he got mad.

that's because male pit bulls don't like to be kissed.

[the REAL fact king]

hey little Freddy I will kiss you

[Gibby1]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
That didn't make much sense. Marriage has changed drastically from culture to culture, and what we value today about marriage certainly wasn't the norm through much of history.
What you need to do is explain, rationally, why gay couples marrying TODAY will harm OUR culture in any way.
Why would legal marriage for gay couples be bad for them, provide LESS security for their kids, less support for the elderly gay couples? Then, after you prove that marriage is harmful ONLY to gay couples and their families, you would need to prove that married gay couples are harmful to our society.
Good luck. So far, no one else has been able to do that.

KiMore...accept the challenge. The premise for "accepting" gay marriage is that this is only about sex and
what two-of-a-kind do with their sexual elements.
Laws and regulations in our society are there to serve as the bumper-guards to how we choose to live
as a people and society. Numerous laws dictate how we are to conduct ourselves. We cannot discriminate for ...housing, jobs, voting, and sexual orientation. You can't yell fire in a movie theater nor go 85 mph on the freeway, etc etc.
Get the point?? No one is saying, that what you do behind closed doors, with whomever you do it with, is
being taken away. Because when you walk out of that bedroom door, we are all back to playing by the
same set of societal rules. Why do we need another set of laws that speak to your sexual choice? What you
do behind those doors is your business....society doesn't need to vote on what you do there...that's your business. But because you may like Popsicles and I like pie, doesn't give me nor you--nor society--the
right to say we must allow either within the societal regulations.
You see?? Sex is NOT a society issue---so stop trying to make it one. Its not a 'what's the harm','less security' issue....it is sex and however you wanted served up to you. Nothing more...nothing less. Play by society rules and what you do in your personal world, is no concern or harm to me.

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. That is why every culture that ever existed has done so with marriage.
However, imposing a defect on evolutionary mating behavior isn't a constriction, it is stupidity.
Smirk.

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
opinion, not fact,

No, it's fact.

Here's another fact.

Your response is denial.

And another fact.

Your response is stupid.

Snicker.

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. That is why every culture that ever existed has done so with marriage.
However, imposing a defect on evolutionary mating behavior isn't a constriction, it is stupidity.
Smirk.

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
That didn't make much sense. Marriage has changed drastically from culture to culture, and what we value today about marriage certainly wasn't the norm through much of history.
What you need to do is explain, rationally, why gay couples marrying TODAY will harm OUR culture in any way.
Why would legal marriage for gay couples be bad for them, provide LESS security for their kids, less support for the elderly gay couples? Then, after you prove that marriage is harmful ONLY to gay couples and their families, you would need to prove that married gay couples are harmful to our society.
Good luck. So far, no one else has been able to do that.

It makes perfect sense to a logical person. By your gay twirl of marriage history, you obviously are not.

Let's see, Adam and Eve, Romeo and Juliet, or better yet, here is a site to educate stupidity;

http://amolife.com/reviews/
top-20-most-famous-love-storie s-in-history-and-literature.ht ml

Furthermore, I have no need to explain harm in any way. You need to equate desolate duplicate gendered couples to the sole best diverse gendered setting that birthed every other relationship in existence.

Snicker.

[KiMare]

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

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
So, straight people need constraint on their mating behaviors, and marraige is successful at that goal?
I think you might want to research the stats a bit more. The fornication that straight folks seem to engage in before, during, and after marriage seem to prove that your "restraint" just isn't working.
Gay folks legally marrying won't affect the mating habits of heterosexuals. If they want to clean up their act, they will need to learn to do it on their own.

Who said that it is always successful?

Nor does that change or disprove the purpose of marriage. The same can be said of any societal law.

However, as the latest, largest and most scientific study to date of seven family types, the effects of marriage exceeded all others by far. Lesbians came in last. AFTER single parents. Gays didn't even rate!

Of course gays can't affect normal sex. Nor can they replicate it. They only ever represent half of normal sex!!!

You don't know these things?

Smile.

[KiMare]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
For the sake of argument, Kuntmary likes to pretend that marriage had always been exactly as it is now. Acknowledging the evolutionary status of marriage diminishes his pretend argument.

Just a heads up brainless, non-functioning vagina; The evolutionary influence of mating behavior in marriage has never evolved.

Please, where do you think it went, I'd like to know too...

Snicker smile.

[KiMare]

Gibby1 wrote:

<quoted text>
KiMore...accept the challenge. The premise for "accepting" gay marriage is that this is only about sex and
what two-of-a-kind do with their sexual elements.
Laws and regulations in our society are there to serve as the bumper-guards to how we choose to live
as a people and society. Numerous laws dictate how we are to conduct ourselves. We cannot discriminate for ...housing, jobs, voting, and sexual orientation. You can't yell fire in a movie theater nor go 85 mph on the freeway, etc etc.
Get the point?? No one is saying, that what you do behind closed doors, with whomever you do it with, is
being taken away. Because when you walk out of that bedroom door, we are all back to playing by the
same set of societal rules. Why do we need another set of laws that speak to your sexual choice? What you
do behind those doors is your business....society doesn't need to vote on what you do there...that's your business. But because you may like Popsicles and I like pie, doesn't give me nor you--nor society--the
right to say we must allow either within the societal regulations.
You see?? Sex is NOT a society issue---so stop trying to make it one. Its not a 'what's the harm','less security' issue....it is sex and however you wanted served up to you. Nothing more...nothing less. Play by society rules and what you do in your personal world, is no concern or harm to me.

Who said it was 'only' about sex?

You accept the challenge instead of making stupid assertions.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Sex is only a vehicle of the primary goal of evolution. The social constraint of marriage is the unique cross cultural tool to deal with the results of evolutionary mating behavior. It is what distinguishes marriage from every other relationship.

At the most gay couples are a friendship. Hardly something for government involvement.

Smile.

[bobby]

'marriage is the unique cross cultural tool to deal with the results of evolutionary mating behavior.'

i see clear signs of a psychotic episode.

first of all, marriage as a tool is simply an opinion, not primal fact.

saying the word 'constraint' simply shows shallow character.

saying the word 'unique' simply shows flaming character.

saying 'cross cultural tool' simply shows disgusting morales.

suggesting marriage deals with the results of evolutionary mating behavior is a key indicator of retardation in practice.

saying 'it' is a sign of laziness, preventing me to comment any further about the line.. other than needing to say both:
1. social resolution of marriage isn't enough to speak of the relationship, because social definition is vital as well too.
however, wasting time & effort bringing up the word 'constraint' is a fallacy compared to keeping focus on the resolution & definition - again a clear indication of flaming character & retardation in practice.

same sex parents are with the potential to ruin children's lives, as they might feel broken inside since their childhood.. causing a necessity for some form of tax return.

you used the word 'couples'..but given your previous actions, it is hard to warrant whether you intended to say parents or a couple without children.

2. if you were saying 'it' as in 'that' or 'everything' is what distinguishes marriage, blind to the resolution & definition of the character of each individual.. as well as the resolution & definition of each person when they are together (because of changes or neglect, if any) is something you are guilty of.

[bobby]

correction..
i said 'marriage as a tool'
but it should of been 'marriage as THE tool' since that was the context responded to.

simply because two people are married doesn't stand the test of time when the marriage is failing, because as a tool the value is lowered.
when compared, a failing marriage as a tool doesn't amount to, go as high as, go as far as a simple healthy friendship.

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. That is why every culture that ever existed has done so with marriage.
However, imposing a defect on evolutionary mating behavior isn't a constriction, it is stupidity.
Smirk.
<quoted text>
No, it's fact.
Here's another fact.
Your response is denial.
And another fact.
Your response is stupid.
Snicker.

My marriage says otherwise.

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Just a heads up brainless, non-functioning vagina; The evolutionary influence of mating behavior in marriage has never evolved.
Please, where did my erectile function go, I'd like to know too...
Snicker smile.

Heads up, Einstein, there has never been any evolutionary influence of mating behavior in marriage. These are just words that you ejaculate in order to pontificate about the sanctity of marriage.

Kuntzinga, Kuntmary.

[bobby]

using the world 'never' shows a flaming character of retardation, as well as signs of abuse in practice, because there isn't any difference as to the question of definition for the word 'never'

because 'never' can be used and defined as 'rare'
but more commonly known as 'not ever'
as the real question is compared to the definitive 'never-ever'

it's the lazy & it's the neglect.

[Dusty Mangina]

bobby wrote:

using the world 'never' shows a flaming character of retardation, as well as signs of abuse in practice, because there isn't any difference as to the question of definition for the word 'never'
because 'never' can be used and defined as 'rare'
but more commonly known as 'not ever'
as the real question is compared to the definitive 'never-ever'
it's the lazy & it's the neglect.

quit beating around the mulberry bush; what's your point?

[bobby]

using words like 'quit' shows signs of rage, oppression, narcissism.

empty responses such as 'what's your point?' shows signs of fury.

you are guilty of cruel and|or unusual punishment.