Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52052 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.

little freddy

Saint Louis, MO

#38188 Mar 18, 2013
I see both of daddies kiss all the time. When I tried to kiss my best friend Joey he got mad.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38189 Mar 18, 2013
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.
Gibby1

Saint Louis, MO

#38192 Mar 18, 2013
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'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38194 Mar 19, 2013
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'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38195 Mar 19, 2013
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'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38196 Mar 19, 2013
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'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38197 Mar 19, 2013
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'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38198 Mar 19, 2013
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

Kankakee, IL

#38199 Mar 19, 2013
'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

Kankakee, IL

#38200 Mar 19, 2013
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.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38201 Mar 19, 2013
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.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38203 Mar 19, 2013
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

Kankakee, IL

#38204 Mar 19, 2013
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.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38205 Mar 19, 2013
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

Kankakee, IL

#38206 Mar 19, 2013
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.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38207 Mar 20, 2013
bobby wrote:
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.
Thanks for elaborating, I understand your intentions perfectly.
intellectual GIANT

Saint Louis, MO

#38208 Mar 20, 2013
What's your point?
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
quit beating around the mulberry bush; what's your point?
Face Reality

United States

#38210 Mar 20, 2013
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.
Those who believe they evolved from apes and slime are regressing to their previous condition.
The defect is perverse and the legalization of same sex marriage is a perversion of law.
Steve

United States

#38211 Mar 20, 2013
intellectual GIANT wrote:
What's your point?
<quoted text>
Really, it's not so much a point. Rather it's more of a giant mushroom shaped object.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38212 Mar 20, 2013
bobby wrote:
'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,

The only thing you said that is reality based was 'clear signs of a psychotic episode', but relating to the accuser.

While I enjoyed the cleverness of your response, you and I both know it is a diversion from presenting a logical and reasoned response. Something you are incapable of doing because it is simple, pure, unadulterated, reality based truth.

In your next post, you note the difference between marriage and friendship. My point exactly.

Bazinga!

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.

Lake Villa Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What happened to Dr. Dennis Thain? (Apr '17) 19 hr Lanamack 36
Antioch Schools (Sep '12) Dec 6 howardbeale 29
PARKING in posted "NO PARKING "area near AUGS a... (Aug '13) Dec 4 Good Luck 24
Does anyone know why the Helicopter was up and ... (Apr '12) Dec 4 Rob 18
Safe in Lk Villa ?? Dec 1 Tax Payer at large 3
Tear down Antioch bowling alley (Jul '15) Nov 30 Bowler Again 32
IH Rent - Invitation Homes Complaints (Feb '14) Nov 29 Antiocher 167

Lake Villa Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lake Villa Mortgages