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.

Right

Forest Park, IL

#37560 Feb 12, 2013
When did it become necessary to bear children in our to be married? So you are saying those unable to bear children are not allowed to be married? A women that has had a hysterectomy cannot be married? A man that is sterile cannot be married? A woman post-menopausal cannot be married? Keep reaching.
G-Wiz wrote:
so gays want what straight people already have right? impossible until scientists make it possible for them to bear children. sorry you guys will have to live in sin until then. waa, we cant be married waaa
Right

Forest Park, IL

#37561 Feb 12, 2013
And if these marriages are so valuable and desirable, why do we have such a high divorce rate?

If we are going to impose laws based on someone's opinion of morality or immorality, let's start rounding up all the adulterers. Let's make tobacco and alcohol illegal. Heck why we are at it, let's get rid of electricity and mirrors too.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Procreation is a private decision which does not alter the fundamental right of the individual to marriage. No procreation intent, or even ability, is required, as made clear in Turner and others.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...
What are you afraid of

Forest Park, IL

#37562 Feb 12, 2013
Show your ignorance some more. How someone dresses or what they look like has nothing to do with their sexual preference. There are plenty of "straight" men that enjoy wearing women's clothing. So you would have all women ordered to wear skirts?
Docrahrah wrote:
I'd just like to say, what is wrong with a room full of men wearing tutu's, women makeup and wigs. Just doing the most perverted filthiest acts with each other that would make a true man sick. And what's wrong with sister Sally dressing like grandpa. Lol, lol...
What are you afraid of

Forest Park, IL

#37563 Feb 12, 2013
Very good post. How can you possibly legislate morality? If they did shouldn't we all be living as the Amish?
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays."
“There has always been homosexuality, ever since man and woman were invented. I guess there were gay apes. So that's not an issue. The Republican Party should stand for freedom and only freedom. Don't raise hell about the gays, the Blacks and the Mexicans. Free people have a right to do as they damn well please."
"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay." Conservative Icon, WW 2 hero, AZ Senator, and Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater
What are you afraid of

Forest Park, IL

#37565 Feb 12, 2013
And there is where you are wrong. It has nothing to do with "straight" or "gay" being an identifier. It just has to do with people. Who is saying it is so polarizing to the masses? What constitutes a mass? How does enabling gays to be able to enter in a marriage disrespect you? Again, have to love it when people use "history" as a reason to justify their ignorance. So let us go back to plural marriages, let us marry our young women off at 13, let us re-institute slavery. Let us return to prohibition, take away women's right to vote, the list goes on an on.
G-Wiz wrote:
<quoted text>what is stupid is how you defend the bullying of Americans that don't want this. homosexuals are free to do whatever they want. Perhaps since marriage between homosexuals and heterosexuals is quite polarizing to the masses it could be called gay marriage or something like that. understand straight people also have rights. we want to be respected and accepted too. Its my belief gays are free to raise their own institutions just as straight people throughout history have done. what a beautiful thing that would be.
What are you afraid of

Forest Park, IL

#37566 Feb 12, 2013
Just because you are incapable of understanding a comment, that doesn't make it stupid, dismissive, diversionary, or deceitful.
If marriage is such a sacred, unique relationship, designed to protect and encourage a "natural" family why are there divorces? Among people that are married multiple times, which one was the sacred one?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a stupid comment. Who said that? Why is a dismissive, diversionary, deceitful statement like that necessary for a legitimate position?
<quoted text>
Because marriage represents a sacred, unique relationship to them. Because it is designed to protect and encourage a natural family, not a fake duplicate union pretending to be one.
<quoted text>
It most certainly is logical, and the only thing you pointed out is the lack of a logical answer. In fact, you can't even equate gay couples at the most basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Sorry.
Smile.
What are you afraid of

Forest Park, IL

#37567 Feb 12, 2013
One has to have a logical statement to begin with in order to give a logical response. There isn't one here.
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!
Still, no logical response.
Anyone???
You are correct

Waterloo, IL

#37568 Feb 12, 2013
none here either.
What are you afraid of wrote:
One has to have a logical statement to begin with in order to give a logical response. There isn't one here.
<quoted text>
justsick

La Grange, IL

#37569 Feb 12, 2013
This is just sick.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#37570 Feb 12, 2013
justsick wrote:
This is just sick.
What are you doing?
.
;o))
Yes

Waterloo, IL

#37572 Feb 12, 2013
I agree
You are correct wrote:
none here either.
<quoted text>
Vote

Carol Stream, IL

#37573 Feb 12, 2013
Vote it down

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37574 Feb 12, 2013
Right wrote:
You are absolutely right! This argument has baffled me. Why do straight people care? What is the difference between this and saying, for example, if you have brown eyes, you can't be legally married? They always through in the bible too. The bible talks about slaves, we don't have slavery anymore. I have not heard one logical argument for why this group of people should be denied this right.
<quoted text>
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a defective failure of the very basic purpose and goal of evolution.

Marriage has been present in every single culture in human history, from start to finish. Gay couples have never been accepted in any culture from start to finish. Nor have they established themselves and spread as an acceptable relationship. This is apart from any single religion or belief system.

It is simply idiotic to equate the diverse union of male and female with the redumbant partnership of duplicate genders. The relationship of a male and female are rooted in the very foundation of life, restoration of a single genderless life form.

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!

Do you want more? Perhaps the distinction of natural sex vs Pete and RePete?

SMile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37575 Feb 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
STILL no logical counter to this fact;
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.
STILL no logical counter to this fact;
A fruit tree bearing fruit.
A fruit tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A nut tree who never bears fruit wanting to be a fruit tree.
A nut tree hanging fruit on it's branches pretending to be a fruit tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' fruit trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call nut trees fruit trees too!
Hilarious!!!
Right wrote:
It is not logical to counter an illogical argument with logic. Perhaps that is why he didn't counter. The funny thing with referencing statistical information is that the numbers can be easily skewed to whatever outcome the analyzer chooses. For every thing referenced, one could easily find another study that disproves all those previously documented. Take for example the information posted above regarding the woman raised by gay parents. I could easily find many instances where a young woman could not bring home a boyfriend because her straight mother would hit on them, or even female friends, because her father acted inappropriately with them.
<quoted text>
Are you a blonde? "It is not logical to counter a wrong assertion with logic?"

I'd suggest you have no counter because it is perfectly logical. Simply in it's analogy and indisputable...

Humor me and try.

By the way, I gave no statistics or studies.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37576 Feb 12, 2013
Right wrote:
When did it become necessary to bear children in our to be married? So you are saying those unable to bear children are not allowed to be married? A women that has had a hysterectomy cannot be married? A man that is sterile cannot be married? A woman post-menopausal cannot be married? Keep reaching.
<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.

STILL no logical counter to this fact;
A fruit tree bearing fruit.
A fruit tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A nut tree who never bears fruit wanting to be a fruit tree.
A nut tree hanging fruit on it's branches pretending to be a fruit tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' fruit trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call nut trees fruit trees too!
Hilarious!!!

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37577 Feb 12, 2013
What are you afraid of wrote:
Show your ignorance some more. How someone dresses or what they look like has nothing to do with their sexual preference. There are plenty of "straight" men that enjoy wearing women's clothing. So you would have all women ordered to wear skirts?
<quoted text>
Which brings up the question, Why does a butch lesbian dress and act like a man to attract another lesbian?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37578 Feb 12, 2013
What are you afraid of wrote:
Very good post. How can you possibly legislate morality? If they did shouldn't we all be living as the Amish?
<quoted text>
You mean like legislating against murder and robbery?

You really are blonde, aren't you.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37579 Feb 12, 2013
What are you afraid of wrote:
Just because you are incapable of understanding a comment, that doesn't make it stupid, dismissive, diversionary, or deceitful.
If marriage is such a sacred, unique relationship, designed to protect and encourage a "natural" family why are there divorces? Among people that are married multiple times, which one was the sacred one?
<quoted text>
I understood the comment perfectly. That is why I described it accurately.

Because some people violate a vow it delegitimizes those who don't?

Been married 36 years. Happily most of that time.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37580 Feb 12, 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!
Still, no logical response.
Anyone???
What are you afraid of wrote:
One has to have a logical statement to begin with in order to give a logical response. There isn't one here.
<quoted text>
Please, explain to me why. I really, really would like to hear your explanation...

Smile.

“Free your mind”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#37582 Feb 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
STILL no logical counter to this fact;
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.
STILL no logical counter to this fact;
A fruit tree bearing fruit.
A fruit tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A nut tree who never bears fruit wanting to be a fruit tree.
A nut tree hanging fruit on it's branches pretending to be a fruit tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' fruit trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call nut trees fruit trees too!
Hilarious!!!
<quoted text>
Are you a blonde? "It is not logical to counter a wrong assertion with logic?"
I'd suggest you have no counter because it is perfectly logical. Simply in it's analogy and indisputable...
Humor me and try.
By the way, I gave no statistics or studies.
Smirk.
STILL no valid reason why you think you should dictate how others live their lives... I guess it is because you don't have one of your own.

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.

Niles Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Russians descendants of Serbs Jan 17 Serb 2
Gone but not forgotten (May '09) Jan 17 alan 746
Melrose Park Businesses: We will never spend mo... (Feb '12) Jan 13 Lowest of them All 20
New Northlake chief Nissen is hated by his offi... (Nov '16) Jan 13 Psychology 15
radio silence Jan 12 WILDBILL 14
Taylor St. gypsies claiming Melrose Parker iden... Jan 12 WILDBILL 6
News Catching hold of the rye -- Food and Dining Cul... (Jun '08) Apr '17 robert higgins 8

Niles Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Niles Mortgages