Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52086 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.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#37891 Feb 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
... The species would disappear if it were dependent on gay couples...
Snicker.
But it's not, of course, and never would be. Any more than the survival of the species rests on those who are infertile, past childbearing age, or choose not to have children.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#37892 Feb 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
To equate rights, you have to establish identity.
A......
Identity as human and American has already been established.

Next.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#37893 Feb 23, 2013
regularguy wrote:
cool..now we can work on marrying our pet...
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.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#37894 Feb 23, 2013
regularguy wrote:
cool..now we can work on marrying our pet...
Marriage establishes legal kinship
.
What species is your pet?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#37895 Feb 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The species would disappear if it were dependent on gay couples...
Snicker.
Gays would disappear if it weren't for str8 couples.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37896 Feb 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
But it's not, of course, and never would be. Any more than the survival of the species rests on those who are infertile, past childbearing age, or choose not to have children.
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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37897 Feb 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
To equate rights, you have to establish identity.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Identity as human and American has already been established.
Next.
On that qualification, any person, or persons, of any age would be married.

Kind of makes the word meaningless, don't you think?

Moreover, since the natural and healthiest place for child bearing has traditionally been within the bonds of marriage, and you want to now disqualify children from consideration so gays can qualify, what term would you use to distinguish marriages where the intent is to procreate?

According to numerous SCOTUS rulings, that setting deserves and demands special consideration.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37898 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.
So the handicapped and illiterate don't qualify for marriage?

Smile.

“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

San Luis Obispo, 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

Pittsburgh, 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.

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.

Normal Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Auto plant shutdown Aug 21 foofoo 6
in town for work Aug 21 The Anti-Flower C... 4
News Luthe (Nov '07) Aug 21 FFF 5
Westide (Apr '10) Aug 21 The Anti-Flower C... 3
Are you a State Farm Employee affected by closu... (Aug '13) Aug 20 Eddie 29
Bloomington Music Thread (Feb '14) Aug 17 Musikologist 4
Gerald maragos Aug 15 One of the many 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Normal Mortgages