Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

CDC wrote:

AGENDAFULL - The full of it agendist.
not to be confused with AGENDAFOOL.
<quoted text>

AGENDATROLL - The tedious troll who thinks he's clever.
Not bto be confused with AGENDTURD.

Yeah, that's some funny schtick right there. Funny.

Nose UpThereToo wrote:

<quoted text>
You still breathing... CRIMINAL!

Like you care.

AGENDASS - a repeat but fits the bill.

CDC wrote:

<quoted text>
AGENDATROLL - The tedious troll who thinks he's clever.
Not bto be confused with AGENDTURD.
Yeah, that's some funny schtick right there. Funny.

Rose Feratu wrote:

<quoted text>
You still breathing... CRIMINAL!

Death threat! Reported!

Relax fruitloops.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
CDC is an agenda-agendist

And a bit of a poop-ist.

AGENDACRAPPER - that would be me :)

laughing man wrote:

<quoted text>
And a bit of a poop-ist.

Wow! No wonder you idiots strike out every time you're at bat. One look at these ridiculous accusations is enough to convince ANYONE what neurotic drama queens you are. HILARIOUS!

Rose Feratu wrote:

Wow! No wonder you idiots strike out every time you're at bat. One look at these ridiculous accusations is enough to convince ANYONE what neurotic drama queens you are. HILARIOUS!

It is? Give us that insane cackle. ahahahahaha. Like that. But insane.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
It is? Give us that insane cackle. ahahahahaha. Like that. But insane.

Yes, Frankie. It is. You've single-handedly turned hyperbole into an art form. All hail Frankie, Queen of the whiney hineys.

Rose Feratu wrote:

Wow! No wonder you idiots strike out every time you're at bat. One look at these ridiculous accusations is enough to convince ANYONE what neurotic drama queens you are. HILARIOUS!

Like you care.

Rose Feratu wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, Frankie. It is. You've single-handedly turned hyperbole into an art form. All hail Frankie, Queen of the whiney hineys.

She said, whining.

Rose Feratu wrote:

Wow! No wonder you idiots strike out every time you're at bat. One look at these ridiculous accusations is enough to convince ANYONE what neurotic drama queens you are. HILARIOUS!

And you still have no counter to the essence of marriage.

A cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Making ss couples a defect failure of mating behavior.

Or, that children prefer mom AND dad.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>And you still have no counter to the essence of marriage.

What's to counter? Marriage is a civil contract between two people who thereby become each other's legal next of kin.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>A cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Where did you ever come up with that nonsensical phraseology (not even a complete sentence)? A "constraint" is a limit or restriction on something. Are you saying in your own form of gibberish that marriage is a limit or a restriction on evolutionary mating behavior? Just curious.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>Making ss couples a defect failure of mating behavior.

What the he11 is a "defect failure"? The way you phrased it (in yet another incomplete sentence), it sounds like a defect that failed. Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>Or, that children prefer mom AND dad.

Can you write in complete sentences? Three consecutive incomplete sentences does not a concise point make. If you want people to take you seriously, try making sense. Try, "Oh, MirthMenace, you're a big ignorant idiot!" That would be a complete - if nonsensical - sentence.

MirthMenace wrote:

<quoted text>What's to counter? Marriage is a civil contract between two people who thereby become each other's legal next of kin.<quoted text>Where did you ever come up with that nonsensical phraseology (not even a complete sentence)? A "constraint" is a limit or restriction on something. Are you saying in your own form of gibberish that marriage is a limit or a restriction on evolutionary mating behavior? Just curious.<quoted text>What the he11 is a "defect failure"? The way you phrased it (in yet another incomplete sentence), it sounds like a defect that failed. Isn't that a contradiction in terms?<quoted text>Can you write in complete sentences? Three consecutive incomplete sentences does not a concise point make. If you want people to take you seriously, try making sense. Try, "Oh, MirthMenace, you're a big ignorant idiot!" That would be a complete - if nonsensical - sentence.

You don't want to admit it, but somehow through your confusion, you got it.

"that marriage is a limit or a restriction on evolutionary mating behavior?"

As to ss couples, let me make it simple for you; It is totally impossible for them to fulfill evolutionary mating behavior.

But you and I both know you understood it perfectly already.

Smile.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't want to admit it, but somehow through your confusion, you got it.
"that marriage is a limit or a restriction on evolutionary mating behavior?"
As to ss couples, let me make it simple for you; It is totally impossible for them to fulfill evolutionary mating behavior.
But you and I both know you understood it perfectly already.
Smile.

Marriage is a cultural tradition whereby two people, regardless of their genders or orientations, can become each other's legal next of kin. That's it. If you prefer to regard it as sacramental or holy or an institution administered by your god, that is your perogative. Your view or definition of marriage is not one that everyone shares. What you hope to achieve here by relentlessly insisting you are correct and everyone who disagrees with you is stupid is a mystery to me. But you are tenacious; I'll give you that. Your definition of marriage, indeed your entire debate strategy, is steeped in your religious convictions. That is where your major disconnect lies. It is also the source of your endless stream of attempted insults and condescension. There are two things that rob people of their ability to empathize; extreme wealth and extremist religious views. My hunch is that you are not extremely wealthy.

MirthMenace wrote:

<quoted text>Marriage is a cultural tradition whereby two people, regardless of their genders or orientations, can become each other's legal next of kin. That's it. If you prefer to regard it as sacramental or holy or an institution administered by your god, that is your perogative. Your view or definition of marriage is not one that everyone shares. What you hope to achieve here by relentlessly insisting you are correct and everyone who disagrees with you is stupid is a mystery to me. But you are tenacious; I'll give you that. Your definition of marriage, indeed your entire debate strategy, is steeped in your religious convictions. That is where your major disconnect lies. It is also the source of your endless stream of attempted insults and condescension. There are two things that rob people of their ability to empathize; extreme wealth and extremist religious views. My hunch is that you are not extremely wealthy.

You lie. Blatantly. Knowingly.

Cultural traditions worldwide throughout human history have not viewed marriage 'regardless of their gender'.

Then you deliberately attempt to shift the point to religion, knowing that nothing I said was based on religion.

Why? Because you cannot dispute the scientific basis of marriage.

I insist nothing. My tenacity has nothing to do with the issue. Reality is blocking you. The simple, unadulterated truth.

I have put my finger on just a couple basic, simple facts about marriage and orientation. They become unmovable mountains in the fallacy of calling ss couples married, and denying the sexual defect of homosexuality.

Here is another reality. You deny reality out of a misplaced empathy for your child. Psychology calls that enablement. The denial of reality as a false expression of love. That requires that you slander my empathy and words to justify your denial.

You are in a very difficult position. You have rejected the faith you were raised in, now you are rejecting the science you claim to base your reality on. All you have is YOUR tenacious claim that a clearly distinct relationship isn't.

I, on the other hand, stand firmly in the full support of both faith and science.

MirthMenace wrote:

<quoted text> My hunch is that you are not extremely wealthy.

I say, old bean, but aren't you peacocking your bigotry?

aHAHAHAHA hahahaHAHAHA HA HA HA HAHAHA hahaha

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/los-angeles-c...

????

Rose Feratu wrote:

<quoted text>
yawn.....
I love America.... freedom of religion and separation of church&State... it saves the rest of us from gullible, superstitious lunatics like you.

Well when your heart stops and you are in Hades burning because of your unbelief you will always know you had a chance to repent and believe in Jesus. You have know one to blame but yourself. Say Hi to your Father Satan for me. Jesus is God!!!!

Jesus doesn't exist and neither does allah.