Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52051 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.

Scott

Manhattan, IL

#52744 Mar 4, 2014
And perhaps you missed the news about the organization Young Hoosiers for Marriage who earlier this month traveled 100 strong to the Indiana Statehouse to oppose the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages. This fledgling organization is composed of college students and young adults “who are committed to rebuilding culture to ensure that children are not intentionally deprived of a mother and a father.”

According to a survey from Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research, these young Hoosiers are not alone. This survey showed that 54 percent of Hoosiers between the ages of 18 to 34 support a proposed Indiana amendment defining marriage as a sexually complementary union.

For conservative Baby Boomers and their elderly parents who find it uncomfortable to express their moral and political beliefs on matters related to homosexuality, imagine how difficult it is for Gen Xers and Millennials.

Baby Boomers who claim a Christian identity may have long ago proved their countercultural bona fides (or boneheadedness) in the service of free love, but they’ve done little to model countercultural courage in the service of truth about sexuality since then. Part of the reason is our own ignorance, part is selfishness (Christian Boomers seem to have little interest in looking honestly at their own acquiescence to or participation in the unbiblical divorce culture or the fornication culture), but the primary reason for our silence is cowardice.
Scott

Manhattan, IL

#52745 Mar 4, 2014
We have modeled cowardly cultural conformity and thus helped create not just the sexual confusion and suffering such confusion entails, but also the oppressive climate our children and grandchildren will now inherit.

The encouraging news is some of our children and grandchildren will stand as watchmen on the walls. Let’s come alongside them. We owe them that, and we owe Christ so much more.
Scott

Manhattan, IL

#52746 Mar 4, 2014
Last week, America honored both the life and noble work of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a Bible-believing Christian minister who did more to advance the cause of race-based civil rights than perhaps any other person in recent history.

Regrettably – and as they do each year – the same flock of opportunist “LGBT”-activist vultures quickly swooped in, picking the live flesh from MLK’s character-based “dream,” to advance their own behavior-based nightmare.

In what amounts to a sort of soft racism, this mostly white left-wing faction has, over the years, disingenuously and ignobly hitched its little pink wagon to a civil rights movement that, by contrast, is built upon the genuine and noble precepts of racial equality and humanitarian justice.

What was MLK’s position on the homosexual lifestyle and so-called “gay rights”? While he said little in public on the issue, what he did say made his viewpoint abundantly clear. Unlike the “LGBT” lobby, I’ll let Dr. King speak for himself.
Scott

Manhattan, IL

#52747 Mar 4, 2014
In 1958, while writing an advice column for Ebony Magazine, Dr. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. To avoid being accused of “cherry-picking,” here is the exchange in its entirety:

Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.
Scott

Manhattan, IL

#52748 Mar 4, 2014
No amount of leftist spin can muddy Dr. King’s lucid position on the homosexual lifestyle. He recognized it as a “culturally acquired”“problem” in need of a “solution”– a “habit” stemming from a series of negative “experiences and circumstances.”

Although homosexual activists desperately cling to the fact that, after his death, Dr. King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, did voice some level of support for the homosexualist political agenda, the undeniable reality remains that, based upon his own words, Dr. King supported neither homosexual conduct nor “LGBT” political activism.

Indeed, it strains credulity to suggest that MLK would have thrown his weight behind a political movement hell-bent on justifying sexual appetites and behaviors that he properly identified as “a problem” demanding a “a solution”– a “type of feeling” that requires “careful attention”– up to and including “see[ing] a good psychiatrist.”

No, MLK was a Christian minister who both embraced and articulated the biblical “love the sinner, hate the sin” model on homosexuality. Every Christian should follow his lead. After all, it is the lead set by Christ Himself.
Scott

Manhattan, IL

#52749 Mar 4, 2014
Gary Glenn is a candidate for the Michigan State House. He is also president of the pro-family group AFA Michigan. Of Dr. King’s public position on homosexuality, Glenn recently noted a glaring – if not utterly twisted – irony:“If homosexual activists had been holding awards ceremonies back in 1958,” wrote Glenn,“they would have labeled Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a bigot for his published views on homosexual attraction.

“And under today’s Orwellian ‘hate crimes’ laws in Britain and other countries of Europe,” he concluded,“Dr. King would have faced criminal investigation, or worse, for publicly expressing those views.”

Indeed, were he still alive today, and when judged against today’s empty, politically correct standards, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.– quite literally the “King” of civil rights – would be perpetually smeared as a “bigot,”“hater” and “homophobe” by the ever-”tolerant” left.

The polls are unequivocal. The vast majority of African-Americans resent the left’s comparison of sexual sin to the color of their skin. They understandably find such dishonest parallels both repugnant and highly offensive.

And well they should.
Scott

Manhattan, IL

#52750 Mar 4, 2014
The left has hijacked MLK’s dream. For decades now, this pleasure-based, sex-centric political movement – delineated by deviant sexual appetites and behaviors – has ridden his coattails. They’ve dared to equate demands for celebration of bad behavior to Christian notions of racial equality. They’ve perverted the genuine civil rights movement to fit their own disingenuous designs.

It’s disgusting and it needs to stop.

Dr. Alveda King is the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She agrees. Alveda has picked up her like-minded uncle’s civil rights mantle, dedicating her life, primarily, to achieving equality for pre-born children.

Still, in the years since his death, Alveda has poignantly articulated how, arguably, based upon his published position on homosexuality, Dr. King might feel about “LGBT” activists’ misappropriation of his Christian legacy for their counter-Christian purposes.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#52751 Mar 4, 2014
Scott wrote:
We have modeled cowardly cultural conformity and thus helped create not just the sexual confusion and suffering such confusion entails, but also the oppressive climate our children and grandchildren will now inherit.
The encouraging news is some of our children and grandchildren will stand as watchmen on the walls. Let’s come alongside them. We owe them that, and we owe Christ so much more.
You probably missed civics class. The USA is a secular country. Separation of church and State, remember?
Scott

Manhattan, IL

#52752 Mar 4, 2014
“To equate homosexuality with race is to give a death sentence to civil rights,” said Alveda in 1997.“No one is enslaving homosexuals … or making them sit in the back of the bus.”

In 1998 at the University of North Carolina, she said,“Homosexuality cannot be elevated to the civil rights issue. The civil rights movement was born from the Bible. God hates homosexuality.”

And in 2012, Alveda publicly chastised the NAACP for abandoning its founders and constituents, saying,“Neither my great-grandfather, an NAACP founder, my grandfather Dr. Martin Luther King Sr., an NAACP leader, my father, Rev. A. D. Williams King, nor my uncle Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. embraced the homosexual agenda that the current NAACP is attempting to label as a civil rights agenda.…”

Indeed, it is high time that all supporters, from all races, of the historical civil rights movement stand together and demand that “progressive” propagandists stop misusing and abusing the language of genuine civil rights to propagate self-interested moral wrongs.

It’s time for the left to begin honoring the true beliefs, work, life and legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#52753 Mar 4, 2014
Scott wrote:
In 1958, while writing an advice column for Ebony Magazine, Dr. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. To avoid being accused of “cherry-picking,” here is the exchange in its entirety:
Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?
Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.
Hmmmm 1958, eh?

What did his WIFE say?

Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband’s assassination, said Tuesday the civil rights leader’s memory demanded a strong stand for gay and lesbian rights.“I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice,” she said.“But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said,‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’”“I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people,” she said.– Reuters, March 31, 1998.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#52754 Mar 4, 2014
relax wrote:
I'm not even sure if it could be considered the authors opinion. Kind of looks like he just read some things and relayed bits and pieces.
Pretty much, yup. But that's the kind of stuff that KiMare likes to pretend is real research!!!(A lot of times he'll do it, not even comprehending that the "research" he's presenting doesn't even support his views!!! He's an idiot!!!)

Personally, any study that tries to isolate how variant sexual orientations fit into evolution, can't be completed using only homosexuals as the test base. We aren't the ones producing the majority of homosexual people, heterosexuals are.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#52755 Mar 4, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Stay away from kids...
...says the man obsessed with other people's sex and married to a dog. LOL! You're a joke.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#52756 Mar 4, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
"Evolutionists have nailed down how an enormous number of previously unexplained phenomena—in anatomy, physiology, embryology, behavior—have evolved. There are still mysteries, however, and one of the most prominent is the origins of homosexuality.
The mystery is simple enough. Its solution, however, has thus far eluded our best scientific minds."
Smile.
And still no mention of these mysterious "other orientations' you mentioned, and still no scientific conclusion of a "defect". You're original statements remain unsupported. This isn't shocking coward.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#52757 Mar 4, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The above poster is an idiot.
No, you're the idiot. You always have been, and most likely always will be.

How's your crusade against marriage equality coming along cretin? What advancements have your cut and pastes created for you and your ilk??!! LOL!!!!!
Scott

Manhattan, IL

#52758 Mar 4, 2014
10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed
1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man.(Rom. 2:14-15)
Scott

Manhattan, IL

#52759 Mar 4, 2014
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#52760 Mar 4, 2014
truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Where can I find this scientific paper on marriage?
LOL!!!! He doesn't have one. What he does have is a paper from over 2 decades ago that deals with mating behavior, that has nothing to do with marriage!!! He'll trot it out for you I'm sure!!!
Scott

Manhattan, IL

#52761 Mar 4, 2014
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
Scott

Manhattan, IL

#52762 Mar 4, 2014
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis:“God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying:‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’”(Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ:“From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.”(Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality:“The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.”(Gen. 19:24-25)

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#52763 Mar 4, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply note the first paragraph as accepted elements of marriage in regards to mating behavior.
http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/bussandschmit...
Ah, and there it is!!! Gregory Kirschmann (ie kiMare) never disappoints with his cut and paste repetitions.

I simply note the first paragraph doesn't discuss marriage at all, and the second paragraph clearly states that marriage is not a requirement or even desired for many people engaging in mating behavior.

Poor KiMare is under the delusion that mating behaviors and marriage are the same thing!!! Actually it's probably less a delusion then it is an intentional attempt at deceitfulness since he's incapable of actually supporting his rambling bullshit!!! He attempts the same deceitfulness when he continually tries to pretend relationships and marriages are the same thing. He's a tool!!!

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.

Shelbyville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who do you support for U.S. House in Illinois (... (Oct '10) Sep 27 NoMoreIncumbents 137
Lawyer found dead in hotel Sep '17 Nickleschitz Dibe... 4
Election Who do you support for State Senate in Illinois... (Oct '10) Sep '17 HogWash 58
News Rosamond standoff ends with man in custody Sep '17 nztyraider 1
Mayor Mike Antonacci PICKS ON ELDERLY (Jun '15) Jul '17 AngryPWT 11
Arlene Rickett (Oct '14) Jul '17 kush 6
Mitchell Manion Jul '17 Nowhere Person 3

Shelbyville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Shelbyville Mortgages