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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#34214 Jun 20, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
marriage as we know it is a civil contract... period.
biblical marriage is nothing more than the act of having sex.
<quoted text>
you're right with your loving quote... it says that marriage is fundamental to our existence and survival... however, it says absolutely nothing about procreation.
now... to get to the meat of my post... i suppose that i should have made it more clear for you, but i was trying to be kind and hoping that you would take the hint. to put it more succinctly, stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed.
That has to be one of the stupidest responses I have ever seen on here.

A man of character would admit they were wrong.

A honest person would at the least just shut up and disappear.

You singularly expose the depravity of man in this response and the denial it births.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#34215 Jun 20, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That has to be one of the stupidest responses I have ever seen on here.
A man of character would admit they were wrong.
A honest person would at the least just shut up and disappear.
You singularly expose the depravity of man in this response and the denial it births.
you are one very confused person... exactly what the heck are you talking about here? depravity of man? wtf.

reread the opinion of the court from the loving case...'marriage is essential to our survival'. that's where it stops.

what i find odd is that you seem to be of the opinion that it would be a bad thing if the human species didn't survive. well, as a species, we're pushing it that way as hard and as fast as we can, it seems.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#34217 Jun 21, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
you are one very confused person... exactly what the heck are you talking about here? depravity of man? wtf.
reread the opinion of the court from the loving case...'marriage is essential to our survival'. that's where it stops.
what i find odd is that you seem to be of the opinion that it would be a bad thing if the human species didn't survive. well, as a species, we're pushing it that way as hard and as fast as we can, it seems.
Dig the hole deeper.

-A reprobate wouldn't understand depravity. A real minister would.

-Why is marriage essential? And no it doesn't stop there.

-Once again, you impose a idiotic assertion of my thinking. A classic tactic of someone who has no logic to present.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#34218 Jun 21, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That has to be one of the stupidest responses I have ever seen on here.
A man of character would admit they were wrong.
A honest person would at the least just shut up and disappear.
You singularly expose the depravity of man in this response and the denial it births.
Marriage is not a sign of the "depravity of man".

Where so you get this stuff?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#34219 Jun 21, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Dig the hole deeper.
-A reprobate wouldn't understand depravity. A real minister would.
-Why is marriage essential? And no it doesn't stop there.
-Once again, you impose a idiotic assertion of my thinking. A classic tactic of someone who has no logic to present.
Marriage, love, commitment, family life, and raising kids are "depravity"?

You have some demented furniture in that mind of yours.

What kind of person imagines depravity when others are talking about family and marriage? And then you try to project that depravity in your own mind on others?

Sad.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#34220 Jun 21, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Dig the hole deeper.
-A reprobate wouldn't understand depravity. A real minister would.
-Why is marriage essential? And no it doesn't stop there.
-Once again, you impose a idiotic assertion of my thinking. A classic tactic of someone who has no logic to present.
um... what? how and why do you continuously try to connect marriage with procreation... they are two totally separate issues, and yet you seem to believe that one cannot exist without the other. many people who neither can, nor desire to breed get married every day... do you believe that this makes their marriage any less valid? what was supported by the courts opinion in the loving case as being essential was marriage, NOT procreation. why can't you seem to get that through that thick skull of yours?

now, let's get back to my original statement.'stupid shouldn't be allowed to breed.'

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#34221 Jun 21, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage, love, commitment, family life, and raising kids are "depravity"?
You have some demented furniture in that mind of yours.
What kind of person imagines depravity when others are talking about family and marriage? And then you try to project that depravity in your own mind on others?
Sad.
she has a good many strange notions, it seems.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#34223 Jun 21, 2012
KiMare wrote;
Skinner v. Oklahoma decision (1942).

Far from separating marriage and procreation, the Supreme Court specifically tied them together.

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

Another example of your poor understanding of English, or you diabolical twirling of facts,'and' ties marriage and procreation together,'or' would separate them.

MY reference was from Loving v. Virginia (1967).

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."

Here they repeat the essence of the previous thought, BUT clearly stating marriage is a fundamental right BECAUSE of procreation!
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
you're right with your loving quote... it says that marriage is fundamental to our existence and survival... however, it says absolutely nothing about procreation.
1. Skinner does connect marriage and procreation.

2. Both declare marriage fundamental to our existence and survival.

Now answer the question; Why is marriage fundamental to our existence and survival?

Lililth_Satans_B ore

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#34224 Jun 21, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote;
Skinner v. Oklahoma decision (1942).
Far from separating marriage and procreation, the Supreme Court specifically tied them together.
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
Another example of your poor understanding of English, or you diabolical twirling of facts,'and' ties marriage and procreation together,'or' would separate them.
MY reference was from Loving v. Virginia (1967).
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."
Here they repeat the essence of the previous thought, BUT clearly stating marriage is a fundamental right BECAUSE of procreation!
<quoted text>
1. Skinner does connect marriage and procreation.
2. Both declare marriage fundamental to our existence and survival.
Now answer the question; Why is marriage fundamental to our existence and survival?
oh stfu fundie

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#34225 Jun 21, 2012
Lililth_Satans_Wh_ore wrote:
<quoted text>oh stfu fundie
Honey, being a 'fundie' would make you a bigot. I don't want to do that.

Besides, I'm a lesbian trapped in a straight man's body. Would be kinda hard to be a fundie, right?
young lesbian

Herrin, IL

#34226 Jun 21, 2012
Whats all this fuss? If you dont agree with it you dont have to do it, just like people that agree its bad to smoke or drink dont smoke. But they dont tell people they cannot drink or smoke. Dont force your personal beliefs on someone else. Its their life, let them live it how they want.

Judgment is not ours, its God's. People would get a whole lot further in life if they realized that all ppl are not the same and its okay to be different

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#34227 Jun 21, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote;
Skinner v. Oklahoma decision (1942).
Far from separating marriage and procreation, the Supreme Court s.....
The very best case you can hunt down is from 1942?

Really?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#34228 Jun 21, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The very best case you can hunt down is from 1942?
Really?
How old are you?

First you can't comprehend a sentence, now you show you have no understanding of law, not to mention my referencing the rest of the gay twirl claim that marriage is a fundamental right.

Go back to your video games.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#34229 Jun 21, 2012
young lesbian wrote:
Whats all this fuss? If you dont agree with it you dont have to do it, just like people that agree its bad to smoke or drink dont smoke. But they dont tell people they cannot drink or smoke. Dont force your personal beliefs on someone else. Its their life, let them live it how they want.
Judgment is not ours, its God's. People would get a whole lot further in life if they realized that all ppl are not the same and its okay to be different
Wow!!! I've never heard such thoughtful arguments before. Did you come up with those all by yourself?
young lesbian

Herrin, IL

#34230 Jun 21, 2012
Internet trolls. Smh. And you live in Stonefort?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#34231 Jun 21, 2012
Got it all figured out all by yourself huh?

Go ahead, get it out and over with. All the gay twirl you copied without thinking for yourself.
young lesbian

Herrin, IL

#34232 Jun 21, 2012
I dont have to copy anything. Im just stating my own opinion, just like you. How old are you anyways? Sound younger then me. Do yourself a favor and grow up. Gay marriage will be legalized one of these days and there wont be a darn thing you can do about it. What will you do next... burn me on the cross or commit hate crimes because you dont agree with my lifestyle? Thats coo, you can do whatever it doesnt really matter. I will live my life just fine and if you want to act like a three year old and throw a tantrum just because things dont go your way.. you can do that too. Its your prerogative. Live your life, stop trying to live others. Besides, you are only responsible how your life is lived, not anybody elses.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#34233 Jun 21, 2012
young lesbian wrote:
I dont have to copy anything. Im just stating my own opinion, just like you. How old are you anyways? Sound younger then me. Do yourself a favor and grow up. Gay marriage will be legalized one of these days and there wont be a darn thing you can do about it. What will you do next... burn me on the cross or commit hate crimes because you dont agree with my lifestyle? Thats coo, you can do whatever it doesnt really matter. I will live my life just fine and if you want to act like a three year old and throw a tantrum just because things dont go your way.. you can do that too. Its your prerogative. Live your life, stop trying to live others. Besides, you are only responsible how your life is lived, not anybody elses.
You are not stating your own opinion, you are parroting gay twirl phrases you have heard and not thought through.

Moreover, you assume you know my thinking because you have accepted a bigoted framework to discount any real discussion.

Just to stir the pot, as far as belief systems, I am a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian. As far as gender, I am a genetic chimera (hence my name, KiMare'a). More specifically, a triple chimera, a hermaphrodite lesbian trapped in a straight man's body.

Want to have a real discussion now?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#34234 Jun 21, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
How old are you?
First you can't comprehend a sentence, now you show you have no understanding of law, not to mention my referencing the rest of the gay twirl claim that marriage is a fundamental right.
Go back to your video games.
Conservative constitutional lawyer, solicitor general under George Bush, Theodore B. Olson and constitional expert attorney David Boies wrote in their prop.8 filing: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”

The court found gay people are in fact persons, protected by the constitutional requirement of equal treatment under the law.

One of those 14 cases affirming marriage as a fundament right, Turner, specifically recognized marriage remains a fundamental right even when the ability to have sex is not present.

And from Gill v OPM: "But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate."

And as others have pointed out, many gay people do procreate using all of the wide varieties of methods available to straight people who need assistance, as well as adoption. You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment to those children and their families. All you have is an old, irrational prejudice that results in needless suffering and death.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#34235 Jun 21, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Conservative constitutional lawyer, solicitor general under George Bush, Theodore B. Olson and constitional expert attorney David Boies wrote in their prop.8 filing: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”
The court found gay people are in fact persons, protected by the constitutional requirement of equal treatment under the law.
One of those 14 cases affirming marriage as a fundament right, Turner, specifically recognized marriage remains a fundamental right even when the ability to have sex is not present.
And from Gill v OPM: "But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.
Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate."
And as others have pointed out, many gay people do procreate using all of the wide varieties of methods available to straight people who need assistance, as well as adoption. You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment to those children and their families. All you have is an old, irrational prejudice that results in needless suffering and death.
Here is the roots of that 'right';

Skinner v. Oklahoma decision (1942).

Far from separating marriage and procreation, the Supreme Court specifically tied them together.

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

Another example of your poor understanding of English, or you diabolical twirling of facts,'and' ties marriage and procreation together,'or' would separate them.

MY reference was from Loving v. Virginia (1967).

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."

Here they repeat the essence of the previous thought, BUT clearly stating marriage is a fundamental right BECAUSE of procreation!

Marriage has always throughout human history described a unique relationship of diverse genders in a lifetime union with one of the primary purposes being the best benefit of children.

Other types of relationships with children are distinguished as adopted, foster, and step parents. Gays have every right their establish their legitimate rights for a gay union, just as all the previous types have done.

What is not logical or acceptable is to impose a imposter relationship on the sole birthplace of every other relationship.

In other words, to qualify for equal rights, you have to qualify for equal identity. You clearly don't.

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.

South Elgin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gangs (Apr '07) Sat Pat 20
News Pingree Grove man charged with child pornograph... Sat Pat 2
Review: Limitless DC Inc Jan 11 LimitlessDC1 1
Dogs No Longer Safe @ West Chicago Dog Parks Jan 5 OutFront 1
Review: Supreme Tax Office, Inc (Jan '16) Jan 4 MARIA 6
Who do you support for U.S. House in Illinois (... (Oct '10) Dec 25 CountryBoy 169
News Community rallies around beaten South Elgin boy (Feb '17) Aug '17 Paladin 6

South Elgin Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

South Elgin Mortgages