Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52074 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: Jan 14

Location hidden

#55130 May 20, 2014
KiMare wrote:
"First, let me explain this whole “marriage is between a man and a woman” deal. That isn’t an arbitrary designation. It isn’t fueled by hate. It isn’t bigotry. It isn’t intolerance. It’s simply the recognition of an utterly unavoidable reality. The union between a man and woman, in principle, has a power and a capacity which no other union could ever possess. For this reason it certainly is not “equal” to any other union. It IS different. That’s not to assign labels of inferiority or superiority, that’s simply to point out an obvious distinction. A man and a woman can create other humans. They can form families. They can bring forth life. This difference is not an aberration or a matter of mere semantics. It’s something important, serious, profound. This relationship has a potential that is completely unique. It has attributes that can not be emulated by any other forms of human relationships. What does all this mean? It means it is NOT equal because equal, by definition, means “sameness.” Sameness, by definition, can not apply to two relationships that are characteristically separated by such a vast and remarkable distinction. Societies across the globe, until recently, have recognized the power of the male-female bond and appreciated the fact that the survival and propagation of civilization DEPENDS ENTIRELY on this bond. Again, no other relationship bears that responsibility. So, in light of this, most societies have afforded it a certain respect, both out of necessity and sound philosophy, and this bond was given a label: Marriage. Marriage is, or at least was, the CONTEXT in which families are FORMED and MAINTAINED. That’s why it’s important. That’s why it’s different. To “open up” the definition of marriage to include relationships — even relationships between individuals with strong emotional connections — that do not share these essential components, is to actively undermine the importance of the family. Undermining the family isn’t a byproduct, it’s the whole point. Proponents of this move have also completely failed to offer a new definition. They’ve made their opposition to the “traditional” one known, but they will not suggest an alternative. If there is no alternative, then they must publicly admit their intention to obliterate the institution, rather than “redefine” it. If they wish to keep the institution then they must explain where the new lines will be drawn and — importantly — why. Definitions require lines of distinction. The “old” version of marriage drew a clear, obvious, logical, purposeful, meaningful and objective line. What about the new? Is marriage simply a romantic agreement between two individuals who love each other? If so, that opens up a whole slew of alternate manifestations of marriage, which either leaves the definition so “open” as to fade it into oblivion, or else it requires the pioneers of this edited thing to begin making a thousand stipulations until, before long, they’re doing exactly what they accused traditional marriage advocates of doing, only they’re now doing it for increasingly arbitrary and superficial reasons."
Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/06/26/let-me...
So many words to say absolutely nothing.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#55131 May 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
"First, let me explain this whole “marriage is between a man and a woman” deal. That isn’t an arbitrary designation. It isn’t fueled by hate. It isn’t bigotry. It isn’t intolerance. It’s simply the recognition of an utterly unavoidable reality. The union between a man and woman, in principle, has a power and a capacity which no other union could ever possess. For this reason it certainly is not “equal” to any other union. It IS different. That’s not to assign labels of inferiority or superiority, that’s simply to point out an obvious distinction. A man and a woman can create other humans. They can form families. They can bring forth life. This difference is not an aberration or a matter of mere semantics. It’s something important, serious, profound. This relationship has a potential that is completely unique. It has attributes that can not be emulated by any other forms of human relationships. What does all this mean? It means it is NOT equal because equal, by definition, means “sameness.” Sameness, by definition, can not apply to two relationships that are characteristically separated by such a vast and remarkable distinction. Societies across the globe, until recently, have recognized the power of the male-female bond and appreciated the fact that the survival and propagation of civilization DEPENDS ENTIRELY on this bond. Again, no other relationship bears that responsibility. So, in light of this, most societies have afforded it a certain respect, both out of necessity and sound philosophy, and this bond was given a label: Marriage. Marriage is, or at least was, the CONTEXT in which families are FORMED and MAINTAINED. That’s why it’s important. That’s why it’s different. To “open up” the definition of marriage to include relationships — even relationships between individuals with strong emotional connections — that do not share these essential components, is to actively undermine the importance of the family. Undermining the family isn’t a byproduct, it’s the whole point. Proponents of this move have also completely failed to offer a new definition. They’ve made their opposition to the “traditional” one known, but they will not suggest an alternative. If there is no alternative, then they must publicly admit their intention to obliterate the institution, rather than “redefine” it. If they wish to keep the institution then they must explain where the new lines will be drawn and — importantly — why. Definitions require lines of distinction. The “old” version of marriage drew a clear, obvious, logical, purposeful, meaningful and objective line. What about the new? Is marriage simply a romantic agreement between two individuals who love each other? If so, that opens up a whole slew of alternate manifestations of marriage, which either leaves the definition so “open” as to fade it into oblivion, or else it requires the pioneers of this edited thing to begin making a thousand stipulations until, before long, they’re doing exactly what they accused traditional marriage advocates of doing, only they’re now doing it for increasingly arbitrary and superficial reasons."
Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/06/26/let-me ...
Registered Earth Angel wrote:
<quoted text>
So many words to say absolutely nothing.
LOL, you wish.

He just exposed your marrage as a fraud.

But hey, I give you credit for the most reasoned response you've ever posted!

Smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#55132 May 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
"First, let me explain this whole....
Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/06/26/let-me ...
<quoted text>
LOL, you wish.
He just exposed your marrage as a fraud.
But hey, I give you credit for the most reasoned response you've ever posted!
Smile.
He did no such thing. He expressed an opinion. I could find someone who writes a blog about trampy, trailer-trash, tranny troll trucker turds and copy and paste that. Would my post, of someone's opinion, make you any less of a troll? Of course not.

You love to say that words define reality. We have the word marriage, and that's like a kick in the clitty to you. Tough shit.

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#55133 May 21, 2014
My sincere congratulations to Greg's state of Pennsylvania where his impact is obvious!

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/20/130077...
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#55134 May 21, 2014
hmm.
so let's do a quick state count review, just as a refresher.

1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Delaware
4. Hawaii
5. Iowa
6. Maine
7. Maryland
8. Massachusettes
9. Minnesota
10. New Hampshire
11. New Jersey
12. New Mexico
13. New York
14. Oregon
15. Pennsylvania
16. Rhode Island
17. Vermont
18. Washington
19. Illinois (as of June 1 2014)
20. Washington D.C.

Rulings being awaited by appellate courts sometime in the near future :
1. Utah
2. Oklahoma
3. Michigan
4. Idaho
5. Arkansas
6. Texas

There are approximately 70 courts cases working their way through the legal justice system in various states.

Things sure are turning around for all American citizens.

Probably by the end of the year 2014, more than half of the United States will allow legal same sex marriage.

Cali Girl 2014

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#55135 May 21, 2014
Ace wrote:
<quoted text>Dusty you're on topix all the time. Just when do you ever have time to please your man? Maybe your husband needs a good women to take care of him?
PS. did you know the underpenning on your home made mobile home is missing, or did you pawn it to pay your internet bill?
Hey,you spelled your name wrong
"ass"

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#55136 May 21, 2014
And SS couples are still only ever mutually sterile, pointless duplicate gender halves of marriage.

Clearly inferior.

Marrage at the most.

And there is not one Damn thing you can do about it.

Smile.

Cali Girl 2014

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#55137 May 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>KiMare wrote:
"First, let me explain this whole “marriage is between a man and a woman” deal. That isn’t an arbitrary designation. It isn’t fueled by hate. It isn’t bigotry. It isn’t intolerance. It’s simply the recognition of an utterly unavoidable reality. The union between a man and woman, in principle, has a power and a capacity which no other union could ever possess. For this reason it certainly is not “equal” to any other union. It IS different. That’s not to assign labels of inferiority or superiority, that’s simply to point out an obvious distinction. A man and a woman can create other humans. They can form families. They can bring forth life. This difference is not an aberration or a matter of mere semantics. It’s something important, serious, profound. This relationship has a potential that is completely unique. It has attributes that can not be emulated by any other forms of human relationships. What does all this mean? It means it is NOT equal because equal, by definition, means “sameness.” Sameness, by definition, can not apply to two relationships that are characteristically separated by such a vast and remarkable distinction. Societies across the globe, until recently, have recognized the power of the male-female bond and appreciated the fact that the survival and propagation of civilization DEPENDS ENTIRELY on this bond. Again, no other relationship bears that responsibility. So, in light of this, most societies have afforded it a certain respect, both out of necessity and sound philosophy, and this bond was given a label: Marriage. Marriage is, or at least was, the CONTEXT in which families are FORMED and MAINTAINED. That’s why it’s important. That’s why it’s different. To “open up” the definition of marriage to include relationships — even relationships between individuals with strong emotional connections — that do not share these essential components, is to actively undermine the importance of the family. Undermining the family isn’t a byproduct, it’s the whole point. Proponents of this move have also completely failed to offer a new definition. They’ve made their opposition to the “traditional” one known, but they will not suggest an alternative. If there is no alternative, then they must publicly admit their intention to obliterate the institution, rather than “redefine” it. If they wish to keep the institution then they must explain where the new lines will be drawn and — importantly — why. Definitions require lines of distinction. The “old” version of marriage drew a clear, obvious, logical, purposeful, meaningful and objective line. What about the new? Is marriage simply a romantic agreement between two individuals who love each other? If so, that opens up a whole slew of alternate manifestations of marriage, which either leaves the definition so “open” as to fade it into oblivion, or else it requires the pioneers of this edited thing to begin making a thousand stipulations until, before long, they’re doing exactly what they accused traditional marriage advocates of doing, only they’re now doing it for increasingly arbitrary and superficial reasons."
Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/06/26/let-me ...

LOL, you wish.

He just exposed your marrage as a fraud.

But hey, I give you credit for the most reasoned response you've ever posted!

Smile.
You have a "Mirage"....
Where you appear to have a "Marriage"
While you whoop it up with two
married Parishioners.

Frown
Rams Are Satan

Prague, Czech Republic

#55138 May 21, 2014
I look forward to God wiping out the tiny evil and sick big mouthed homosexual community. All deserve to die.

Cali Girl 2014

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#55140 May 21, 2014
Rams Are Satan wrote:
<quoted text>Complaint filed with moderators. Your account will be terminated soon. Btw, all Homosexuals should be hunted down and shot.
Complaint filed with Moderators,BTW,
my account will be terminated? So
will yours for saying all Homosexuals
should be shot,dummy!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#55141 May 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
And SS couples are still only ever mutually sterile, pointless duplicate gender halves of marriage.
Clearly inferior.
Marrage at the most.
And there is not one Damn thing you can do about it.
Smile.
Judged:
1
1
1
hmm.
so let's do a quick state count review, just as a refresher.

1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Delaware
4. Hawaii
5. Iowa
6. Maine
7. Maryland
8. Massachusettes
9. Minnesota
10. New Hampshire
11. New Jersey
12. New Mexico
13. New York
14. Oregon
15. Pennsylvania
16. Rhode Island
17. Vermont
18. Washington
19. Illinois (as of June 1 2014)
20. Washington D.C.

Rulings being awaited by appellate courts sometime in the near future :
1. Utah
2. Oklahoma
3. Michigan
4. Idaho
5. Arkansas
6. Texas

There are approximately 70 courts cases working their way through the legal justice system in various states.

Things sure are turning around for all American citizens.

Probably by the end of the year 2014, more than half of the United States will allow legal same sex marriage.

And to sweeten the pot a little, there's not a damn thing Kimare can do about it. Now let's all have nice toast in that regards. Cheers to all!
Ace

Benton, IL

#55142 May 21, 2014
Cali Girl 2014 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey,you spelled your name wrong
"ass"
Lol, good one :)
truth

Saint Louis, MO

#55143 May 21, 2014

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#55144 May 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Clearly inferior.
Opinion
KiMare wrote:
Marrage at the most.
There's no such word, etard.
KiMare wrote:
And there is not one Damn thing you can do about it.
Except for ruling after ruling in our favor and the fact that we can get married.
KiMare wrote:
Smile.
SecretSmile, you trampy, trailer-trash, tranny trucker troll turd.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#55145 May 21, 2014
Ace wrote:
<quoted text> Lol, good one :)
It's funny, because it's true. ;-)

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#55146 May 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
And there is not one Damn thing you can do about it.
Smile.
Here's what we're doing about it, Hunty. Enjoy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriag...

How many SSM's have your opinions prevented? What's that? I can't hear you....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#55147 May 21, 2014
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
Judged:
1
1
1
hmm.
so let's do a quick state count review, just as a refresher.
1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Delaware
4. Hawaii
5. Iowa
6. Maine
7. Maryland
8. Massachusettes
9. Minnesota
10. New Hampshire
11. New Jersey
12. New Mexico
13. New York
14. Oregon
15. Pennsylvania
16. Rhode Island
17. Vermont
18. Washington
19. Illinois (as of June 1 2014)
20. Washington D.C.
Rulings being awaited by appellate courts sometime in the near future :
1. Utah
2. Oklahoma
3. Michigan
4. Idaho
5. Arkansas
6. Texas
There are approximately 70 courts cases working their way through the legal justice system in various states.
Things sure are turning around for all American citizens.
Probably by the end of the year 2014, more than half of the United States will allow legal same sex marriage.
And to sweeten the pot a little, there's not a damn thing Kimare can do about it. Now let's all have nice toast in that regards. Cheers to all!
Here's my toast;

And SS couples are still only ever mutually sterile, pointless duplicate gender halves of marriage.

Clearly inferior.

Marrage at the most.

And there is not one Damn thing you can do about it.

Smile.
truth

Granite City, IL

#55148 May 21, 2014
http://time.com/107326/gay-marriage-poll/

American Support for Gay Marriage Hits Record High!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#55149 May 21, 2014
truth wrote:
http://time.com/107326/gay-mar riage-poll/
American Support for Gay Marriage Hits Record High!
That's what you said before Duck Dynasty...

Ss couples are embarrassingly inferior to marriage.
The Total Opinion of Many

Frankfurt, Germany

#55150 May 21, 2014
Cali Girl 2014 wrote:
<quoted text>
Complaint filed with Moderators,BTW,
my account will be terminated? So
will yours for saying all Homosexuals
should be shot,dummy!
All homosexuals should be gunned down.

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.

Spring Grove Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Widow of disgraced Fox Lake officer pleads not ... (Feb '16) 1 hr flake 15
News Constable: Police raid leaves Antioch woman hom... 1 hr oldlady 5
Shutdown Grimm road! (Jul '15) Aug 26 Mr Earl 21
News Gliniewicz aftermath, one year later Aug 26 Mr Earl 3
News Visitation, funeral arrangements set for Lt Gli... (Sep '15) Aug 26 Mr Earl 3
Joseph Gliniewicz (Sep '15) Aug 26 Human 115
News Fox Lake pension board delays Gliniewicz hearings Aug 26 marieclaire2637 1

Spring Grove Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Spring Grove Mortgages