Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

[baboon]

the liberal wrote:

<quoted text>Only if you hold it for me :)

do you like Sasquatch?

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Two really gay lesbians, and two barely gay lesbians.
Snicker.

As I thought, you really have no answer and I just blew your question out of the water.

Troll on Mangina Man.

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.
:-)

Geriatric troll droppings, Mangina Man.

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Two really gay lesbians, and two barely gay lesbians.
Snicker.

Marengo Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
As I thought, you really have no answer and I just blew your question out of the water.
Troll on Mangina Man.

Dream on. This is what happens when a idiot tries to reason instead of just troll.

1. I used YOUR argument about mating attraction, and YOU discounted it.

2. Fact of the matter is, your setting doesn't happen. A masculine lesbian wants to be in charge, or in heterosexual language, chauvinistic. Likewise, a feminine lesbian wants a masculine partner.

Next.

Snicker.

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.
:-)

Marengo Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
Geriatric troll droppings, Mangina Man.

That's more like it, troll.

No argument because you have no defense against even simple basic science.

How's it make your position look, you don't have religion and now you don't have science.

Snicker.

[banfatjan]

Professor Bubblegum Shoe wrote:

<quoted text>
No
.
Darwin died in 1882; 37 years before the Japanese invention of meth in 1919

ok smarty pants how about a crack head then

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

2. Fact of the matter is, your setting doesn't happen. A masculine lesbian wants to be in charge, or in heterosexual language, chauvinistic. Likewise, a feminine lesbian wants a masculine partner.
Next.
Snicker.

What a load of horse shit. I know lesbian couples of all varieties. How utterly naive of you to assume that lesbian couples come in one flavor (a butch and a fem).

Your opinions become more delusional by the minute. Please ring the charge nurse and ask her to up your meds.

Troll on, Mangina Man.

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
That's more like it, troll.
No argument because you have no defense against even simple basic science.
How's it make your position look, you don't have religion and now you don't have science.
Snicker.

Troll on, Kuntmare, Mangina Man.

[Quest]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
......
2. Fact of the matter is, your setting doesn't happen. A masculine lesbian wants to be in charge, or in heterosexual language, chauvinistic. Likewise, a feminine lesbian wants a masculine partner.
Next.
Snicker.

Why snicker? What you posted just isn't true. How many lesbian couples so you think - as a percentage of the lesbian population - adhere to this specific stereotype?

Hint:

I have met only one couple that even comes close. One. Out of hundreds.

Why do you pretend that your opinion is fact, when you obviously don't have any basis for your words?

[Quest]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
.......

It would be up to you to prove they are not, since you are the one making the claim.

So, in detail, please outline all of the ways that any gay couple's union today is substantially different that ANY straight person's union today.

Good luck with that.

[hmmmm]

Sheeez jon jon you sure like the word mangina.
Why would that be?

Marengo Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
Troll on, Kuntmare, Mangina Man.

[KiMare]

KiMare'a wrote;

Dream on. This is what happens when a idiot tries to reason instead of just troll.

1. I used YOUR argument about mating attraction, and YOU discounted it.

2. Fact of the matter is, your setting doesn't happen. A masculine lesbian wants to be in charge, or in heterosexual language, chauvinistic. Likewise, a feminine lesbian wants a masculine partner.

Next.

Snicker.

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Why snicker? What you posted just isn't true. How many lesbian couples so you think - as a percentage of the lesbian population - adhere to this specific stereotype?
Hint:
I have met only one couple that even comes close. One. Out of hundreds.
Why do you pretend that your opinion is fact, when you obviously don't have any basis for your words?

Mongrel Jonnyboy must have a contagious comprehension problem.

Nowhere have I limited lesbians to these two types. I was simply responding to MJ's question about those two types. In fact, I have noted in previous posts, the spectrum involved.

Just a heads up, sociologists have distinguished over 200 distinctions between masculinity and femininity. We all fall at varying places within our gender and orientation.

Smile.

[KiMare]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
It would be up to you to prove they are not, since you are the one making the claim.
So, in detail, please outline all of the ways that any gay couple's union today is substantially different that ANY straight person's union today.
Good luck with that.

1. First, gays are making the claim it is the same to impose an imposter relationship on marriage. Clearly you have no answer to the fundamental essence of marriage, a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

2. If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.

That should give you a start.

Snicker.

[the fact king]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
1. First, gays are making the claim it is the same to impose an imposter relationship on marriage. Clearly you have no answer to the fundamental essence of marriage, a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
2. If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
That should give you a start.
Snicker.

IF you would not spend so much time on this site harassing the gays you could catch me f*cking your wife......SNICKER

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare'a wrote;
Dream on. This is what happens when a idiot tries to reason instead of just troll.
1. I used YOUR argument about mating attraction, and YOU discounted it.
2. Fact of the matter is, your setting doesn't happen. A masculine lesbian wants to be in charge, or in heterosexual language, chauvinistic. Likewise, a feminine lesbian wants a masculine partner.
Next.
Snicker.
<quoted text>
Mongrel Jonnyboy must have a contagious comprehension problem.
Nowhere have I limited lesbians to these two types. I was simply responding to MJ's question about those two types. In fact, I have noted in previous posts, the spectrum involved.
Just a heads up, sociologists have distinguished over 200 distinctions between masculinity and femininity. We all fall at varying places within our gender and orientation.
Smile.

Another really great effort at back peddling. You're getting more pathetic by the second, Kuntmare. You've NEVER detailed any other type of lesbian couple, other than the butch and fem.

You got your clitty busted, again, and now you're pissed off.

[KiMare]

Marengo Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
Another really great effort at back peddling. You're getting more pathetic by the second, Kuntmare. You've NEVER detailed any other type of lesbian couple, other than the butch and fem.
You got your clitty busted, again, and now you're pissed off.

Hardly Mongrel,

I've detailed you as a idiot blonde lesbian many times.

:-)

[zol]

Bravo for civil unions. now gay people can be as miserable as straight people.

[secretary at paris family]

the fact king wrote:

<quoted text>IF you would not spend so much time on this site harassing the gays you could catch me f*cking your wife......SNICKER

if your wife was at home but she tells us you have a litle weiner thats why she is stepping out on you

[Quest]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
1. First, gays are making the claim it is the same to impose an imposter relationship on marriage..

No Dear, As taxpayers were a guaranteed equal protection under the law, and that includes marriage law.

If you would like to deny that, it's up to YOU to prove why is is rational and necessary to do so. You would have to prove WHY our marriages are "imposter". Why it is better for society if gay people can't marry. Why it's better for our children.

We already have proven our case - it's up to you to refute it.

As for the rest, you have posted this silliness before. Every line is based on logical fallacy that comes only from your own mind. Every line has already been addressed at one time or another.

Just because you are proud of it and think it relevant doesn't make it so.

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Hardly Mongrel,
I've detailed you as a idiot blonde lesbian many times.
:-)

Now you're so delusional that you've confused me with another user.

You're room mate in the senior home has upped his meds, so up yours.

Troll on Kuntmare, D.B.A the Mangina Man.