Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

Nov 30, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: CBS2

The Illinois House has approved a measure to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.

Comments
32,221 - 32,240 of 49,392 Comments Last updated 46 min ago
CDC

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37545
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Lilly, do you have a real job yet?
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>oh look everyone its a troll
Hulk

Enfield, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37546
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Interesting

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37547
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

Still, no logical response.

Anyone???

“Free your mind”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37548
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Still, no logical response.
Anyone???
So sad that you don't have anything better to do than to troll gay forums... SMH
Andrew Catherine Singer

San Luis Obispo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37550
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

the fact king wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO..... It is funny as hell that someone SO against gay marriage spends his entire day on this site talking to gay people.......I think he might just be a little curious about taking a hard cock in his mouth.......Just remember preacher just because you suck a dick you are not gay..... You just enjoy felling another man getting hard in your mouth.....Don't be ashamed God will understand & not damn you to hell.......Well not for sucking a dick.....God might be so understanding about you screwing that guys wife or when you stole from the church you preached at.......
It makes sense that YOU would support gay marriage, factless. However, no matter how many laws they pass allowing that, I seriously doubt whether Americans are ready to allow you to marry your WIENER DOGS.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37551
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

TXgurl wrote:
<quoted text>
So sad that you don't have anything better to do than to troll gay forums... SMH
It makes his micro-penis a little stiff. I should know, we live in the same neighborhood.

I'm Kimare's inner lesbian, and I approved this message.

Schizophrenia is a bitch.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37553
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

And STILL, no logical response.

Just look at the gay twirl ad homoan attacks above.

A desperate attempt to stop light that is kicking the sh/t out of darkness!

Oh, and proving that the biggest blondes live in Texas!

Smile.

“Free your mind”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37554
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
And STILL, no logical response.
Just look at the gay twirl ad homoan attacks above.
A desperate attempt to stop light that is kicking the sh/t out of darkness!
Oh, and proving that the biggest blondes live in Texas!
Smile.
Blah, blah, blah... babble on, parrot. You aren't capable of logical thinking so you have to repeat the same thing over and over... Polly want a cracker?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37555
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples; NOTHING!
A desperate attempt to stop light that is kicking the sh/t out of darkness!

Smile.
Fruits and nuts, twigs and berries.

A desperate attempt to stop a train that is rolling on down the track and gaining speed.

Let me know if your senile brain needs me explain that metaphor. I'll send a message up via the spinal cord. Of course, I'm not sure it will get past your ass; not much does.
Right

Oak Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37558
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

It is not logical to counter an illogical argument with logic. Perhaps that is why he didn't counter. The funny thing with referencing statistical information is that the numbers can be easily skewed to whatever outcome the analyzer chooses. For every thing referenced, one could easily find another study that disproves all those previously documented. Take for example the information posted above regarding the woman raised by gay parents. I could easily find many instances where a young woman could not bring home a boyfriend because her straight mother would hit on them, or even female friends, because her father acted inappropriately with them.
KiMare wrote:
STILL no logical counter to this fact;
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are the picture of defective failure. Mating behavior gone abusive with NOTHING to show for it.
STILL no logical counter to this fact;
A fruit tree bearing fruit.
A fruit tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A nut tree who never bears fruit wanting to be a fruit tree.
A nut tree hanging fruit on it's branches pretending to be a fruit tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' fruit trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call nut trees fruit trees too!
Hilarious!!!
Right

Oak Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37559
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Love it when people say something has been this way forever, why change it. Why don't we recant women voting? Why don't we go back to slavery? Why don't we stone adulterers? Why don't we re-institute prohibition? What are you afraid will happen if two people that love each other enter into a marriage? How you are making the stretch that defining a marriage as a union between two people as discriminatory is incredible. Who is being discriminated against? To say that it opens the door to polygamy is ludicrousness. I was expecting your next claim to be it encourages beastiality. However, it does raise an interesting point. If you are going to say that marriage is and always has been a union between a man and a women, don't you have to accept the fact that 2000 years ago, or the 6,000 year figure you have already used, polygamy was the norm? To state that this movement challenges the building block of human civilization is insane. Family is not defined by being a man and a woman. Again, what are you afraid of?
Samatha wrote:
how do they get away with making a patently false charge against a 6,000-year-old religious institution and the civil laws that it inspired?

If it is true that limiting the definition of marriage to a union between one man and one woman is inherently a violation of civil rights, wouldn’t it also be true that defining marriage as a union between just two people is equally discriminatory?
The advocates of same-sex marriage hate this challenge, because they have no intelligent response to it. By default, a capitulation to the same-sex marriage advocates represents future capitulation to the logic they use. That means support of same-sex marriage, to be consistent, must translate into support of polygamy and group marriages of any combination.
Recently, a columnist for the Huffington Post tried to make the case that, unlike same-sex marriage, which has never existed in the history of the world anywhere at any time, polygamy represents a clear and present danger to society. That’s the distinction, he claimed. He cites one infamous polygamist leader charged with sexual assaults and incest-related felony counts as examples of how this works. Of course, he ignores a virtual epidemic of violence and molestation in the homosexual community in favor of one isolated case in the polygamy community.
Eliyahu Federman also states:“There isn’t a shred of modern sociological evidence to support the claim that gay marriage is harmful to society, whereas there is a plethora of historical and contemporary evidence to illustrate the dangers associated with polygamy.”
Ten years ago, the notion of same-sex marriage was scarcely even discussed, let alone performed. So the absence of a body of evidence is a red herring. In the case of polygamy, however, we have thousands of years of history to examine.
It is amazing how quickly the same-sex marriage advocates have been able to rally support from the media, the cultural establishment, the government elite and the judiciary for a radical social experiment that challenges the fundamental building block of human civilization – the family.
Right

Oak Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37560
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

When did it become necessary to bear children in our to be married? So you are saying those unable to bear children are not allowed to be married? A women that has had a hysterectomy cannot be married? A man that is sterile cannot be married? A woman post-menopausal cannot be married? Keep reaching.
G-Wiz wrote:
so gays want what straight people already have right? impossible until scientists make it possible for them to bear children. sorry you guys will have to live in sin until then. waa, we cant be married waaa
Right

Oak Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37561
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

And if these marriages are so valuable and desirable, why do we have such a high divorce rate?

If we are going to impose laws based on someone's opinion of morality or immorality, let's start rounding up all the adulterers. Let's make tobacco and alcohol illegal. Heck why we are at it, let's get rid of electricity and mirrors too.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Procreation is a private decision which does not alter the fundamental right of the individual to marriage. No procreation intent, or even ability, is required, as made clear in Turner and others.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...
What are you afraid of

Oak Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37562
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Show your ignorance some more. How someone dresses or what they look like has nothing to do with their sexual preference. There are plenty of "straight" men that enjoy wearing women's clothing. So you would have all women ordered to wear skirts?
Docrahrah wrote:
I'd just like to say, what is wrong with a room full of men wearing tutu's, women makeup and wigs. Just doing the most perverted filthiest acts with each other that would make a true man sick. And what's wrong with sister Sally dressing like grandpa. Lol, lol...
What are you afraid of

Oak Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37563
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Very good post. How can you possibly legislate morality? If they did shouldn't we all be living as the Amish?
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays."
“There has always been homosexuality, ever since man and woman were invented. I guess there were gay apes. So that's not an issue. The Republican Party should stand for freedom and only freedom. Don't raise hell about the gays, the Blacks and the Mexicans. Free people have a right to do as they damn well please."
"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay." Conservative Icon, WW 2 hero, AZ Senator, and Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater
What are you afraid of

Oak Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37565
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

And there is where you are wrong. It has nothing to do with "straight" or "gay" being an identifier. It just has to do with people. Who is saying it is so polarizing to the masses? What constitutes a mass? How does enabling gays to be able to enter in a marriage disrespect you? Again, have to love it when people use "history" as a reason to justify their ignorance. So let us go back to plural marriages, let us marry our young women off at 13, let us re-institute slavery. Let us return to prohibition, take away women's right to vote, the list goes on an on.
G-Wiz wrote:
<quoted text>what is stupid is how you defend the bullying of Americans that don't want this. homosexuals are free to do whatever they want. Perhaps since marriage between homosexuals and heterosexuals is quite polarizing to the masses it could be called gay marriage or something like that. understand straight people also have rights. we want to be respected and accepted too. Its my belief gays are free to raise their own institutions just as straight people throughout history have done. what a beautiful thing that would be.
What are you afraid of

Oak Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37566
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Just because you are incapable of understanding a comment, that doesn't make it stupid, dismissive, diversionary, or deceitful.
If marriage is such a sacred, unique relationship, designed to protect and encourage a "natural" family why are there divorces? Among people that are married multiple times, which one was the sacred one?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a stupid comment. Who said that? Why is a dismissive, diversionary, deceitful statement like that necessary for a legitimate position?
<quoted text>
Because marriage represents a sacred, unique relationship to them. Because it is designed to protect and encourage a natural family, not a fake duplicate union pretending to be one.
<quoted text>
It most certainly is logical, and the only thing you pointed out is the lack of a logical answer. In fact, you can't even equate gay couples at the most basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Sorry.
Smile.
What are you afraid of

Oak Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37567
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

One has to have a logical statement to begin with in order to give a logical response. There isn't one here.
KiMare wrote:
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Still, no logical response.
Anyone???
You are correct

Waterloo, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37568
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

none here either.
What are you afraid of wrote:
One has to have a logical statement to begin with in order to give a logical response. There isn't one here.
<quoted text>
justsick

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37569
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

This is just sick.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Waggoner Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) Mon newpoly 1,900
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) Aug 24 Mr Ridgway 3,922
IL Who do you support for Lieutenant Governor in I... (Oct '10) Aug 20 Weneedchange 147
IL Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Illinois ... (Oct '10) Aug 2 nono 6,593
IL Who do you support for Secretary of State in Il... (Oct '10) Aug 1 Chicagobunny 528
IL Who do you support for Attorney General in Illi... (Oct '10) Jul '14 rdarbin 641
Who do you support for U.S. House in Illinois (... (Oct '10) Jun '14 newpoly 35
•••
•••
Waggoner Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Waggoner Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Waggoner People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Waggoner News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Waggoner
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••