Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

[die die die]

WOW!
You thunk that up all by yourself?

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>
If only you mattered...and could spell...

[Bump]

KarmasGonnaGetcha wrote:

<quoted text>
Ann Margret looked great in Carnal Knowledge, showing her big ol' titties and nice luscious booty!
<smirk>
<sneer>
<audible fart>

Bumptious bump.

[KiMare]

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
hey... that's the way it's done. when you know you don't have any argument call the other person a liar... even when the facts are staring you right in the face.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14404183

4 August 2011 Last updated at 12:26 ET

Stem cell sperm study leads to successful mouse births
By Caroline Parkinson Health editor, BBC News website

"The team, led by Mitinori Saitou, suggest the same procedure could be carried out using stem cells derived from adult skin cells."

Liar.

Time to go back in your hole Weeman.

[Brenda Lee Johnson]

As I said in a different post:

This is their goal. Make no mistake Obama will issue an executive order making homosexual marriage legal.

Gay Activists Demand Canada Lower Age of Consent for Anal Sex



TORONTO,Homosexual activists have long sought to distance themselves from pedophiles, however Canada’s most prominent homosexual activist group has now demanded the lowering the age of consent for anal sex to 14 from 16.

Reacting to the Conservative Government’s plan to raise the age of consent for Anal sex from 16 to 18, EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) has commenced a campaign to have the age of consent for anal sex lowered to 14 from 16. Laurie Arron, the director of advocacy for EGALE remarked to the Ottawa Citizen,“There’s no reason to treat anal sex differently than other sexual acts except to stigmatize gay and bisexual men.”

However, that statement is categorically false, speaking strictly from a medical standpoint. Even those who support homosexual sex acts warn nonetheless that anal sex is a dangerous activity, regardless of genders involved. The sex info site of the University of California at Santa Barbara, which can in no way be described as opposed to homosexual activity, nonetheless points out that anal sex is a dangerous practice.

Experts on sexual behavior, or “sexperts” at the site refers to them, warn that anal sex is the most dangerous behavior for transmission of HIV/AIDS and all other STDs since the anus is not designed for sexual activity as is the vagina. Moreover, the ‘sexperts’ warn that the practice also leads to fecal incontinence - loss of normal control of the sphincter muscles which leads to stool leaking from the rectum at unexpected times.

As the website puts it:“Even when people use lots of lubrication during anal sex, there can be tearing of the tissue inside the anus ... For this reason, anal sex is the riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS.

“Tiny tears in the anal tissue are like giant superhighways for the HIV viruses, allowing them to get inside the body and enter the blood system. Anal tears provide an opening for all the other STDs as well.

“It may be possible for repetitive anal sex to lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, which is the muscle that tightens after we defecate. Once weakened, feces can escape the anus against our will.

In response to the editorial, Jessica White West Vancouver, B.C. wrote a letter to the editor of the National Post.ÂÂ The published letter stated,“If both vaginal and anal intercourse were in accordance with natural law and did not discriminate in terms of consequences, this would be true. However, this is not the case with homosexual sex, as two people of the same sex do not have the required body parts to interact sexually and their intercourse can never be fruitful.”

White continued,“Furthermore, their sexual practices result in both physical and emotional damage, as is evidenced in numerous studies. More than 80% of AIDS cases in Canada are among homosexual or bisexual males; other diseases suffered either exclusively, or in larger percentages by the homosexual population, include: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, HPV, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis B and C, and syphilis.”

[Sphincter boy]

Put a cork in it.

[dances with weebles]

Rufis wrote:

Homosexuals are a plague to this already messed up society.....I think they should all be burned at the stake, or hung by a noose for all to see......homosexuals make the good Lord Jesus Christ frown and Satans smile.

i often wonder about things... things like, if people had only one eyeball; how could you tell when they were looking at you cross-eyed?

btw... this makes almost as little sense as what you posted... keep up the good work.

[Marengo Jon]

Brenda Lee Johnson wrote:

As I said in a different post: Jack Schitt.

Brenda, have you been fisting again? Loose lips sink ships, gurlfriend.

[Marengo Jon]

Rufis wrote:

Homosexuals are a plague to this already messed up society.....I think they should all be burned at the stake, or hung by a noose for all to see......homosexuals make the good Lord Jesus Christ frown and Satans smile.

Pretty presumptuous of you, Ruffy, to speak on the Lord's behalf. How do you know he isn't shedding a tear over your disgraceful and hateful intolerance of others? Jesus did hang with thieves, leppers, and ho's, you know. I'm willing to bet one of the apostles was a tad light in his Birkenstocks.

[Cool Hand Luke]

It does not say shut up and accept deviance, it doesn't say be quite and let homosexuals destroy Christianity.

Marengo Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
Pretty presumptuous of you, Ruffy, to speak on the Lord's behalf. How do you know he isn't shedding a tear over your disgraceful and hateful intolerance of others? Jesus did hang with thieves, leppers, and ho's, you know. I'm willing to bet one of the apostles was a tad light in his Birkenstocks.

[Just Think]

Cool Hand Luke wrote:

It does not say shut up and accept deviance, it doesn't say be quite and let homosexuals destroy Christianity.
<quoted text>

Christianity must be pretty lame if a small minority such has homosexuals have the power to destroy it...

[KiMare]

"One would therefore expect greater parental responsiveness towards one's own offspring than towards unrelated children, and this will result in more positive outcomes and fewer negative outcomes towards one's own children than towards other children in which one is expected to invest (i.e. stepchildren). "If child abuse is a behavioral response influenced by natural selection, then it is more likely to occur when there are reduced inclusive fitness payoffs owing to uncertain or low relatedness."[16] Owing to these adaptations from natural selection, child abuse is more likely to be committed by stepparents than genetic parents – both are expected to invest heavily in the children, but genetic parents will have greater child-specific parental love that promotes positive caretaking and inhibits maltreatment."

Why would step parent situations be different in a gay union?

[Not Yet Equal]

Cinderella effect data is based on step parent and even mom's casual boyfriend data, not same sex families or adoptive straight families. These families are very different. The data does not hold up for adoptive parents.

You are attempting to compare families that have experienced divorce and re blending to families where the relationship of the parents has remained intact for the life of the child. Intact marriages are not the same as families of divorce and remarriage.

Adoption is not the same as a step child relationship:

"Although remarriage of a father or mother can have bad consequences for children, when a couple adopts a baby unrelated to either of them its prospects are much brighter... parents treat their adopted children just as well as biological children."

"Two recent studies help to clarify the issue of how well adoptive children are treated. The first, published in 2007, found that children in adoptive households are treated better than children in homes with two genetic parents."

Whatever the reasons for the Cinderella effect, it is now quite clear that it is not triggered by a lack of genetic relationship. After all, adoptive parents take better care of children than birth parents do. It seems that caring for children, related or not, involves a deep human need that is better satisfied by adoption than step-parenting." http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human...

[KiMare]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

Cinderella effect data is based on step parent and even mom's casual boyfriend data, not same sex families or adoptive straight families. These families are very different. The data does not hold up for adoptive parents.
You are attempting to compare families that have experienced divorce and re blending to families where the relationship of the parents has remained intact for the life of the child. Intact marriages are not the same as families of divorce and remarriage.
Adoption is not the same as a step child relationship:
"Although remarriage of a father or mother can have bad consequences for children, when a couple adopts a baby unrelated to either of them its prospects are much brighter... parents treat their adopted children just as well as biological children."
"Two recent studies help to clarify the issue of how well adoptive children are treated. The first, published in 2007, found that children in adoptive households are treated better than children in homes with two genetic parents."
Whatever the reasons for the Cinderella effect, it is now quite clear that it is not triggered by a lack of genetic relationship. After all, adoptive parents take better care of children than birth parents do. It seems that caring for children, related or not, involves a deep human need that is better satisfied by adoption than step-parenting." http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human...

Nice gay twirl. Sorry, but I've addressed this before and was waiting for your slither.

1. The principle is that a biological parent has more care and interest in a child than a none biological substitute. A gay couple ALWAYS involves at least one none biological substitute.

2. Look at the specifics of adoptive family studies. Do you know what they mean when they say adoptive parents take better care? Children in adoptive homes have much more severe problems than children in biological homes. Adoptive parents are FORCED to spend more time and care dealing with the problems. In spite of that extra attention, children in adoptive homes fare far worse than children in normal homes.

[Not Yet Equal]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice gay twirl. Sorry, but I've addressed this before and was waiting for your slither.
1. The principle is that a biological parent has more care and interest in a child than a none biological substitute. A gay couple ALWAYS involves at least one none biological substitute.
2. Look at the specifics of adoptive family studies. Do you know what they mean when they say adoptive parents take better care? Children in adoptive homes have much more severe problems than children in biological homes. Adoptive parents are FORCED to spend more time and care dealing with the problems. In spite of that extra attention, children in adoptive homes fare far worse than children in normal homes.

And as usual, your response relies on demeaning, dehumanizing, pejorative terminology and insults while failing to provide any scientific justification or legitimate governmental interest sufficient to deny equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.

You still confuse step parents who may resent the child they had no interest in having, with adoptive parents who are motivated to be good parents. Adoptive parents are always motivated to be a parent, while many biological parents and step parents are not so motivated. Again, the science shows adopted children are treated better than biological children.

While true some adopted children have more problems when adopted after being abused and discarded by their straight parents, children adopted at birth or as infants don't have those same challenges.

But regardless, we don't deny equal rights to straight families based on whether the child is adopted by one or both parents, or even how likely they are to be decent parents. We don't even deny equal marriage rights to convicted child abusers, rapists, and others even while serving time in prison for their crimes against spouses and children.

Again, you provide no valid excuse for harming gay couples and their children through denial of equal treatment under the law.

[KiMare]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
And as usual, your response relies on demeaning, dehumanizing, pejorative terminology and insults while failing to provide any scientific justification or legitimate governmental interest sufficient to deny equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.
You still confuse step parents who may resent the child they had no interest in having, with adoptive parents who are motivated to be good parents. Adoptive parents are always motivated to be a parent, while many biological parents and step parents are not so motivated. Again, the science shows adopted children are treated better than biological children.
While true some adopted children have more problems when adopted after being abused and discarded by their straight parents, children adopted at birth or as infants don't have those same challenges.
But regardless, we don't deny equal rights to straight families based on whether the child is adopted by one or both parents, or even how likely they are to be decent parents. We don't even deny equal marriage rights to convicted child abusers, rapists, and others even while serving time in prison for their crimes against spouses and children.
Again, you provide no valid excuse for harming gay couples and their children through denial of equal treatment under the law.

You are going to fall and hurt yourself gay twirling that hard!

I simply clarified exactly what the Cinderella Effect says and what the adoptive parent study actually said.

Both of which you misrepresented. You should be apologizing for lying.

The fact that the truth offends you is simply exposure of your denial.

The fact that gay couples inherently hold dangers to children ALONG with denying them one gender and at least one parent both disqualifies them being equated to marriage and should deny them adopting or fostering children.

The fact is, you are desperately trying to make a bent rod fit in a straight hole.

[Not Yet Equal]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You are going to fall and hurt yourself gay twirling that hard!
I simply clarified exactly what the Cinderella Effect says and what the adoptive parent study actually said.
Both of which you misrepresented. You should be apologizing for lying.
The fact that the truth offends you is simply exposure of your denial.
The fact that gay couples inherently hold dangers to children ALONG with denying them one gender and at least one parent both disqualifies them being equated to marriage and should deny them adopting or fostering children.
The fact is, you are desperately trying to make a bent rod fit in a straight hole.

And again, another post that relies on personal insults and demeaning, dehumanizing, pejorative terminology while failing to provide any scientific justification or legitimate governmental interest sufficient to deny equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.

You misrepresent the science. You are adding your own "twirl" to support your prejudice. It is you who should apologize for lying. Again; "Whatever the reasons for the Cinderella effect, it is now quite clear that it is not triggered by a lack of genetic relationship. After all, adoptive parents take better care of children than birth parents do. It seems that caring for children, related or not, involves a deep human need that is better satisfied by adoption than step-parenting." http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human ...

[Quest]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You are going to fall and hurt yourself gay twirling that hard!
I simply clarified exactly what the Cinderella Effect says and what the adoptive parent study actually said.
.....

Your whole "twirling" schtick is silly. You seem to use it when you don't have any rational argument against something a poster types.

And, really, if you are against adoption, what do you suggest we do with unwanted children?

Orphanages? Euthanasia?

I know two gay couples who adopted older special needs kids. I've seen the strength of character and commitment it takes, and the rewards it can bring. You should be thankful when good folks step up to that plate.

I wish there were more of them willing to do so.

[KiMare]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
And again, another post that relies on personal insults and demeaning, dehumanizing, pejorative terminology while failing to provide any scientific justification or legitimate governmental interest sufficient to deny equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.
You misrepresent the science. You are adding your own "twirl" to support your prejudice. It is you who should apologize for lying. Again; "Whatever the reasons for the Cinderella effect, it is now quite clear that it is not triggered by a lack of genetic relationship. After all, adoptive parents take better care of children than birth parents do. It seems that caring for children, related or not, involves a deep human need that is better satisfied by adoption than step-parenting." http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human ...

I have to admit I threw a little pejorative terminology in the last time. I just didn't want you to be a total liar.

Smirk.

[KiMare]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Your whole "twirling" schtick is silly. You seem to use it when you don't have any rational argument against something a poster types.
And, really, if you are against adoption, what do you suggest we do with unwanted children?
Orphanages? Euthanasia?
I know two gay couples who adopted older special needs kids. I've seen the strength of character and commitment it takes, and the rewards it can bring. You should be thankful when good folks step up to that plate.
I wish there were more of them willing to do so.

'smirk' is a twist of the reality knife sunk to the hilt into denial.

For instance, you and I both know we aren't talking about adoption.

I have worked around family issues professionally all my life. My wife and I have fostered children all through our thirty six years of marriage. We have counseled and supported adoptive families. I talked last night to a friend who with his wife adopted six children of various nationalities. My wife talked Friday with another friend who 15 years ago adopted a drug baby. You have no idea what they have dealt with.

There is not a single parent I know who fostered, step-parented or adopted that wouldn't have preferred seeing those children with their biological parents in a healthy situation.

What I resent is someone who pretends they can match what God and nature designed. They don't do it for the child, they do it to pretend their denial is real. Even worse, they have the perversion to deliberately birth a child without a parent.

The life of a child put in a twisted situation and told it is normal. And forever that child lives between reality and denial. That is what your denial leads to.

[Huh]

Just another case of Dems gone wild!!! Mike Madigan and Quinn can be real proud of jumping on the gay band wagon!!! How can such a small % of population have a sympathic ear in Springfield when we are BROKE and the same guys have a tin ear to solutions to real problems ???? KEEP VOTING FOR THOSE GUYS in a very few years we will all head for Indiana!