Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

Nov 30, 2010 Full story: CBS2 50,020

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

Full Story

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37661 Feb 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I feel no embarrassment in demonstrating your attempts to justify harming others needlessly through denial of equal treatment under the law, is irrational and based on your personal prejudice.
Nor do I delight in exposing your irrational prejudice. I only bother because the prejudice and discrimination you promote results in real harm to real people.
You still fail to demonstrate any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage to same gender couples. Clearly, it is you who remains in denial.
Truth is irrational and prejudicial?

You have yet to give a rational rebuttal to my points. Look at your post. Ad homoan attacks without a single specific rebuttal!

Moreover, you give partial quotes that distort the truth of SCOTUS rulings, and refuse to correct them when asked. It is another response that destroys the moral integrity of your position.

The government does have a legitimate interest in protecting the sole and best birthplace of every other human relationship. It has NO legitimate interest in extending those protections selectively to a friendship while discriminating against numerous other types of friendships.

That is the simple truth.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37662 Feb 16, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the strongest weapons we have is the enemy itself
.
When visitors stop by our chat room and read all the horrible things the snarling GOD people say to us; the visitors quickly become sympathetic to our crusade for better treatment
.
Our approval ratings are approaching an amazing 60% nationwide
.
This message is currently being read by 122 in the Gay Lesbian chat room combined with 269 from the US Politics chat room; so we have a substantial current reader base total of 391 people at this very moment
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.
mahz

Troy, IL

#37663 Feb 16, 2013
No one cares what you think KiMary. You can cry about it all you want ya little bigot, but in a couple days IL will be the 10th state in the union to allow same sex marriage. It won't be long before the other 40 follow. Nothing you can do it about it except die and let the times pass you by. Equality is on the rise everywhere. You can't stop progress.
mahz

Troy, IL

#37664 Feb 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth is irrational and prejudicial?
You have yet to give a rational rebuttal to my points. Look at your post. Ad homoan attacks without a single specific rebuttal!
Moreover, you give partial quotes that distort the truth of SCOTUS rulings, and refuse to correct them when asked. It is another response that destroys the moral integrity of your position.
The government does have a legitimate interest in protecting the sole and best birthplace of every other human relationship. It has NO legitimate interest in extending those protections selectively to a friendship while discriminating against numerous other types of friendships.
That is the simple truth.
Smile.
When "truth" is a made fantasy world inside the head of some deranged bigot then yes, it does come across as quite irrational and prejudicial. Your "simple truth" is a simple one because it only exists in your simple brain.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37666 Feb 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth is irrational and prejudicial?
You have yet to give a rational rebuttal to my points. Look at your post. Ad homoan attacks without a single specific rebuttal!
Moreover, you give partial quotes that distort the truth of SCOTUS rulings, and refuse to correct them when asked. It is another response that destroys the moral integrity of your position.
The government does have a legitimate interest in protecting the sole and best birthplace of every other human relationship. It has NO legitimate interest in extending those protections selectively to a friendship while discriminating against numerous other types of friendships.
That is the simple truth.
Smile.
mahz wrote:
<quoted text>
When "truth" is a made fantasy world inside the head of some deranged bigot then yes, it does come across as quite irrational and prejudicial. Your "simple truth" is a simple one because it only exists in your simple brain.
Smirk.
Ad homoan troll attack.

Still waiting for a rational rebuttle...

Smile

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37667 Feb 16, 2013
mahz wrote:
No one cares what you think KiMary. You can cry about it all you want ya little bigot, but in a couple days IL will be the 10th state in the union to allow same sex marriage. It won't be long before the other 40 follow. Nothing you can do it about it except die and let the times pass you by. Equality is on the rise everywhere. You can't stop progress.
I like to think I am poking holes in a fallacy balloon full of fart air.

The blast of air causes a gay twirling, limp wristed hissy fit.

Snicker.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#37668 Feb 16, 2013
No matter how you choose to conceptualize marriage for yourself, legally it is a fundamental right of the individual. While churches may place any restrictions on their own ceremonies they choose, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated.

While procreation has never been a requirement for marriage, even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. The only eligibility requirement for a fundamental right is being human. Reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Gay people qualify.

Gay people are asking to be treated equally under the laws, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.

Neither tradition nor gender provides a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#37669 Feb 16, 2013
"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.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

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..."
(Gill v OPM)
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#37670 Feb 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
We've had legal gay marriage in America for 8 years already
http://makeitequal.org/
.
The only thing that has changed in 8 years is an increase in the number of legally married couples
.
The very fact that you didn't know that; is proof that gay marriage has no adverse affect your marriage
Oh My

Plattsburg, MO

#37671 Feb 16, 2013
just pass the stupid law and let the lawmakers get back to the work on issues that effect every man, woman, and child in this bankrupt poor example of a state.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37673 Feb 16, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
We've had legal gay marriage in America for 8 years already
http://makeitequal.org/
.
The only thing that has changed in 8 years is an increase in the number of legally married couples
.
The very fact that you didn't know that; is proof that gay marriage has no adverse affect your marriage
Before any other issue can be put on the table, the basic question of whether a relationship qualifies as marriage must be answered.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a defective, desolate contradiction of the very basic goal of evolution.

Hence, the very term 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron. Literally 'unmarriage'.

That reality can't be legislated or legalized.

Sorry.

Smile.
Time

Drakes Branch, VA

#37674 Feb 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you
..........
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Your "If - Thens" aren't based on logic, and your conclusions are not based in fact.

Why keep posting this, when you know it isn't truth-based?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#37675 Feb 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Before any other issue can be put on the table, the basic question of whether a relationship qualifies as marriage must be answered.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a defective, desolate contradiction of the very basic goal of evolution.
Hence, the very term 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron. Literally 'unmarriage'.
That reality can't be legislated or legalized.
Sorry.
Smile.
It was two of you heteros that ate the forbidden fruit and received the curse of childbirth as your reward
.
++++++++++
Genesis 3:16> Unto the woman HE said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorowe and thy conception. In sorow thou shalt bring forth children: and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and hee shall rule ouer thee."
++++++++++
.
Gays are exempt from the curse of childbirth; but we do have biblical marriage instructions in this example from the Authorized King James Bible:
.
++++++++++
1 Samuel 18 :1> And it came to passe when hee made an ende of speaking vnto Saul, that the soule of Ionathan was knit with the soule of Dauid, and Ionathan loued him as his owne soule.
.
1 Samuel 18:3> Then Ionathan and Dauid made a couenant, because he loued him as his owne soule.
.
1 Samuel 18:4> And Ionathan stript himselfe of the robe that was vpon him, and gaue it to Dauid, and his garments, euen to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
.
1 Samuel 20:41> And assoone as the ladde was gone, Dauid arose out of a place toward the South, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himselfe three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, vntill Dauid exceeded.
.
1 Samuel 20:42> And Ionathan said to Dauid, Goe in peace, forasmuch as wee haue sworne both of vs in the Name of the Lord, saying; The Lord be betweene me and thee, and betweene my seede and thy seede for euer. And hee arose, and departed: and Ionathan went into the citie.
.
2 Samuel 1:25> How are the mightie fallen in the midst of the battell! O Ionathan, thou wast slaine in thine high places.
.
2 Samuel 1:26> I am distressed for thee, my brother Ionathan, very pleasant hast thou beene vnto mee: thy loue to mee was wonderfull, passing the loue of women.
++++++++++
Time

Drakes Branch, VA

#37676 Feb 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Before any other issue can be put on the table, the basic question of whether a relationship qualifies as marriage must be answered.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
.....
It has been answered by a multitude of other countries and a variety of states in this country.

The results are already in.

I know you think you are clever with your "definition", but it has no bearing on marriage at all, since no marriage is required in order to have sex, and marriage only places such constraints on sex as each couple and individual chooses.

What types and sorts of "mating behaviors" each couple might engage in are intentionally absent from marriage law, as long as all parties are able to legally consent.
Time

Drakes Branch, VA

#37677 Feb 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
....
Gay couples are a defective, desolate contradiction of the very basic goal of evolution.
Hence, the very term 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron. Literally 'unmarriage'.
That reality can't be legislated or legalized.
Sorry.
Smile.
That's only your opinion, and one not based in logic or reality.

It may be YOUR "truth", but it doesn't apply to anyone else.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37680 Feb 16, 2013
Time wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "If - Thens" aren't based on logic, and your conclusions are not based in fact.
Why keep posting this, when you know it isn't truth-based?
I'm sorry, your unspecific opinion does nothing to validate your claim. In fact it makes you look stupid.

Which begs the question, why does it annoy you then...

Why a specific one and see who has the facts and logic?

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37681 Feb 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Before any other issue can be put on the table, the basic question of whether a relationship qualifies as marriage must be answered.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a defective, desolate contradiction of the very basic goal of evolution.
Hence, the very term 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron. Literally 'unmarriage'.
That reality can't be legislated or legalized.
Sorry.
Smile.
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
It was two of you heteros that ate the forbidden fruit and received the curse of childbirth as your reward
.
++++++++++
Genesis 3:16> Unto the woman HE said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorowe and thy conception. In sorow thou shalt bring forth children: and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and hee shall rule ouer thee."
++++++++++
.
Gays are exempt from the curse of childbirth; but we do have biblical marriage instructions in this example from the Authorized King James Bible:
.
++++++++++
1 Samuel 18 :1> And it came to passe when hee made an ende of speaking vnto Saul, that the soule of Ionathan was knit with the soule of Dauid, and Ionathan loued him as his owne soule.
.
1 Samuel 18:3> Then Ionathan and Dauid made a couenant, because he loued him as his owne soule.
.
1 Samuel 18:4> And Ionathan stript himselfe of the robe that was vpon him, and gaue it to Dauid, and his garments, euen to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
.
1 Samuel 20:41> And assoone as the ladde was gone, Dauid arose out of a place toward the South, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himselfe three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, vntill Dauid exceeded.
.
1 Samuel 20:42> And Ionathan said to Dauid, Goe in peace, forasmuch as wee haue sworne both of vs in the Name of the Lord, saying; The Lord be betweene me and thee, and betweene my seede and thy seede for euer. And hee arose, and departed: and Ionathan went into the citie.
.
2 Samuel 1:25> How are the mightie fallen in the midst of the battell! O Ionathan, thou wast slaine in thine high places.
.
2 Samuel 1:26> I am distressed for thee, my brother Ionathan, very pleasant hast thou beene vnto mee: thy loue to mee was wonderfull, passing the loue of women.
++++++++++
Excuse me. This debate is not about the Bible. If you have a counter for the basic scientific essence of marriage, then please present it. If not, I'll take your lack of direct response and change of subject as a concession.

If you want to have a separate discussion about marriage and the Bible, I'm game. As a first shot, please explain why David would be judged for adultery with Bathsheba, and not with Jonathon if they had a sexual relationship?

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37682 Feb 16, 2013
Time wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been answered by a multitude of other countries and a variety of states in this country.
The results are already in.
I know you think you are clever with your "definition", but it has no bearing on marriage at all, since no marriage is required in order to have sex, and marriage only places such constraints on sex as each couple and individual chooses.
What types and sorts of "mating behaviors" each couple might engage in are intentionally absent from marriage law, as long as all parties are able to legally consent.
The basic essence of marriage has been ignored, it can't be 'answered' because it is a fact.

Moreover, you are dishonest about the basis of government interest in marriage;

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma

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

"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels

"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill

Moreover, you are simply equating a selective friendship with marriage. Not only a radical dumbing down of marriage, but prejudicial in every aspect of it's claim. Additionally, the government has no prevailing interest in protecting a friendship.

Smile.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#37683 Feb 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
'Marriage equity'?
Two people. Anything else?
All I see is an imposter relationship masquerading as a marriage when it is nothing more than a friendship.
Smirk.
Nothing more than a friendship...because we all have sex, make out, romance, cohabitate, have children with, and etc with friends am I right?

You must have some very interesting friendships.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#37684 Feb 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
My bad.
The sad thing is, I know better, and usually resist.
My fear is that someone who doesn't know better might drop by and think there is merit to the excuses. So every now and then, I feel the need to respond.
I'll also claim the excuse others are feeding it as well, but I know that is a poor one. Even abuse is reinforcement, though I promise my motives were pure. I'll try to do better.
Personally I like seeing him get spanked page after page. It may be feeding a troll but I've actually learned a lot of good arguments from reading peoples responses to idiots on this site. I see them as a sort of target practic.

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.

Westchester Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
WildBill and McCambell 4 hr Taxpayer for years 8
Retired police sergeant found shot dead in back... (Jun '12) 4 hr grapevine 9
murder on ash street (Mar '13) 19 hr Adam 9
FBI investigating Oak Lawn Trustee Bob Streit (Dec '12) 19 hr Right NOW and THEN 22
Scavo soon to be back on the loose (Oct '13) 20 hr Curious RAT Inves... 23
American News Post Investigate McCambell 20 hr Curious RAT Inves... 3
Petition Walkers 23 hr Tea Partier 5
Westchester Dating

more search filters

less search filters

Westchester Jobs

Westchester People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Westchester News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Westchester

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]