Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

[Whiny babies]

I was BORN ugly and have been discriminated against DAILY. That's life.....get use to it!
Of course it's not fair....get use to it!
What a bunch of Whiners!

[Dusty Mangina]

Whiny babies wrote:

I was BORN ugly and have been discriminated against DAILY. That's life.....get use to it!
Of course it's not fair....get use to it!
What a bunch of Whiners!

Your face doesn't make you ugly, but your attitude does.

[the fact king]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
Your face doesn't make you ugly, but your attitude does.

I have a face you can set on

[Whiny babies]

Back at ya....A HOLE!

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
Your face doesn't make you ugly, but your attitude does.

[the fact king]

I do give rim jobs

[question]

Have you ever rimmed yourself?

the fact king wrote:

I do give rim jobs

[booie booie]

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! And there ain't nothing but steers and queers in Texas. There ain't no horns on me, maybe I should go

Smile.

daddy where are you?

[I thinking]

Love

[the fact king]

any of you so called butch dikes show up in Mattoon I'll make a real woman out of you

[KiMare]

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

Rev Ken; Any so-called duplication of sexuality stereotypically ignores the basis for relationship which is specific to the individuals as consenting adults.

KiMare'a wrote; It is interesting that you generalize the meaning of 'sexuality' and 'relationship' to a meaningless opinion of anyone. The only thing it does is expose the duplicity of your argument...

The fact of the matter is, the range of masculine to feminine sexuality has been distinguished by social scientists with at least two hundred specific characteristics. Those differences are so vast, marriage has been portrayed as the union of Mars and Venus.

What you ignore is that evolution fundamentally operates on the basis of mutation. Some mutations enable survival, others are defective dead ends. There is no morality in that difference, it is simply a biological reality. GLBT's exist at the crossover point of masculinity and femininity holding about 4% of the population. That is an incredibly narrow position to not qualify for duplication. Especially when you remove bisexuals and transsexuals who readily admit a biological sexuality confusion.

Nor do I ignore the basis of any relationship. I rightly distinguish between relationships. As noted before, so does the law. It is why we have gender, age, relationship and number requirements regarding marriage.

You make the incredibly silly assertion that 'consenting adults' can define their relationship any way they want and society has to acquiesce to it.

Not trying to be crude, but by mentioning 'consent', you simply expose the inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning expression of sexuality at the most intimate physical level, a gay couple is the union of Uranus and Uranus. Hardly a comparison with the complimentary design of a male and female sexual union.

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

You make the incredibly silly assertion that 'consenting adults' can define their relationship any way they want and society has to acquiesce to it.
Not trying to be crude, but by mentioning 'consent', you simply expose the inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning expression of sexuality at the most intimate physical level, a gay couple is the union of Uranus and Uranus. Hardly a comparison with the complimentary design of a male and female sexual union.

Society has accepted gay marriage. In several years, this will be a non issue. In several years, you'll still be an irrelevant screaming troll. Again, you attempt to reduce SSM to anal sex, Kuntmary.

I'm your smell mangina and I approve this message.

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

Not trying to be crude,.....

REALLY?! WHY TURN OVER A NEW LEAF TODAY?

[KiMare]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
Society has accepted gay marriage. In several years, this will be a non issue. In several years, you'll still be an irrelevant screaming troll. Again, you attempt to reduce SSM to anal sex, Kuntmary.
I'm your smell mangina and I approve this message.

1. Society has not accepted gay 'marriage'.

2. I did not reduce ss'M' to anal sex, you reduced marriage to a friendship.

3. I pointed out the difference between natural sex and inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning sex.

Your thinking is what stinks.

Snicker.

[thisgaygirl_]

If you don't want gay marriage, then don't do it. Worry about yourself .

[gay]

I'm not

[KiMare]

thisgaygirl_ wrote:

If you don't want gay marriage, then don't do it. Worry about yourself .

No.

Quite trying to impose an imposter relationship on marriage.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a direct defective contradiction to the very core goal of evolution. Literally 'unmarriage'.

Smile.

[KiMareisanAnalRi ng]

Hetero wrote:

<quoted text>
Anal sex is demeaning my wife's ass (pun intended). I've been married to the same woman for over 30 years in a totally monogamous relationship and, I can assure you, her orgasmic intensity is often greater with anal than with vaginal. She also immensely enjoys the occasional rim job I give her.

Smirk

Sneer

Audible Fart

[Not Yet Equal]

"In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

[Not Yet Equal]

"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

[Not Yet Equal]

"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."