Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
i already did... my grandson.

No, you claimed he was conceived with your daughter's stem cell DNA. Not only that, you said it is a common practice in hospitals all over the country.

I asked you to give one proof that is being practiced.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
each one of your 'facts' begins with 'if you believe'... that shows that it's nothing more than poorly thought out opinions which you have listed.
very sloppy.

Lets take one example of your assertion and test it (You can pick one and do it if you think I have been unfair);

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

Your assertion is that this is "a poorly thought out opinion"?

-You are asserting that a gay union provides a child with more than one gender?

-You are asserting that a gay union can provide a child with more than one natural parent?

I assert that you have given one of your most stupendously idiotic opinions yet!

I hope you have a really fat a//, because I feel bad kicking it so often.

Smile.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Lets take one example of your assertion and test it (You can pick one and do it if you think I have been unfair);
"If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent"
Your assertion is that this is "a poorly thought out opinion"?
-You are asserting that a gay union provides a child with more than one gender?
-You are asserting that a gay union can provide a child with more than one natural parent?
I assert that you have given one of your most stupendously idiotic opinions yet!
I hope you have a really fat a//, because I feel bad kicking it so often.
Smile.

You rely on pejorative terminology and irrational prejudice:

Use of the word "condemn" is reveals your prejudice. Having parents of one gender is not a condemnation. We know it is the relationship between the child and the parents that determines success, not the gender of the parent. Unless raised in a bubble, the children will have role models of both genders in their lives.

Having parents of both genders is no guarantee of success. Abuse and divorce still happen. Anyone who has had any contact with CPS will also tell you, biological children are often abused, beaten, and killed by their biological parent, usually the father. It is irrational to believe having two opposite sex parents is a guarantee of success.

Children who are adopted are often rescued from a life of institutional care. They have not been condemned at all. Other children, as previously demonstrated, may have biological links to both parents, or may have one parent as the biological parent and the other as the birth parent.

Yet getting married does not require having children. Many straight and gay people have no such desire or intent, while others have no ability due to age, etc.

Therefore, this excuse for denial of equality is irrational.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Excuse me?
A 'intact' family is a mother, father and biological children.
A gay union can NEVER identify with a 'intact' family.
That really is disgusting gay twirl. It insults anyone who cares that every child deserves a mother and father or the very best substitute of that setting. Even more disturbing, it abuses the child to NOT pursue that.

You redefine "intact" to support your prejudice:

"Intact" means the original couple, with no separation or divorce, and no children removed due to neglect or abuse.

An opposite sex couple or a same sex couple with a child that was brought into that family whether through adoption or other means is still an intact family until one of the members of the family leaves prematurely. Your desire to demean such families is your prejudice, not a reflection of reality. Calling it "disgusting gay twirl" is again, your prejudice.

Providing a loving, secure environment is the opposite of abuse. Refusing to treat any child equally under the law however is an example of abuse.

DOMA decision appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Tue Jul 03, 2012
Tags: doma, nancy pelosi, supreme court



WASHINGTON, D.C., July 3, 2012,– The roiling national debates over marriage and the Supreme Court may coincide, as the House of Representatives’ legal group has asked the High Court to rule on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

On Friday, the House appealed to the Court’s justices to weigh in on the embattled law.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which represents the House of Representatives, has taken the lead in defending the 1996 law after the Obama administration announced it would no longer seek to uphold the act in court. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement is heading up the legal defense.

BLAG’s request, which spans 35 pages in length, states that the federal government has “deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing,” because “only a man and a woman can beget a child together without external assistance.”

“Congress, of course, did not invent the meanings of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ in 1996,” it states.“Rather, DOMA merely reaffirmed and codified the traditional definition of marriage, i.e., what Congress itself has always meant—and what courts and the executive branch have always understood it to mean.”

Republicans control BLAG by a 3-2 margin. Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer voted against filing the appeal, while Republican House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy supported the motion.

Pelosi said on Friday,‘House Republicans decided to waste more taxpayer funds to advance a position rejected by four different courts and to defend discrimination and inequality before the highest court in the land.”

DOMA’s court record is split: four courts have upheld it, and four have deemed it unconstitutional.

In May, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Boston, overturned Section 3 of the law, arguing that while states may define marriage for themselves, the federal government may not.

At the time, Legal Counsel lawyer Harry Mihet said the ruling was “a results-driven, outcome-oriented decision wherein a court decides the result it wants to arrive at and simply makes whatever illogical leaps are necessary to get there.”

The law, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the federal government, does not bind states, which remain free to recognize same-sex unions as they wish. Then-President Bill Clinton signed the overwhelmingly popular bill in 1996.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will hear this case, but legal experts say judicial review of the law is inevitable.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
-You are confusing prejudice with facts.
-Every single point distinguishes marriage from gay unions. You have to be blind in one eye, can't see out of the other, deaf and incredibly dumb to ignore any one of them.
-I appealed to no religious belief. I simply pointed out the crass uncivilized trampling of social customs INCLUDING RELIGION. No caring person would desecrate every single significant religion and culture in existence!
*You have provided nothing that equates gay unions with the relationally unique union of diverse genders that are the sole and natural source of human fruit.

And again, you rely on pejorative terminology, personal insults, and irrational prejudice to support your desire to harm gay couples and their families.

As previously demonstrated on this thread, gay people have always existed and have been accepted by many religious groups and cultures throughout history. That has even included blessing their unions. Your demeaning characterization of the acceptance of gay people as "crass uncivilized trampling of social customs" and false claim recognition "would desecrate every single significant religion and culture in existence" is simply false as well as insulting to those religious groups who support marriage equality.

Your stigmatizing, dehumanizing pejorative terminology fails to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights as required by the constitution.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
even better... it's no longer necessary for a woman to search out any male sperm donor of any kind. thru stem cell therapy she can fertilise her own ovum with her very own bone marrow stem cells and make her own baby. isn't that wonderful?

Men have now made themselves irrelevant, women inherit the Earth, awesome!

Gay ‘marriage’ not a right, prohibiting gay adoption not ‘discrimination’: European Court

Fri Mar 16, 2012 16:26 EST

Tags: adoption, european court of human rights, gay marriage, homosexuality



March 16, 2012 - The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the prohibition of adoption to non-married couples is not discriminatory, because it applies to both heterosexual and homosexual couples equally.

It has also ruled that homosexual “marriage” is not a right under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights

The decision effectively confirms the liceity under the same Convention of French law, which does not award the status of “marriage” to homosexual couples, and does not permit non-married couples to adopt children.

The ruling was announced yesterday in a suit by a French lesbian couple, Valérie Gas and Nathalie Dubois, who have been in a Pact of Civil Solidarity (PACS) since 2002. A PACS is a loose contractual arrangement made available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples in France, in contrast with stronger “civil union” arrangements and homosexual “marriages” available in some other countries.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

Dubois conceived a child by artificial insemination through an anonymous donor in 2000, and the couple have been raising the child together. Gas has sought to adopt the child by recourse to various courts, and was ultimately turned down by the country’s highest court of appeal, the Court of Cassation. The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed the French court’s decisions.

The Court also ruled that that there is no “indirect discrimination founded (...) on the impossibility of marriage,” because article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights “does not impose on the governments of the state parties the obligation to open marriage to a homosexual couple,” adding that governments “enjoy a certain leeway in determining the exact nature” of legal recognitions of homosexual unions.

The ruling continues the mixed record of the Court on social issues. It has previously ruled that abortion is not a “human right,” and has accepted Italy’s practice of displaying crucifixes in public buildings. However, it has also ruled that suicide is a “human right,” and has attempted to force homosexual inheritance rights on Poland and homosexual parades on Moscow. It has also ruled that Ireland’s constitution permits abortion, an idea rejected by the Irish government.

The European Court of Human Rights exists to rule on cases that fall under the European Convention on Human Rights, to which 47 European states are party.

Courts interpret existing law. Law changes over time. Even then, they don't always get it right.

Remember that some courts in the past ruled segregation was legal, only to be reversed later. Where equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of the law, as it is in the US, laws that deny equal treatment have eventually been overturned.

If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case and it remains a state issue as it should, there are at least 3 states where it is legal the will of the people will be upheld.

If the court does hear the case there are no constitutional grounds for it to be overturned.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

Courts interpret existing law. Law changes over time. Even then, they don't always get it right.
Remember that some courts in the past ruled segregation was legal, only to be reversed later. Where equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of the law, as it is in the US, laws that deny equal treatment have eventually been overturned.

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets take one example of your assertion and test it (You can pick one and do it if you think I have been unfair);
"If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent"
Your assertion is that this is "a poorly thought out opinion"?
-You are asserting that a gay union provides a child with more than one gender?
-You are asserting that a gay union can provide a child with more than one natural parent?
I assert that you have given one of your most stupendously idiotic opinions yet!
I hope you have a really fat a//, because I feel bad kicking it so often.
Smile.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
You rely on pejorative terminology and irrational prejudice:
Use of the word "condemn" is reveals your prejudice. Having parents of one gender is not a condemnation. We know it is the relationship between the child and the parents that determines success, not the gender of the parent. Unless raised in a bubble, the children will have role models of both genders in their lives.
Having parents of both genders is no guarantee of success. Abuse and divorce still happen. Anyone who has had any contact with CPS will also tell you, biological children are often abused, beaten, and killed by their biological parent, usually the father. It is irrational to believe having two opposite sex parents is a guarantee of success.
Children who are adopted are often rescued from a life of institutional care. They have not been condemned at all. Other children, as previously demonstrated, may have biological links to both parents, or may have one parent as the biological parent and the other as the birth parent.
Yet getting married does not require having children. Many straight and gay people have no such desire or intent, while others have no ability due to age, etc.
Therefore, this excuse for denial of equality is irrational.

I think your gay twirl is so severe, you just get more silly stupid all the time. No offense, just the honest truth.

This is simple reality; children in a gay union ALWAYS lose one gender and at least one parent is a indisputable fact.

Stating facts is not irrational or bigotry.

All you did was add a bunch of distorted and dishonest opinion. It did nothing to change what I said.

Moreover, imposing gay attempts to establish 'family' on the back of a child's preference for a natural mother and father is one of the most despicable acts I know of. It is so outrageous, it should be criminal.

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me?
A 'intact' family is a mother, father and biological children.
A gay union can NEVER identify with a 'intact' family.
That really is disgusting gay twirl. It insults anyone who cares that every child deserves a mother and father or the very best substitute of that setting. Even more disturbing, it abuses the child to NOT pursue that.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
You redefine "intact" to support your prejudice:
"Intact" means the original couple, with no separation or divorce, and no children removed due to neglect or abuse.
An opposite sex couple or a same sex couple with a child that was brought into that family whether through adoption or other means is still an intact family until one of the members of the family leaves prematurely. Your desire to demean such families is your prejudice, not a reflection of reality. Calling it "disgusting gay twirl" is again, your prejudice.
Providing a loving, secure environment is the opposite of abuse. Refusing to treat any child equally under the law however is an example of abuse.

Clearly and blatantly dishonest.

You did not say a intact couple, you said 'a intact family'.

A gay couple can NEVER equate to a intact family. That is a undeniable fact.

A child in such a gay union is always the result of a broken circumstance. Always slighted a parent and a gender. Those can be nothing but inherent disadvantages.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
And again, you rely on pejorative terminology, personal insults, and irrational prejudice to support your desire to harm gay couples and their families.
As previously demonstrated on this thread, gay people have always existed and have been accepted by many religious groups and cultures throughout history. That has even included blessing their unions. Your demeaning characterization of the acceptance of gay people as "crass uncivilized trampling of social customs" and false claim recognition "would desecrate every single significant religion and culture in existence" is simply false as well as insulting to those religious groups who support marriage equality.
Your stigmatizing, dehumanizing pejorative terminology fails to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights as required by the constitution.

You once again exhibit deep denial. The facts and history simply don't support your wishful thinking. The very fact that legal manipulation with distorted and dishonest information has been the sole tool of recent imposition of gay unions validates your denial and distortion.

I can't help it if the naked truth is 'stigmatizing, dehumanizing pejorative terminology'. Stop whining about it like girl.

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me?
A 'intact' family is a mother, father and biological children.
A gay union can NEVER identify with a 'intact' family.
That really is disgusting gay twirl. It insults anyone who cares that every child deserves a mother and father or the very best substitute of that setting. Even more disturbing, it abuses the child to NOT pursue that.
<quoted text>
Clearly and blatantly dishonest.
You did not say a intact couple, you said 'a intact family'.
A gay couple can NEVER equate to a intact family. That is a undeniable fact.
A child in such a gay union is always the result of a broken circumstance. Always slighted a parent and a gender. Those can be nothing but inherent disadvantages.

Considering you don't know the word "an", I'm going to say that everything you have said is irrelevant.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Lets take one example of your assertion and test it (You can pick one and do it if you think I have been unfair);
"If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent"
Your assertion is that this is "a poorly thought out opinion"?
-You are asserting that a gay union provides a child with more than one gender?
-You are asserting that a gay union can provide a child with more than one natural parent?
I assert that you have given one of your most stupendously idiotic opinions yet!
I hope you have a really fat a//, because I feel bad kicking it so often.
Smile.

all of your little diatribe is based upon one thing... your opinion. there's not one fact mentioned.

you assume tha tsame sex parents can't be the equal of opposite sex parents... you assume that they are somehow lacking. you assume that a same sex union is somehow bad for the children... but you never once mention the many same sex combined families due to second, third or forth marriages.

this is all based upon your opinion and nothing more.

Two lesbians and two gay guys are taking a trip, who gets to the airport faster?

The lesbians. While the lesbians go Lickity split, the gay men are still home packin their sh!t!

S.F. Gay Rights Leader Arrested Over Child Porn

S.F. CRIME:

Published 09:21 p.m., Monday, June 25, 2012:

San Francisco police have arrested veteran gay rights advocate Larry Brinkin in connection with felony possession of child pornography.

Brinkin, 66, who worked for the San Francisco Human Rights Commission before his retirement in 2010, was taken into custody Friday night. He spent the night in jail before he was released on bail, according to a spokeswoman for the sheriff's department.

The district attorney's office will decide Tuesday whether to file charges. "We're still reviewing the case," district attorney's spokeswoman Stephanie Ong Stillman said Monday.

Police say that Brinkin had pornographic images, some that appear to show children as young as 1 and 2 or 3 years old being sodomized and performing oral sex on adult men, in e-mail attachments linked to his account, according to a search warrant served by San Francisco police.

Representatives of America Online contacted authorities after coming across e-mail attachments from one of its subscriber's accounts containing what they believed to be child pornography.

The Los Angeles Police Department, which was assigned to the case, traced the IP address associated with the account, Zack3737@aol.com, to Brinkin, a San Francisco resident, according to court records. Los Angeles police forwarded the case to San Francisco police.

San Francisco investigators say the account was registered to Brinkin, and that he paid for the e-mail service with his credit card.
Police provided two examples of e-mail messages from last year in which Zack3737 provides disturbing descriptions of the exploitive sexual acts.

The e-mail account also is linked to Yahoo discussion groups on sexual exploitation of young boys and girls, according to the search warrant.
Executing a search warrant Friday, police seized two laptops, a desk top computer, videos, a floppy disk and thumb drives from Brinkin's Waller Street home.

During his 22-year tenure at the Human Rights Commission, Brinkin was best known for championing equal rights for gays and lesbians. He helped craft San Francisco's groundbreaking Equal Benefits Ordinance, which became a national model for workplace equality.

Upon Brinkin's retirement, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution declaring the week of Feb. 1, 2010, "Larry Brinkin Week" in San Francisco, saying his "dedication to advance the civil rights of all people has never stopped."

Former Supervisor Bevan Dufty who authored the board resolution, said Monday that he was shocked to learn of Brinkin's arrest. "I have admired and respected his work for the LGBT community," Dufty said. "I respect and am confident that there will be due process."

Saluki Rod who started this joke of a thread is just one more gay bag of crap attempting to stuff his sick lifestyle down Americas throat or up their ass.

This is not normal, and of course Saluki Rd is no where to be found.

Where are you , you degenerate pos?

Probably back in his gay cave.

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me?
A 'intact' family is a mother, father and biological children.
A gay union can NEVER identify with a 'intact' family.
That really is disgusting gay twirl. It insults anyone who cares that every child deserves a mother and father or the very best substitute of that setting. Even more disturbing, it abuses the child to NOT pursue that.
<quoted text>
Clearly and blatantly dishonest.
You did not say a intact couple, you said 'a intact family'.
A gay couple can NEVER equate to a intact family. That is a undeniable fact.
A child in such a gay union is always the result of a broken circumstance. Always slighted a parent and a gender. Those can be nothing but inherent disadvantages.

Atheist wrote:

<quoted text>
Considering you don't know the word "an", I'm going to say that everything you have said is irrelevant.

If you are a bigot, it doesn't take much to be illogical.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
all of your little diatribe is based upon one thing... your opinion. there's not one fact mentioned.
you assume tha tsame sex parents can't be the equal of opposite sex parents... you assume that they are somehow lacking. you assume that a same sex union is somehow bad for the children... but you never once mention the many same sex combined families due to second, third or forth marriages.
this is all based upon your opinion and nothing more.

Avoiding a direct answer that would confirm your deceit.

Instead, digging in with stubborn stupidity. So foolish.

As to not mentioning straight, foster/step/adoptive families, untrue. My very assertion is that gay unions can never be more than one of those with the additional negative of missing one gender in parents.

You need to look up the difference between facts and opinions.