Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
I quoted two major SCOTUS rulings;
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."
You said they did not connect marriage and procreation.
Other than the ruling obviously do connect the two, I asked you why they said "marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival".
You have avoided answering that question, and continue to lie about it.
That deceit is consistent with your 'theology'. When I read your posts, I am constantly reminded of this verse;
John 8:44 (NJB)
You are from your father, the devil, and you prefer to do what your father wants. He was a murderer from the start; he was never grounded in the truth; there is no truth in him at all. When he lies he is speaking true to his nature, because he is a liar, and the father of lies.

Here is the thing.... IF you want to live and die by the 1945 SCOTUS ruling fine, however...
Back in 1945 modern methods of procreation were not available. So to bring the 1945 scotus ruling into the new milenium is great. You see ssc have, do and will continue to procreate. Remember procreation does not mean to have sex, but to have offspring. Since the advent of invetro, turkey basters, surogates, and homo. adoptions, then your SCOTUS ruling is reason for ssm....

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean 'artificial' insemination in a futile effort to pretend to be a natural family.'Not yet intelligent' said gay couples can procreate just like straights.
The end result? A child missing a parent and a gender. What a idiotic, heartless abomination to impose on a child!
Children are a natural fruit of marriage, just like diverse genders are. Gays can NEVER identify with those core identities, can they?

1) to procreate means to create offspring... period. The method used is irrelevant to the outcome.

2) Are you going to say that the osc couple who can not conceive in a traditional manner, so they use the same methods as homo. couples do... do not have a "natural" family....?

3) Studies have shown that children brought up in a ss household are not better or worse than those from a osc... so you biggoted statement has been proven false.

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean 'artificial' insemination in a futile effort to pretend to be a natural family.'Not yet intelligent' said gay couples can procreate just like straights.
The end result? A child missing a parent and a gender. What a idiotic, heartless abomination to impose on a child!
Children are a natural fruit of marriage, just like diverse genders are. Gays can NEVER identify with those core identities, can they?

No big O wrote:

<quoted text>
1) to procreate means to create offspring... period. The method used is irrelevant to the outcome.
2) Are you going to say that the osc couple who can not conceive in a traditional manner, so they use the same methods as homo. couples do... do not have a "natural" family....?
3) Studies have shown that children brought up in a ss household are not better or worse than those from a osc... so you biggoted statement has been proven false.

1. "Reproduction (or procreation) is the biological process by which new "offspring" individual organisms are produced from their "parents"."

2. A natural (biological) family is distinct from every other. We distinguish them as foster, step and adoptive. Those none biological families are still more 'natural' than a gay couple because both the mother and father are at least represented.

3. Sorry dude, I'm well familiar with those 'studies'. Common sense, numerous studies of step, foster and adoptive families and a child will tell you that none top biological parents.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

No big O wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is the thing.... IF you want to live and die by the 1945 SCOTUS ruling fine, however...
Back in 1945 modern methods of procreation were not available. So to bring the 1945 scotus ruling into the new milenium is great. You see ssc have, do and will continue to procreate. Remember procreation does not mean to have sex, but to have offspring. Since the advent of invetro, turkey basters, surogates, and homo. adoptions, then your SCOTUS ruling is reason for ssm....

Who said I was trying to live and die by legal precedence (which does hold some weight, right?)?

Here is just one of many other options; Evolution has determined survival of a child is best suited to a mother and father.

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean 'artificial' insemination in a futile effort to pretend to be a natural family.'Not yet intelligent' said gay couples can procreate just like straights.
The end result? A child missing a parent and a gender. What a idiotic, heartless abomination to impose on a child!
Children are a natural fruit of marriage, just like diverse genders are. Gays can NEVER identify with those core identities, can they?
<quoted text>
1. "Reproduction (or procreation) is the biological process by which new "offspring" individual organisms are produced from their "parents"."
2. A natural (biological) family is distinct from every other. We distinguish them as foster, step and adoptive. Those none biological families are still more 'natural' than a gay couple because both the mother and father are at least represented.
10

"You mean 'artificial' insemination in a futile effort to pretend to be a natural family.'Not yet intelligent' said gay couples can procreate just like straights."

You posted this drivel before... you failed to answer if heterosexual parents who have to rely on alternative means of reproductions "pretend to be a natural family"?

"1. "Reproduction (or procreation) is the biological process by which new "offspring" individual organisms are produced from their "parents"."
Ya bio 101... a sperm (one parent) meets an egg (the other parent).. doesnt matter how it happens... it is still procreation isnt it. So your point is....?

"2. A natural (biological) family is distinct from every other. We distinguish them as foster, step and adoptive. Those none biologicalfamilies are still more 'natural' than a gay couple because both the mother and father are at least represented."

Wow u are all over the place here.....
a natural (biological) family would be the sperm doner and the the egg... has nothing to do w foster, step or adoptive (all of which a ssc can be and are).

Now.. are you saying that single parent households are not family....
What about widows and widowers... no male /female present... not even on weekends.. so by what you are saying these people with children are not an "natural family"....

3. Sorry dude, I'm well familiar with those 'studies'. Common sense, numerous studies of step, foster and adoptive families and a child will tell you that none top biological parents.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

So your one study, which found bio was better but not neccasarily needed for healthy adult children, means we should do away with steps, adoptive, single parents.... after all they create children "not as good as biological raised ones."... Gee Mr and Mrs Brady will be pissed.

Face it... marriage is not about children... is it. There is not a state that requires procreation as a rule for marriage licenses. Now even IF it were... homos. have, do and will continue to procreate. So your argument falls flat on both fronts.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Who said I was trying to live and die by legal precedence (which does hold some weight, right?)?
Here is just one of many other options; Evolution has determined survival of a child is best suited to a mother and father.

You are correct.. your legal precedence holds a lot of weight... unfortunately for you... it is not in your favor now is it?....

Now you talk about evolution.. mother father... funny... very very few species mate for life. Most of the species the mother raises the children. Dogs are prime example of this.. the male is there for the "fun" then finds the next bitch in heat... so your evolution argument is moot also....

me i just want to give texas girl a big o

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
I quoted two major SCOTUS rulings;
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."
You said they did not connect marriage and procreation.
Other than the ruling obviously do connect the two, I asked you why they said "marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival".
You have avoided answering that question, and continue to lie about it.
That deceit is consistent with your 'theology'. When I read your posts, I am constantly reminded of this verse;
John 8:44 (NJB)
You are from your father, the devil, and you prefer to do what your father wants. He was a murderer from the start; he was never grounded in the truth; there is no truth in him at all. When he lies he is speaking true to his nature, because he is a liar, and the father of lies.

the first one is 60 years old, and the second one never mentioned procreation. not only that, but given the fact that the world human population is higher than 500% of what the planet can support anyone who believes that procreation is a good thing is a total idiot. the FACT is that humans shouldn't be allowed to breed for at least a generation to allow the human infestation of the planet to get back down to a manageable level.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>the first one is 60 years old, and the second one never mentioned procreation. not only that, but given the fact that the world human population is higher than 500% of what the planet can support anyone who believes that procreation is a good thing is a total idiot. the FACT is that humans shouldn't be allowed to breed for at least a generation to allow the human infestation of the planet to get back down to a manageable level.

where does this 500% figure come from?

No big O wrote:

<quoted text>
"You mean 'artificial' insemination in a futile effort to pretend to be a natural family.'Not yet intelligent' said gay couples can procreate just like straights."
You posted this drivel before... you failed to answer if heterosexual parents who have to rely on alternative means of reproductions "pretend to be a natural family"?
"1. "Reproduction (or procreation) is the biological process by which new "offspring" individual organisms are produced from their "parents"."
Ya bio 101... a sperm (one parent) meets an egg (the other parent).. doesnt matter how it happens... it is still procreation isnt it. So your point is....?
"2. A natural (biological) family is distinct from every other. We distinguish them as foster, step and adoptive. Those none biologicalfamilies are still more 'natural' than a gay couple because both the mother and father are at least represented."
Wow u are all over the place here.....
a natural (biological) family would be the sperm doner and the the egg... has nothing to do w foster, step or adoptive (all of which a ssc can be and are).
Now.. are you saying that single parent households are not family....
What about widows and widowers... no male /female present... not even on weekends.. so by what you are saying these people with children are not an "natural family"....
3. Sorry dude, I'm well familiar with those 'studies'. Common sense, numerous studies of step, foster and adoptive families and a child will tell you that none top biological parents.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
So your one study, which found bio was better but not neccasarily needed for healthy adult children, means we should do away with steps, adoptive, single parents.... after all they create children "not as good as biological raised ones."... Gee Mr and Mrs Brady will be pissed.
Face it... marriage is not about children... is it. There is not a state that requires procreation as a rule for marriage licenses. Now even IF it were... homos. have, do and will continue to procreate. So your argument falls flat on both fronts.

My, my aren't we the deep one...

Marriage is defined by the law and family by biology...

My wife and I have two biological sons, and have been foster parents to numerous foster children. I have worked professionally over 30 years in marriage and family, including step and adoptive.

Meanwhile you are doing the gay twirl pretending you don't understand 'natural'. Get a life and then get real.

Skinner v. Oklahoma decision (1942).

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

Loving v. Virginia (1967).

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

Here they repeat the essence of the previous thought, BUT clearly stating marriage is a fundamental right BECAUSE of procreation!

Then you make the stupendous announcement that a gay couple can birth a child between them. Tell me, how do they choose who will be the 'mother'. Certainly s/he has to have a C-section, right?! Do you have pictures? Seriously, I'd love to see the proud mom and dad!

By the way, ever hear of the Cinderella Effect?

No big O wrote:

<quoted text>
You are correct.. your legal precedence holds a lot of weight... unfortunately for you... it is not in your favor now is it?....
Now you talk about evolution.. mother father... funny... very very few species mate for life. Most of the species the mother raises the children. Dogs are prime example of this.. the male is there for the "fun" then finds the next bitch in heat... so your evolution argument is moot also....

See my reference to SCOTUS in previous post.

You may want to compare gays to animals, but humans are much more highly evolved. Our offspring require care much longer. Good fathers want to stick around, even see their children married and carry on the family 'genes'.

You relate marriage to dogs, I relate marriage to a lifetime union of Mars & Venus that is the only relationship that births human fruit.

Smile.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
the first one is 60 years old, and the second one never mentioned procreation. not only that, but given the fact that the world human population is higher than 500% of what the planet can support anyone who believes that procreation is a good thing is a total idiot. the FACT is that humans shouldn't be allowed to breed for at least a generation to allow the human infestation of the planet to get back down to a manageable level.

Back on the bottle tonight, huh?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
My, my aren't we the deep one...
Marriage is defined by the law and family by biology...
My wife and I have two biological sons, and have been foster parents to numerous foster children. I have worked professionally over 30 years in marriage and family, including step and adoptive.
Meanwhile you are doing the gay twirl pretending you don't understand 'natural'. Get a life and then get real.
Skinner v. Oklahoma decision (1942).
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
Loving v. Virginia (1967).
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."
Here they repeat the essence of the previous thought, BUT clearly stating marriage is a fundamental right BECAUSE of procreation!
Then you make the stupendous announcement that a gay couple can birth a child between them. Tell me, how do they choose who will be the 'mother'. Certainly s/he has to have a C-section, right?! Do you have pictures? Seriously, I'd love to see the proud mom and dad!
By the way, ever hear of the Cinderella Effect?

"Marriage is defined by the law and family by biology..."
Really... so since there is no biological relation between a adopter and adoptee... they are not family..... good to know....

"My wife and I have two biological sons, and have been foster parents to numerous foster children. I have worked professionally over 30 years in marriage and family, including step and adoptive."

So you want an award or something...

"Meanwhile you are doing the gay twirl pretending you don't understand 'natural'. Get a life and then get real."

How am I not understanding "natural"....Please explain instead of just throwing out biggoted statement like "gay twirl".... What part of my previous post showed a lack of understanding of "natural"...

Now you on the other hand
" A natural (biological) family is distinct from every other. We distinguish them as foster, step and adoptive."

So how is a natural family, one made solely of biolgically related elements, the same as foster, step and adoptive... all of which have no biological connection. Don't get me wrong.. these families are just a much of a family as the "traditional" ones... but not of nature.

So again did you misspeak.. or just dont undertand the term natural?....

"Skinner v. Oklahoma decision (1942).
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

I already answered this in the previous post
"Back in 1945 modern methods of procreation were not available. So to bring the 1945 scotus ruling into the new milenium is great. You see ssc have, do and will continue to procreate. Remember procreation does not mean to have sex, but to have offspring. Since the advent of invetro, turkey basters, surogates, and homo. adoptions, then your SCOTUS ruling is reason for ssm....:"

So both cases actually work for ssm... see since ssc do procreate, and it is vital to marriage, accordingto your 60 year old precedence, then they should be allowed to marry...

"Tell me, how do they choose who will be the 'mother'. Certainly s/he has to have a C-section, right?! Do you have pictures? Seriously, I'd love to see the proud mom and dad!"

Never said the male carried the child did I... In a lesbian couple I am sure there are various ways of choosing who will become pregnant. For male couples, they choose from women who donate the egg, and then become a surrogate... So again I fail to see your point,, probably because there is none.

You once again stake your argument on procreation... which homosexuals do.... so.... they fulfilled your criteria .....

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
See my reference to SCOTUS in previous post.
You may want to compare gays to animals, but humans are much more highly evolved. Our offspring require care much longer. Good fathers want to stick around, even see their children married and carry on the family 'genes'.
You relate marriage to dogs, I relate marriage to a lifetime union of Mars & Venus that is the only relationship that births human fruit.
Smile.

"See my reference to SCOTUS in previous post."
See my retort showing how your SCOTUS" reference works against you.

"You may want to compare gays to animals, but humans are much more highly evolved. Our offspring require care much longer. Good fathers want to stick around, even see their children married and carry on the family 'genes'."

1) nice try at totally misquoting me.... lets go back shall we....
you said "Evolution has determined survival of a child is best suited to a mother and father."
A. That has NOTHING to do with evolution...
B. Since you brought in evolution I went with it showing that animals (which humans are) as a whole do not stick around to watch the kids grow.... Which is where the dogs come in... Now show me where I compared gays to animals.... oh that is right I didnt... but dont let the facts get in the way of your tirade.
2)Good fathers want to stick around, even see their children married and carry on the family 'genes'.",,,
GOOD PARENTS not just fathers....
3)"Good fathers want to stick around, even see their children married and carry on the family 'genes'."
Does that mean an adoptee father , since he wont see the family geens carry on... is not a good father?......

Seems to me good parents want to see their children happy... if that is with someone of their own sex... so be it as long as they are in a happy loving relationship.... to bad you dont want the same....

LMFAO wrote:

<quoted text>
where does this 500% figure come from?

geological and populations studies... where else?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
See my reference to SCOTUS in previous post.
You may want to compare gays to animals, but humans are much more highly evolved. Our offspring require care much longer. Good fathers want to stick around, even see their children married and carry on the family 'genes'.
You relate marriage to dogs, I relate marriage to a lifetime union of Mars & Venus that is the only relationship that births human fruit.
Smile.

first of all, silly, there are 4 forms of existence on this planet. animal, vegetable, mineral, or gas... which one do you prefer to be if not an animal?

so that's it... it's all about carrying on the family genes. well, guess what, medical science has done nature one better now and has made it possible for a woman to fertilise her own ovum through stem cell therapy. there's no longer for her to drag the swamps looking for some guy to breed with to make a baby. not only that, but they are also able to use the stem cells from another woman, so lesbians, in fact, are capable of procreation between the two... and it's only a matter of time before a man will be able to get pregnant and carry a baby to term.

they have now discovered a way to chlorinate your gene pool... and it's about time because i reckon that somebody's been peeing yours.

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
In the same what that a great many straight couples do, My dear, since we are not sterile.
A sperm and an egg combine, and VOILA! A baby.
There is no requirement that BOTH that sperm and egg come directly from the married couple, and no requirement for all children in a household to be biologically related to both parents for marriage licenses to remain valid.
You can relax, though. This applies equally to heterosexual couples so if they used sperm or egg donors, they can still legally marry.
Good news for their kids!

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?

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?

Sorry, Weebles My Dear, but that's a bit too creepy for me.

Little me clones running around ... I suppose a person could do it like George Foreman, and name them all after yourself ...

No big O wrote:

<quoted text>
..........
Does that mean an adoptee father , since he wont see the family geens carry on... is not a good father?......
Seems to me good parents want to see their children happy... if that is with someone of their own sex... so be it as long as they are in a happy loving relationship.... to bad you dont want the same....

KiMare's type are VERY anti adoption, but they won't tell you what should happen to all of the unwanted children.

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, Weebles My Dear, but that's a bit too creepy for me.
Little me clones running around ... I suppose a person could do it like George Foreman, and name them all after yourself ...

well, i'm certainly glad that not everybody finds it 'creepy' my daughter capitalised on that option and it worked out fine and dandy. her son isn't a clone of her, either. he's a very happy and healthy and normal 2 1/2 year old boy... absolutely no hooves or horns or even scales and a tail. he also doesn't carry the genetic makeup of some bozo she dragged home from a bar to knock her up so she could get a baby.

it's high time to chlorinate the gene pool, anyway, right?