Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

young lesbian wrote:

I dont have to copy anything. Im just stating my own opinion, just like you. How old are you anyways? Sound younger then me. Do yourself a favor and grow up. Gay marriage will be legalized one of these days and there wont be a darn thing you can do about it. What will you do next... burn me on the cross or commit hate crimes because you dont agree with my lifestyle? Thats coo, you can do whatever it doesnt really matter. I will live my life just fine and if you want to act like a three year old and throw a tantrum just because things dont go your way.. you can do that too. Its your prerogative. Live your life, stop trying to live others. Besides, you are only responsible how your life is lived, not anybody elses.

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
How old are you?
First you can't comprehend a sentence, now you show you have no understanding of law, not to mention my referencing the rest of the gay twirl claim that marriage is a fundamental right.
Go back to your video games.

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Conservative constitutional lawyer, solicitor general under George Bush, Theodore B. Olson and constitional expert attorney David Boies wrote in their prop.8 filing: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”
The court found gay people are in fact persons, protected by the constitutional requirement of equal treatment under the law.
One of those 14 cases affirming marriage as a fundament right, Turner, specifically recognized marriage remains a fundamental right even when the ability to have sex is not present.
And from Gill v OPM: "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."
And as others have pointed out, many gay people do procreate using all of the wide varieties of methods available to straight people who need assistance, as well as adoption. You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment to those children and their families. All you have is an old, irrational prejudice that results in needless suffering and death.

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote;
Skinner v. Oklahoma decision (1942).
Far from separating marriage and procreation, the Supreme Court specifically tied them together.
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
Another example of your poor understanding of English, or you diabolical twirling of facts,'and' ties marriage and procreation together,'or' would separate them.
MY reference was from 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!
<quoted text>
1. Skinner does connect marriage and procreation.
2. Both declare marriage fundamental to our existence and survival.
Now answer the question; Why is marriage fundamental to our existence and survival?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is the roots of that 'right';
Skinner v. Oklahoma decision (1942).
Far from separating marriage and procreation, the Supreme Court specifically tied them together.
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
Another example of your poor understanding of English, or you diabolical twirling of facts,'and' ties marriage and procreation together,'or' would separate them.
MY reference was from 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!
Marriage has always throughout human history described a unique relationship of diverse genders in a lifetime union with one of the primary purposes being the best benefit of children.
Other types of relationships with children are distinguished as adopted, foster, and step parents. Gays have every right their establish their legitimate rights for a gay union, just as all the previous types have done.
What is not logical or acceptable is to impose a imposter relationship on the sole birthplace of every other relationship.
In other words, to qualify for equal rights, you have to qualify for equal identity. You clearly don't.

Judged:

1

1

1

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
good question. it may be easier to prove to you that procreation, at least in this epoch, is against our survival.
i'll give it a go, however. marriage is essential to our existence because it's the one thing which will keep us sane and happy. procreation works against that end.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
um... wtf are you talking about here with your references to 'imposter relationships' and the 'sole birthplace of blah, blah, blah.'
didn't you realise that pregnancy is nothing more than the messy byproduct of having sex?
you don't seem to have much of a grasp on reality, do you.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, change the question and do a slimy slide. You should change your post handle to 'dances and wiggles'.
You claimed there was no legal connection between marriage and procreation.
I proved there was.
Do you really believe the denial you displayed in this doesn't affect your theology?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is the roots of that 'right';
Skinner v. Oklahoma decision (1942).
Far from separating marriage and procreation, the Supreme Court specifically tied them together.
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
Another example of your poor understanding of English, or you diabolical twirling of facts,'and' ties marriage and procreation together,'or' would separate them.
MY reference was from 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!
Marriage has always throughout human history described a unique relationship of diverse genders in a lifetime union with one of the primary purposes being the best benefit of children.
Other types of relationships with children are distinguished as adopted, foster, and step parents. Gays have every right their establish their legitimate rights for a gay union, just as all the previous types have done.
What is not logical or acceptable is to impose a imposter relationship on the sole birthplace of every other relationship.
In other words, to qualify for equal rights, you have to qualify for equal identity. You clearly don't.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
According to the rule of law as stated in the constitution, the only requirement for equal rights is being a person. Gay people qualify.
As Justice Scalia pointed out, procreation has never been a requirement for marriage in our country. It is irrational to start now, and only for gay people.
And you ignore subsequent rulings that affirm marriage as a fundamental right even when procreation and the ability to even have sex is impossible.
This also ignores the fact that many gay people do procreate, while others are raising children through adoption.
You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for harming those couples and their children through denial of equal treatment under the law.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, change the question and do a slimy slide. You should change your post handle to 'dances and wiggles'.
You claimed there was no legal connection between marriage and procreation.
I proved there was.
Do you really believe the denial you displayed in this doesn't affect your theology?

Judged:

1

1

jerry wrote:

why can't bi.sexuel's marry 2+1 since they were born that way.

Judged:

1

1

young lesbian wrote:

Its pointless to even debate with people when you clearly spell something out and they still dont get it. Ignorance is bliss... i think you should have to pass an IQ test to vote... seriously...

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
um... no. you've proven nothing. there is no connection, either legal or otherwise, between procreation and marriage. any 13 year old can breed... they don't have to be married to do so, however.
and no, i didn't change the question at all.

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
..........
I didn't know that gays procreate. When did that happen? I'm surprised it isn't all over the news! Please tell me if it was male gays, the 'mother' had a C-Section!!! Please, enlighten me.

Judged:

1

1

1

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!