Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You are confusing genetic mutations with genetic defects. Genetic variations are constantly occurring. Some are good, some are bad, and some just are. Scientists are still trying to uncover how and why sexual genetic disorders occur.
Evolution determines which mutations increase, and which decrease. Homosexuality appears extremely consistent over time. That indicates it is a naturally occurring mutation, but that it has no purpose. The aspect of defect comes in at this point. The basis of evolution is that a genetic strain increases by reproduction. This requires two things; 1. The ability to reproduce, and 2. The desire to self reproduce. Homosexuality fails on the second count. A MAJOR defect. Your response will be that gays can manufacture reproduction. First, that is a recent development that does not address thousands of years of consistent presence. Second, homosexuality shows up independently.
Now step back. You left the transgendered hanging in the wind. The severity of their situation leaves them undefendable. Because homosexuality is less severe, that exempts them from being a defect? Not reasonable or fair.

So you have the silly idea that gay people are sterile, is that it? Time to dig out your LOGIC FOR FIRST GRADERS textbook and review.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You make my point.
You wrote, "And you know the funniest part? When I told my family, their universal response was "yeah, we knew"."
Who was in denial?
You are still in denial. Yes, you admitted you are gay, but you have not admitted that it is a aberration of nature.
That is a simple fact of history, science and culture. Or succinctly put, reality. Nothing you said changes the facts I noted. You simply noted why you refused to accept it, and castigated everyone who disagrees.

Your OPINION that it is an "aberration of nature" is completely subjective and completely outside of mainstream Science.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You make my point.
You wrote, "And you know the funniest part? When I told my family, their universal response was "yeah, we knew"."
Who was in denial?
You are still in denial. Yes, you admitted you are gay, but you have not admitted that it is a aberration of nature.
That is a simple fact of history, science and culture. Or succinctly put, reality. Nothing you said changes the facts I noted. You simply noted why you refused to accept it, and castigated everyone who disagrees.

It's also completely irrelvant, lol, even if it were last I checked people with defects and disorders were still allowed to get married so what's your point. Prove that two consenting adults are doing any identifiable harm to the rest of society by marrying that justifies keeping marriage from them.

Amazing that these debates continue. What a waste of energy. Two parties exploiting this debate while the Titanic worldwide economy sinks. The Republicans now have their dead weight portion of their party(Christian Right) to match the Democrats left social issues fanatics. The result is two parties without focus eating into American freedoms every day. Twelve years of unneeded war, treasury stolen by elite rich and you clowns are debating sexual orientation. If the Mayans are right and the world ends soon...it will be a mercy killing.

Barry Goldwater wrote:

Amazing that these debates continue. What a waste of energy. Two parties exploiting this debate while the Titanic worldwide economy sinks. The Republicans now have their dead weight portion of their party(Christian Right) to match the Democrats left social issues fanatics. The result is two parties without focus eating into American freedoms every day. Twelve years of unneeded war, treasury stolen by elite rich and you clowns are debating sexual orientation. If the Mayans are right and the world ends soon...it will be a mercy killing.

You mean we can only care about one issue at a time?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You are confusing genetic mutations with genetic defects. Genetic variations are constantly occurring. Some are good, some are bad, and some just are. Scientists are still trying to uncover how and why sexual genetic disorders occur.
Evolution determines which mutations increase, and which decrease. Homosexuality appears extremely consistent over time. That indicates it is a naturally occurring mutation, but that it has no purpose. The aspect of defect comes in at this point. The basis of evolution is that a genetic strain increases by reproduction. This requires two things; 1. The ability to reproduce, and 2. The desire to self reproduce. Homosexuality fails on the second count. A MAJOR defect. Your response will be that gays can manufacture reproduction. First, that is a recent development that does not address thousands of years of consistent presence. Second, homosexuality shows up independently.
Now step back. You left the transgendered hanging in the wind. The severity of their situation leaves them undefendable. Because homosexuality is less severe, that exempts them from being a defect? Not reasonable or fair.

Though you may have yourself convinced that it is a defect, you will not convince me of that. It is a variation, yes... but NOT a defect. You can go around thinking you are defective all you want, but I think that kind of belief is causing all the self hate you have, and the hate you have for gays.

TXgurl wrote:

<quoted text>
Though you may have yourself convinced that it is a defect, you will not convince me of that. It is a variation, yes... but NOT a defect. You can go around thinking you are defective all you want, but I think that kind of belief is causing all the self hate you have, and the hate you have for gays.

You or I can think what we want. That doesn't change the facts. You have done nothing to address those, only confirming your denial.

When your gay you are not born that way, you choose to be that way. Why is there a constant need to place blame elsewhere with your choice to be gay? Are you ashamed of what your choice was?

Nasty wrote:

When your gay you are not born that way, you choose to be that way. Why is there a constant need to place blame elsewhere with your choice to be gay? Are you ashamed of what your choice was?

What does choice have to do with marriage eligibilty?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You or I can think what we want. That doesn't change the facts. You have done nothing to address those, only confirming your denial.

What difference does it make. Defect or not, can you change or fix it? No? So should we just live the rest of our lives without having any relationships then? Is that what you are proposing? What identifiable harm is there to SSM?

Nasty wrote:

When your gay you are not born that way, you choose to be that way. Why is there a constant need to place blame elsewhere with your choice to be gay? Are you ashamed of what your choice was?

Gee that's funny, when I tried to choose being straight it still didn't make guys any more attractive to me. Explain how I am suppose to force that.

Nasty wrote:

When your gay you are not born that way, you choose to be that way. Why is there a constant need to place blame elsewhere with your choice to be gay? Are you ashamed of what your choice was?

Being gay is NOT a choice. When I was 11 and found myself attracted to girls instead of guys how was that a choice? I fought against my attraction to girls most of my life, even been married twice and have 3 children... but the whole time I was wanting to be with a woman, not with a man.

Tell me, oh wise one, why would someone choose to be gay? Gays are second class citizens here in the US... we are discriminated against, called names, bullied, beat up, and even murdered. Why would someone choose that???

Mockababy wrote:

<quoted text>
What difference does it make. Defect or not, can you change or fix it? No? So should we just live the rest of our lives without having any relationships then? Is that what you are proposing? What identifiable harm is there to SSM?

He is suggesting that we have only heterosexual relationships and hide our "defect"...

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You or I can think what we want. That doesn't change the facts. You have done nothing to address those, only confirming your denial.

Ok, let's play a scenario here... Let's say that being gay is a defect. If it is, then why discriminate against gays? People with defects get married every day. Dwarves get married, theirs is clearly a genetic defect. I have seen 2 people with Downes Syndrome get married, theirs is clearly a genetic defect. I have seen people who were previously circus freaks (and I mean that was their job) get married, they clearly have defects. Why should all of the others with their obvious defects be allowed to get married, and gays are discriminated against?? If gays aren't allowed to get married then all of those others who are "defective" shouldn't be allowed to marry either according to your reasoning.

Oh, and to add to my last post, KiMare dear, that means you shouldn't be allowed to get married either, because you have stated that you are a chimera and therefore YOU are "defective" too. Are you married?

Mockababy wrote:

<quoted text>
What difference does it make. Defect or not, can you change or fix it? No? So should we just live the rest of our lives without having any relationships then? Is that what you are proposing? What identifiable harm is there to SSM?

Denial is always a problem for the person and those around them. It is like pretending you don't have a infectious disease. The best thing for everyone is to fully face reality and go from there.

Yes, reality has some bitter pills to swallow. But not near what denial does. You have a good idea what they are with reality, while denial blind-sides you.

Then you have the additional issues that are forced to be caught up to support denial. Marriage is a good example of that. Marriage in all of human history has always represented a unique relationship. One that is the birth place of every single other relationship. Gay unions birth nothing. The only identity is two people. The question is not, what affect, but do gay unions qualify to identify with marriage.

However, you are insinuating that adding gay unions will only have positive affects on a historical change of unprecedented social change. Does that seriously sound realistic to you?

Of course I am not asserting that gays should have no relationships. That is simply silly. Nor am I saying they don't have legitimate rights. I am saying marriage is not one of them.

TXgurl wrote:

<quoted text>
He is suggesting that we have only heterosexual relationships and hide our "defect"...

Where did I suggest either one of those things?

The first accusation is beyond silly stupid.

The second is exactly opposite what I have been saying. Your response either exposes you as a liar or someone with a serious comprehension problem.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Denial is always a problem for the person and those around them. It is like pretending you don't have a infectious disease. The best thing for everyone is to fully face reality and go from there.
Yes, reality has some bitter pills to swallow. But not near what denial does. You have a good idea what they are with reality, while denial blind-sides you.
Then you have the additional issues that are forced to be caught up to support denial. Marriage is a good example of that. Marriage in all of human history has always represented a unique relationship. One that is the birth place of every single other relationship. Gay unions birth nothing. The only identity is two people. The question is not, what affect, but do gay unions qualify to identify with marriage.
However, you are insinuating that adding gay unions will only have positive affects on a historical change of unprecedented social change. Does that seriously sound realistic to you?
Of course I am not asserting that gays should have no relationships. That is simply silly. Nor am I saying they don't have legitimate rights. I am saying marriage is not one of them.

Geez...... I bet that law school you went to was in the Phillipines.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Denial is always a problem for the person and those around them. It is like pretending you don't have a infectious disease. The best thing for everyone is to fully face reality and go from there.
Yes, reality has some bitter pills to swallow. But not near what denial does. You have a good idea what they are with reality, while denial blind-sides you.
Then you have the additional issues that are forced to be caught up to support denial. Marriage is a good example of that. Marriage in all of human history has always represented a unique relationship. One that is the birth place of every single other relationship. Gay unions birth nothing. The only identity is two people. The question is not, what affect, but do gay unions qualify to identify with marriage.
However, you are insinuating that adding gay unions will only have positive affects on a historical change of unprecedented social change. Does that seriously sound realistic to you?
Of course I am not asserting that gays should have no relationships. That is simply silly. Nor am I saying they don't have legitimate rights. I am saying marriage is not one of them.

I love how you think you have such insight into our "denial". Denial was trying to be straight and being miserable. Even if I were to stop being in denial that I have a defect as you put it, that doesn't change a damn thing, how would admitting it change my life in the least?

"All of human history" is also irrelvant. Appealing to tradition is a fallacy. Most of human history is beyond brutal and ignorant and perverse, it's a ridiculous thing to appeal to.

So we have the right to have relationships but not to have those relationships protected under law? You see marriage from a religious traditional standpoint apparently but for many marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. A very important one when it comes to your partner being in the hospital or dying or their children. Your sentiments about marriage are irrelevant.

TXgurl wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok, let's play a scenario here... Let's say that being gay is a defect. If it is, then why discriminate against gays? People with defects get married every day. Dwarves get married, theirs is clearly a genetic defect. I have seen 2 people with Downes Syndrome get married, theirs is clearly a genetic defect. I have seen people who were previously circus freaks (and I mean that was their job) get married, they clearly have defects. Why should all of the others with their obvious defects be allowed to get married, and gays are discriminated against?? If gays aren't allowed to get married then all of those others who are "defective" shouldn't be allowed to marry either according to your reasoning.

There is no discrimination. Marriage has never been a right for members of the same sex. In all the cases you mention, opposite sex has been the determining qualification for marriage. All of the genetic defects you list are apart from the identity of marriage. You are demanding that a defect that distorts the core identity of marriage be equated with marriage. It is nothing more than a forced imposing of a imposter relationship on the foundational relationship of society. Gays still have every right to pursue appropriate rights for civil unions.

It is one thing to admit you have a genetic disorder. It is another thing to respond realistically to the consequences of that disorder. You are claiming it is maybe a difference, and with no real distinctive impacts. Very close to pure denial.

I have three nipples. I don't hate myself for it, I had no choice in the matter. I have faced numerous consequences through my life because of that (as you can imagine). I have never pretended that is normal. Some consequences have been painful emotionally and physically. But my responses have made me a strikingly unique person in numerous good and positive ways exactly because of my 'defects'.