Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

Krystal03 wrote:

<quoted text>They can't marry the person they love you creton

They could if it were the opposite sex. Same EXACT rights as I, creton.

bimbo wrote:

<quoted text>
They could if it were the opposite sex. Same EXACT rights as I, creton.

There now I feel back to my normal self.... Creton!!!!

bimbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct & you have the exact same rights, just like I said.

First, I am heterosexual with a wife of 35 years. So you are correct. Second, the second highest court of this country disagrees with you that gays have these same rights under our constitution.

Krystal03 wrote:

<quoted text>TY sweetie.. how are you sweetie... i'm still kicking it

oh, i'm kickin', too... jsut not raisin' a whole let of dust any more.

taxpayer wrote:

<quoted text>
AND nOW THE BIG lIER will start his crap anything you say is a lie and so what did not need punctuation you read and understood oh big shot keep up the good work LIEING all the time hey teacher shut up and pay for your pension and quit robbing the rest of us

hey! you're on a roll today. keep it up.

Honest AbeL wrote:

Yeah the divorce card was stupid the first thousand times they tried it but now it is just worn out
<quoted text>

Tired and worn out... like:
"Adam and Steve"
"Can we marry our dogs next"
"Leviticus says..."
"Gays are pedophiles"
"Unnatural"
"Gays spread AIDS"

These are all old, ridiculous statements that demonstrate nothing but fear and ignorance.

A simple question do any of you Homo's have a legitimate job or to you just collect a government check and survive day to day.

Actually it is closer to the truth than you realize.

Nytebreid wrote:

<quoted text>
Tired and worn out... like:
"Adam and Steve"
"Can we marry our dogs next"
"Leviticus says..."
"Gays are pedophiles"
"Unnatural"
"Gays spread AIDS"
These are all old, ridiculous statements that demonstrate nothing but fear and ignorance.

Try learning basic grammar you imbecile. Then you can start a plan to get off the Government hand out you lazy slug.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
oh, i'm kickin', too... jsut not raisin' a whole let of dust any more.

May I suggest you attend a local GED program before you post again.

taxpayer wrote:

<quoted text>
AND nOW THE BIG lIER will start his crap anything you say is a lie and so what did not need punctuation you read and understood oh big shot keep up the good work LIEING all the time hey teacher shut up and pay for your pension and quit robbing the rest of us

Krystal03 wrote:

<quoted text>TY sweetie.. have fun at work :)

i will have prayer for you sunday

Honest AbeL wrote:

Post your source to back up your statement
<quoted text>

I already did in the original post. All you're showing is your lying capacity. In the original post I said:

Try reading Bruce Bahgemihl's "Biological Exuberance" or if you can't read just go to youtube and search for "homosexuality in animals".

Now once again, post your source that I somehow lied.

Cool Hand Luke wrote:

So if you accuse your opponents of being queers if they speak out against you, they might be homophobes? You heterophobes are hilarious!
.
Isn't the definition of "Homophobia" An irrational fear of homosexuals?

No, it isn't. But you already know that. You also know that the rest of your post is a big steaming pile of bullshit LIES....OLD lies, at that, yet you keep repeating them. Thanks for proving your malicious intent. NARTH will now credit your account.

Is your luggage handler on vacation?

datruth wrote:

How come this long until Civil Unions are fair?! We should have had same-sex marriages legal by now!

That generational cultural knowledge gets in the way of feel good Progressivism.

If that is your source then you are out of luck. Animals have never been studied for a life time. Besides anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
Must society embrace cannibalism and filicide also? Hey it is natural. This argument is almost as stupid as the embracing of everyone for who they are even if they are freaks of nature.
Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]
Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:
Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.
Dr. Bagemihl's interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, "an imprint of St. Martin's Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books."

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
I already did in the original post. All you're showing is your lying capacity. In the original post I said:
Try reading Bruce Bahgemihl's "Biological Exuberance" or if you can't read just go to youtube and search for "homosexuality in animals".
Now once again, post your source that I somehow lied.

Honest AbeL wrote:

If that is your source then you are out of luck. Animals have never been studied for a life time.
<quoted text>

WRONG. A total lie. Many animal populations have been studied through several generations. Especially those in captivity. You really think obvious lies help your argument?

Honest AbeL wrote:

Besides anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
<quoted text>

Oh really? It's not the instinct of the black widow to devour her mate? Even though she does it every single time? It's just "bad behavior"?

Get an education.

And so animal homosexuality is just "bad behavior" too and has nothing to do with instinct, even though there are many species with no homosexuality and many species with exclusive homosexuality???

Honest AbeL wrote:

Must society embrace cannibalism and filicide also? Hey it is natural. This argument is almost as stupid as the embracing of everyone for who they are even if they are freaks of nature.
Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]
Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:
Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.
Dr. Bagemihl's interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, "an imprint of St. Martin's Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books."
<quoted text>

Obviously if we had a percentage of our female population that had the urge after sex to devour their mate, we'd be dealing with that since it's harmful to the mate. Homosexuality on the other hand isn't harmful. And yes, there is homosexual behavior in the wild that is exclusively for dominance. There is also homosexual behavior in the wild that occurs because the animal is exclusively homosexual and will never mate with the opposite gender or reproduce during their lifetime. This is especially evident in many species of monkey, birds, walrus, goats and giraffe.

If you don't like it I suggest you find another planet to live on.

Origin of the Species has a response to this Progressive Agenda.
That is, everything will work out, even if it's not as was expected.

Captive animals takes you out of your "natural" claim. No one has studied animals for a life time. Not even Jane Goodall

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
WRONG. A total lie. Many animal populations have been studied through several generations. Especially those in captivity. You really think obvious lies help your argument?