Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

Even if that was possible it still get you what you want the most! And that is for people to accept homosexuality as normal! The only accomplishments you have made has been through legislation, not the blessing of the people. In the end it is not going to work out well for you.
This is the only country in the world built with the prayers to God.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
And all those anti-gay State Amendments can be overturned by one single ruling by SCOTUS.
Here's another article about you: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sun...

Cool Hand Luke wrote:

Even if that was possible it still get you what you want the most! And that is for people to accept homosexuality as normal! The only accomplishments you have made has been through legislation, not the blessing of the people. In the end it is not going to work out well for you.
This is the only country in the world built with the prayers to God.
<quoted text>

Oh, it IS possible.... no "if" about it.

Your acceptance is neither requested nor required. No one is asking you to marry a gay man. The "blessing of the people" is irrelevant to my civil rights.

"This is the only country in the world built with the prayers to God."????? What a silly thing to say. Your prayers didn't build anything other than a nice bubble around your delusions.

Horatio Caine wrote:

Good Luck with that! The New York Times? Oh brother!
<quoted text>

You have a problem with the NY Times? It wasn't their research, silly. They were reporting on an article in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Yes, I know.... what do the professional psychologists know about your secret..... blah, blah blah.....

Marengo Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
The Bible doesn't condone divorce. Divorced women are an abomination.
The Bible doesn't condone a prospective bride who isn't a virgin; she should be stoned to death.
The Bible doesn't condone sexual activity during menstruation.
The Bible doesn't condone eating shellfish.
The Bible doesn't condone masturbation.
The Bible doesn't condone eating pork.
The Bible does condone slavery.
The Bible does condone beating your slave (he's your property, after all).
Given all of this, why are fundamental Christians so focused on what I do in the bedroom with my husband? Seems pretty petty to me...

I have been watching this page for way over a year.I don't mean to be disrespectful to you, but you seemed like a professor or something. Not everyone who reads these forums has something to say. It just got me last night. We have been so involved on this subject, which I know is important to many people. I have been watching other things besides this. The muslims are trying to get their laws passed here, their population has exploded in the USA. Are president seems to be sticking with them. If they get just a little bit of their laws passed in the USA and some things they have done have been looked over. The woman murdered in Florida, got off because he was a muslim and it was their law.I am just trying to tell you all, that most of the Christians are afraid they are going to get laws passed because of their religious beliefs. If this gets off, this USA as we all know, will change. I just think we are letting things go on, as far as civil unions, or anything else for that matter. I just think we all should be using our energy together, whether we agree or not on homosexuality, to abolish these muslim laws before it is too late. None of us will be able to have a freewill as we all know it. There won't be civil unions, or gay communities to worry about. None of us will be able to have freedom as we know it. People just are not getting what is going on behind the scenes. As far as the laws you have listed above, that was under the old law, we now live under grace, God forgives us from everything except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I hope you all check on this subject, like I said, if this law goes into effect we all will be in trouble, just something for you all to be watching for. Remember one thing at a time, if this gets passed your works will be lost. Remember their population is exploding everyday. I do not hate them, get that right, I just don't want their laws in the USA. I HOPE YOU ALL TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like there is more than one way to skin a cat, there is more than one way to understand a religion.
You show a idiot's way of understanding a religion.

There's the problem, you see.

Biblicism and Inerrency do NOT allow such plurality of "understanding".

You go from bad to worst! There is not one thing the PRO'S at the APA have ever cured, nothing, Nona! They are just like the shade tree mechanic, he can tell you what's wrong with your car, he can't fix it but he can tell you what's wrong.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
You have a problem with the NY Times? It wasn't their research, silly. They were reporting on an article in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Yes, I know.... what do the professional psychologists know about your secret..... blah, blah blah.....

You have the same civil rights as anyone else. If you are a man, you can marry a woman, if you are a woman you can marry a man. Equal, not privileged.

Like it or not homosexuality is perverse and the majority of people oppose it.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text> Oh, it IS possible.... no "if" about it.
Your acceptance is neither requested nor required. No one is asking you to marry a gay man. The "blessing of the people" is irrelevant to my civil rights.
"This is the only country in the world built with the prayers to God."????? What a silly thing to say. Your prayers didn't build anything other than a nice bubble around your delusions.

Blair wrote:

You have the same civil rights as anyone else. If you are a man, you can marry a woman, if you are a woman you can marry a man. Equal, not privileged.
Like it or not homosexuality is perverse and the majority of people oppose it.
<quoted text>

Imagine a law that stated that you could bind yourself for life ONLY to someone you are NOT attracted to, or don't love.

Horatio Caine wrote:

You go from bad to worst! There is not one thing the PRO'S at the APA have ever cured, nothing, Nona! They are just like the shade tree mechanic, he can tell you what's wrong with your car, he can't fix it but he can tell you what's wrong.
<quoted text>

here's the problem as i see it. if people, either gay or straight, are going to use trite cliches to try to express a point, they could at least get the words correct.

it's 'bad to worse', not 'bad to worst'

by saying these things incorrectly all you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance.

please go back to school and start all over again. maybe you can get it right finally.

You are absolutely out of line here.
Now return to you hole.
You comment is the "worse" I've ever seen.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
here's the problem as i see it. if people, either gay or straight, are going to use trite cliches to try to express a point, they could at least get the words correct.
it's 'bad to worse', not 'bad to worst'
by saying these things incorrectly all you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance.
please go back to school and start all over again. maybe you can get it right finally.

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Imagine a law that stated that you could bind yourself for life ONLY to someone you are NOT attracted to, or don't love.

It boggles the mind, doesn't it?

I will never understand these people who say "homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else - to marry someone of the opposite sex!"

Why do these people hate marriage so much that they would desire possibly millions of loveless, sexless marriages creating millions of unhappy people in dysfunctional relationship?

Staggers with drunks wrote:

You are absolutely out of line here.
Now return to you hole.
You comment is the "worse" I've ever seen.
<quoted text>

hey, thanks

There is no law that stops you from practicing homosexuality or living with another Gay, the diseases prove that. What you are insisting on are laws that REQUIRE the other 96% of the population to accept homosexuality as normal behavior.

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Imagine a law that stated that you could bind yourself for life ONLY to someone you are NOT attracted to, or don't love.

I said exactly what I meant, bad to worst as in none worse!

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
here's the problem as i see it. if people, either gay or straight, are going to use trite cliches to try to express a point, they could at least get the words correct.
it's 'bad to worse', not 'bad to worst'
by saying these things incorrectly all you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance.
please go back to school and start all over again. maybe you can get it right finally.

There is no law that requires you to get married in a loveless marriage. Come up with a homosexual wedding ceremony, I am sure your servants in Washington will gladly passed it. I assure you not one heterosexual will complain because they can't have a Gay wedding ceremony.

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>
It boggles the mind, doesn't it?
I will never understand these people who say "homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else - to marry someone of the opposite sex!"
Why do these people hate marriage so much that they would desire possibly millions of loveless, sexless marriages creating millions of unhappy people in dysfunctional relationship?

Horatio Caine wrote:

You go from bad to worst! There is not one thing the PRO'S at the APA have ever cured, nothing, Nona! They are just like the shade tree mechanic, he can tell you what's wrong with your car, he can't fix it but he can tell you what's wrong.
<quoted text>

Because people are BORN gay and they don't NEED a cure.

Samatha wrote:

There is no law that stops you from practicing homosexuality or living with another Gay, the diseases prove that. What you are insisting on are laws that REQUIRE the other 96% of the population to accept homosexuality as normal behavior.
<quoted text>

Your acceptance is neither requested nor required.

Horatio Caine wrote:

There is no law that requires you to get married in a loveless marriage. Come up with a homosexual wedding ceremony, I am sure your servants in Washington will gladly passed it. I assure you not one heterosexual will complain because they can't have a Gay wedding ceremony.
<quoted text>

A wedding is not required to get married.

False! Your lying again!

.
Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (NARTH) disputes the APA's position.



Great cultural and legal changes have taken place in our society because of this Homosexual Urban Legend. However, it is slowly being debunked. This is being accomplished not only by highly credible research conducted by conservative psychologists and psychiatrists, but also by the admissions of homosexual researchers themselves.



Dr. Robert Spitzer, a NARTH associate, was one of the main forces behind the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Dr. Spitzer is now convinced that men and women who have a homosexual orientation can change through therapy. His most recent findings were published in Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417).



NARTH summarized his findings on its web site. Dr. Spitzer interviewed some 200 men and women who reported changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted five years or longer. According to Spitzer, his findings show that "the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation."



One of the most compelling articles to dispel the notion that homosexuality is genetically determined, fixed, and unchangeable is: "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science: In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy," by Drs. A. Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson. This essay is published on the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality web site.



The authors of this study carefully quote a number of homosexual researchers who have worked for years to locate a "gay gene" or some other genetic basis for homosexuality. They have failed and are now admitting that such evidence may never be found.



Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer, for example, attempted to link male homosexuality to a bit of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome. He has written: "Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay.... I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."



Homosexual researcher Simon LeVay, who studied the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men noted: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."



Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins studied, the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52%(both twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among non-twins.



This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual."



In short, the three most famous studies in recent years that homosexual activists use to claim that homosexuality is genetic prove no such thing. In fact, two of the authors of these studies admit their research has not proven a genetic basis to homosexuality.

.

Spitzer recanted his study and apologized to the gay community! You need some updated material!

Cool Hand Luke wrote:

False! Your lying again!
.
Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (NARTH) disputes the APA's position.
Great cultural and legal changes have taken place in our society because of this Homosexual Urban Legend. However, it is slowly being debunked. This is being accomplished not only by highly credible research conducted by conservative psychologists and psychiatrists, but also by the admissions of homosexual researchers themselves.
Dr. Robert Spitzer, a NARTH associate, was one of the main forces behind the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Dr. Spitzer is now convinced that men and women who have a homosexual orientation can change through therapy. His most recent findings were published in Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417).
NARTH summarized his findings on its web site. Dr. Spitzer interviewed some 200 men and women who reported changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted five years or longer. According to Spitzer, his findings show that "the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation."