Cook County Board Votes to Recognize Same Sex Partnerships

The Illinois Leader ^ | 6-1-2003 | The Leader-Chicago Bureau

[DAnconia55]

Take up arms? Simply because two men or two women can marry in CIVIL (Note, not religious) ceremonies? Are we really going to fall into a civil war over that, I have a feeling you won't have a lot of comrades in arms.....

If it starts over this, I'll fight them and turn them in.

This is patently ridiculous. And I'm certainly not going to live in a Government formed if these yahoo take over.

No one I know would.

You know what the problem is?
We've got a group of people here who live in the middle of Iowa. They get up, go outside to the cornfield and look around and think : "Yep. This is how it is everywhere"

They have absolutely NO CLUE that 95% of the population can't stand them. (Even if they don't say it to their faces.)

Some lunatic here yesterday tried to tell me the Religious Right was 80% of the Republican vote.....

[unspun]

I'm hoping Canada will go first and they will get them all. Then maybe we can stop them at the border from coming back.

With our immigration policy, we're liable to be bringing in radical homophilliacs from across the globe. (Seems that's how AIDS got here in the first place.)

[unspun]

What color is the sky, from your cornfield?

If I would ever find myself in a state defending itself from gross perversion of reality (of the nature of Roe-v-Wade/Doe-v-Bolton and homophilliac "marriage") by arms, and you're one of those attempting to inflict your deconstruction of society there, I wouldn't hesitate.

[DAnconia55]

You do realize that even in Iowa that Fundies are not the majority?

[Lancey Howard]

This kind of moral depravity, pedophilia, and sodomy, etc. is overtaking the nation's parasite nests (cities) one by one. These are the "blue" (Democrat) areas on that famous county-by-county post-election map. Nothing new here. These are Democrat areas.

During his tenure as Mayor of Philadelphia, Ed Rendell got the same pro-sodomy legislation passed by the city council there. It's a Democrat thing. I wouldn't worry about it. As long as the parasite nests (cities) remain concentrated with all the Democrat filth, who cares?

[unspun]

You do realize that even in Iowa that Fundies are not the majority?

Please "enlighten" me. Describe in exacting language, just what a Fundy (Fundie?) is.

[unspun]

I wouldn't worry about it. As long as the parasite nests (cities) remain concentrated with all the Democrat filth, who cares?

I sure do, LH. Real, living people, adults and children, live in those cities. That's what makes them cities, afterall. ;-)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank y'all for the heads up! Once a long time ago on the forum, a Freeper used the expression "the second amendment is the reset button for the Constitution". I imagine that is true, but pray it never is needed.

[unspun]

(BTW, I've been in Iowa and have studied it a bit. There are more wacky liberals, moral liberal and otherwise, per capita there than in many states, but please indulge me with that precise description.)

[unspun]

Thanks for your perspectives.

In any case, I don't think anybody in his right mind would relish a second civil war.

With a fairly extreme, but historically realistic scenario according to the states rights theme you postulate, bb, it's feasible. (If I'm there, and it most likely wouldn't be in Iowa, I'd be interested in seeing if DAnconia55 comes to the front.)

[Forseti]

And just what is wrong with legally recognized same-sex unions? This is America, the land of the free. We are supposed to pride ourselves on individualism and our ability to live life free from government intrusion.

Now I can appreciate the general feeling that there are many other far more essential liberties being threatened or currently denied, but that doesn't change the fact that removing government from our personal lives is a good thing.

[Michael Barnes]

Because your lifestyle is a choice. There is nothing natural about a man ramming another man. There is nothing natural about two women enjoying clam dips.

Same sex anything has begot us nothing but more STD. Sick lifestyle, sick mindset, abnormal thought.

I will fall for it no more. These people have a problem, not a lifestyle. No adoption for gays. No marrige for gays. No special laws for gays. They can practice their ways in the privacy of their own homes, but I will not "tolerate" it when they wish to pull their "were here, were queer" bullshit.

Thankfully, I won't see any of them in the afterlife..

[DAnconia55]

BTW, I've been in Iowa and have studied it a bit. There are more wacky liberals, moral liberal and otherwise, per capita there than in many states, but please indulge me with that precise description.)

Yeah bad choice on my part. I forget those idiots keep electing Harkin.

[DAnconia55]

Please "enlighten" me. Describe in exacting language, just what a Fundy (Fundie?) is

Well, I guess you're one, considering you are talking about taking up arms because gays now have the right to have sex with each other without being arrested for it.

[Forseti]

OK, Unix, there's nothing natural about marriage either. As a matter of public policy, it restricts the best breading partners and thus hurts public health. Your self righteous dedication to marriage is weakening the American public, and if you care about you country you should be ashamed of yourself.

This is why marriage should have nothing to do wih state interests, and have everything to do with personal convictions. If you want your one wife and 2.3 children, go for it. If I want a recently out of the closet man who happens to be a single father from a previous union, that should be my choice. Now if you want to shun me at social gatherings and church events, and try to convince St. Peter I shouldn't be let in, that's your decision to make as an individual, but don't start legislating against it.

[Forseti]

Fundy = fundamentalist Christian

[garbanzo]

True - but at the same time they get few of the other benefits. I see no reason why they shouldn't get the same civil benefits and have the same civil responsibilities. If you don't want to call it "marriage" then fine - call it a civil union or some such. Let "marriage" be for heterosexuals and "civil unions" be for gays as long as they have the same substantial civil protections.

[garbanzo]

Our founding fathers gave the death penalty to homosexuals

And some of them owned slaves and they refused to give women the right to vote.

[John O]

You're missing the point. They can get married. They have every right to marry that I do. I can marry the woman of my choice (assuming she agrees) and they can marry the women of their choice. Why should they have special rights to marry men or sheep or children or corpses? That is what they are arguing for, special rights

[John O]

OK, Unix, there's nothing natural about marriage either.

You need to study both biology and history. For 6000 plus years mankind has known that the union of one man to a woman is the natural and correct order

As a matter of public policy, it restricts the best breading partners and thus hurts public health.

As a matter of public policy it creates the strongest and best environment for producing and raising children, the future of any society. By reining in the natural promiscuity and irresponsibility of men and encouraging them to become fathers and providers for their children marriage promotes and increases public health and the health of the public. (Also it really doesn't matter whether the two are the best bakers or not. Breading vs breeding :^) )

This is why marriage should have nothing to do wih state interests, and have everything to do with personal convictions.

Marriage has everything to do with state interests. The state is built upon a healthy citizenry. The only way to get healthy citizens is to raise them in two parent households formed of one man and one woman where the parents are married to and committed to each other. The only reason the state recognizes marriage at all is to provide incentive for people to raise healthy children. If the union has no chance of producing children (as in a 'gay' union) then it doesn't deserve public encouragement as it is contrary to the interests of the public.