Early Results Show Voters Against Gay...

Early Results Show Voters Against Gay Marriage

There are 92 comments on the Thedenverchannel.com story from Nov 7, 2006, titled Early Results Show Voters Against Gay Marriage. In it, Thedenverchannel.com reports that:

A proposal to outlaw gay marriage in Colorado grabbed early support from voters Tuesday while a dueling measure to give same-sex couples some of the same benefits as married couples was failing.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Thedenverchannel.com.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Paul

Rochester, NY

#1 Nov 8, 2006
Lets declare that Heterosexual couples who are married and cant have children, that there marriges are invalid. People get married beacause they "love each other" children are sometimes a result of that union, but thats not the reason why people get married. Its interesting when the headlines read: "Early Results Show Voters Against Gay Marriage" who are voters? voters in Virginia? voters in South Carolina? The media would have you think that the whole country is voting this way. Its part of the way they decieve the public.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#2 Nov 8, 2006
What a "joke" that anyone would believe this is nothing whatsoever like civil rights.

And *WHAT* a "joke" that anyone would take umbrage at a single citizen of the United States of America calling their own country out on its *PATENT, OBVIOUS* bigotry and prejudice.

I have more or less recently been in *TWO* threads on topix alone where people took umbrage *AT ME* for calling America out on it.

*GET* over it or it'll be your problem alone. I will call this country's actions as I see them, and America is recently proving its prejudice not only overwhelmingly, not only repeatedly, but with entrenched insistence. If I see someone insistently and repeatedly beating a small child, I call them out on abuse. When I see people *THIS* insistent on banning gay marriage, you have a long (expletive deleted) life ahead of you if you think I'm going to shut up now. Again,*GET* over it or help to *STOP* it, the end; thanks for reading.
Lys Anzia

Denver, CO

#3 Nov 8, 2006
According to the the most recent data, support for similar legislative measures in the state of Colorado and in all eight states with 2006 marriage amendments show that tolerance for gay marriage and gay legislative rights is UP from previous elections and votes. In other words the number of people who show tolerance towards homosexuals is on the rise year by year. The tolerance level not staying the same. The tolerance level is not going down. Look at the data. It's there.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#4 Nov 8, 2006
I still think it's insanely "laughable," disgusting and egregious that *ANY* such equality should *EVER* have to be based upon any "popular opinion," and that will continue, in my eyes, to be 100.0% senseless, but I see your point, absolutely.
Bill

Stockton, CA

#5 Nov 9, 2006
rdg1234 wrote:
I still think it's insanely "laughable," disgusting and egregious that *ANY* such equality should *EVER* have to be based upon any "popular opinion," and that will continue, in my eyes, to be 100.0% senseless, but I see your point, absolutely.
Americans overwhelmingly reject the nonsense that marriage is the same thing as any homosexual relationship.

Homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected homosexual "marriage" *EVERYWHERE* it has ever been enacted.

American courts have overwhelminly rejected any "right" you think you have to undemocratically force your contrived redefinition of "marriage" on others."

You don't have a logical or ethical leg to stand on.

The Supreme Court has upheld our federal definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.

A *MAJORITY* of states now have constitutional bans on homosexual "marriage," enacted by The People.

Congress has defined marriage as only betweeon one man and one woman.

More states have constitutional amendments in the works.
OO - Openly Okie

Palm Springs, CA

#6 Nov 9, 2006
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans overwhelmingly reject the nonsense that marriage is the same thing as any homosexual relationship.
Homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected homosexual "marriage" *EVERYWHERE* it has ever been enacted.
American courts have overwhelminly rejected any "right" you think you have to undemocratically force your contrived redefinition of "marriage" on others."
You don't have a logical or ethical leg to stand on.
The Supreme Court has upheld our federal definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
A *MAJORITY* of states now have constitutional bans on homosexual "marriage," enacted by The People.
Congress has defined marriage as only betweeon one man and one woman.
More states have constitutional amendments in the works.
Hate Speech. Flagged for Review.
Bill

Stockton, CA

#7 Nov 9, 2006
OO - Openly Okie wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate Speech. Flagged for Review.
Yes, Okie, you have repeated expressed the fact that you have no logical reply to posts that differ with the HRC talking points that you chant but can't defend with logic.

Well, this time, the voters have spoken!
OO - Openly Okie

Palm Springs, CA

#8 Nov 9, 2006
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Okie, you have repeated expressed the fact that you have no logical reply to posts that differ with the HRC talking points that you chant but can't defend with logic.
Well, this time, the voters have spoken!
Hate Speech. Flagged for Review.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#9 Nov 13, 2006
Bill wrote:
Americans overwhelmingly reject the nonsense that marriage is the same thing as any homosexual relationship.
And I *just* clarified that I find this nonsensical and unrelated to *ANY* point on *ANY* such matter. I *just* did so in my previous post, in clear and plain English for you to see. I do not care, and you have enormous trouble grasping that I do not care, whether the *ENTIRE WORLD* disagrees with it; then I disagree with the *ENTIRE WORLD*-- and know that attempting to buttress the legitimacy of *anything* with *argumenta ad populum* is meaningless. Therefore, your declaration here is meaningless.
Bill wrote:
Homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected homosexual "marriage" *EVERYWHERE* it has ever been enacted.
American courts have overwhelminly rejected any "right" you think you have to undemocratically force your contrived redefinition of "marriage" on others."
See previous response. It stands here, as well, with all of the same force. Every. Last. Milliliter. Of the same force. From me. To you.
Bill wrote:
You don't have a logical or ethical leg to stand on.
Oh, how *badly* you wish this were true. How desperately and miserably you *wish* this were the case; as if I would listen to this for a millisecond -- for a nanosecond -- from someone so clearly, hatefully,*viciously* hatefully and vitriolically *anti-gay* on these boards. As if I am going to *WALK AWAY FROM THIS POST* actually believing *I* have no legitimacy to what I say. I believe -- basically, I *factually know*-- that you say this entirely out of self-referentiality, because *you know it to be true of yourself*, and attempt to inflict your own misery on others. It's all yours, and I couldn't be gladder that I'm not you.
Bill wrote:
The Supreme Court has upheld our federal definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
A *MAJORITY* of states now have constitutional bans on homosexual "marriage," enacted by The People.
Congress has defined marriage as only betweeon one man and one woman.
More states have constitutional amendments in the works.
See first response. You seem to *revel* in advertising the literal, direct and proximate *idiocy* of your fellow human beings who would support such a point. You can't stop with the general concept; no. You have to *point out* that such ignorance, prejudice and hatred is *WIDESPREAD*; then you futilely, cryingly claim that there is no way *I* or anyone else could deconstruct your posts or point out said prejudice for what it *REALLY* is. We've done so every time, and we will continue to do so. You literally *CANNOT* win this because you are attempting to instruct others what to think, and it will never work.

Here, with perhaps your *500th* post on the matter, my views remain unchanged, and I stand against every so-called "American" who revels in prejudice, hatred and bigotry. If that were *ninety percent* of the country, I would stand against *every last one of them*. You haven't stopped me yet, and you never will. Suck it up and get over it.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#10 Nov 13, 2006
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Okie, you have repeated expressed the fact that you have no logical reply to posts that differ with the HRC talking points that you chant but can't defend with logic.
Well, this time, the voters have spoken!
Others are calling you out on the *literal reality* of what you represent,*clear for all to see*. Suck it up and get over it. You do *NOT* control others and you will *NOT* tell them what to think. You have failed 100.0% of the times that you have attempted to do so. Suck. It. Up. And. Get. Over. It. Because it will not change, not a whit, ever.
DC Gay

Washington, DC

#11 Nov 13, 2006
Repetitive. No Reply.
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans overwhelmingly reject the nonsense that marriage is the same thing as any homosexual relationship.
Homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected homosexual "marriage" *EVERYWHERE* it has ever been enacted.
American courts have overwhelminly rejected any "right" you think you have to undemocratically force your contrived redefinition of "marriage" on others."
You don't have a logical or ethical leg to stand on.
The Supreme Court has upheld our federal definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
A *MAJORITY* of states now have constitutional bans on homosexual "marriage," enacted by The People.
Congress has defined marriage as only betweeon one man and one woman.
More states have constitutional amendments in the works.
Bill

Stockton, CA

#12 Nov 13, 2006
rdg1234 wrote:
<quoted text>
Others are calling you out on the *literal reality* of what you represent,*clear for all to see*. Suck it up and get over it. You do *NOT* control others and you will *NOT* tell them what to think. You have failed 100.0% of the times that you have attempted to do so. Suck. It. Up. And. Get. Over. It. Because it will not change, not a whit, ever.
You really don't get it, do you rdg?

These constitutional amendments passed with pluralities as high as 81%, and you claim no one shares my views!!!

It should indeed be obvious that few Americans share YOURS. Presumably a sizable percent of those who did not vote for the amendments were fooled by the leading arguments against them, such as that the amendments were not necessary since homosexual "marriage" was in every case already illegal.
OO - Openly Okie

Palm Springs, CA

#13 Nov 14, 2006
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't get it, do you rdg?
These constitutional amendments passed with pluralities as high as 81%, and you claim no one shares my views!!!
It should indeed be obvious that few Americans share YOURS. Presumably a sizable percent of those who did not vote for the amendments were fooled by the leading arguments against them, such as that the amendments were not necessary since homosexual "marriage" was in every case already illegal.
Bill is right. There are people who share his view. Some share it completely and others have variations on what Bill believes. Also true that some people were fooled by the leading arguments against the bills while others were not. The fact that homosexual marriage was a law ,not incorporated into the state constitution, but nonetheless a valid law already, did have an effect on people. How many is not accurately known, but we can assume that the law seems sufficient to a subset of the voters. 81% speaks loudly, doesn't it Bill. Seven out of eight state passing amendments speaks very loudly doesn't. I acknowledge it. I think rgd does get it, but takes a different perspective of what it all means. For example, the margin of victory, with the exception of Tennessee, dropped an average of about 20% in the six other states that voted on the gay marriage issues, as compared to previous referendums on the same issue. Gay people see a glimmer of hope in that change. They think that might signal a more accepting attitude among American voters generally speaking. Do you think gays should be hopeful, Bill? And do you see those margin differences as a more accepting attitude among Americans?
Bill

Stockton, CA

#14 Nov 14, 2006
OO - Openly Okie wrote:
<quoted text>
Bill is right. There are people who share his view. Some share it completely and others have variations on what Bill believes. Also true that some people were fooled by the leading arguments against the bills while others were not. The fact that homosexual marriage was a law ,not incorporated into the state constitution, but nonetheless a valid law already, did have an effect on people. How many is not accurately known, but we can assume that the law seems sufficient to a subset of the voters. 81% speaks loudly, doesn't it Bill. Seven out of eight state passing amendments speaks very loudly doesn't. I acknowledge it. I think rgd does get it, but takes a different perspective of what it all means. For example, the margin of victory, with the exception of Tennessee, dropped an average of about 20% in the six other states that voted on the gay marriage issues, as compared to previous referendums on the same issue. Gay people see a glimmer of hope in that change. They think that might signal a more accepting attitude among American voters generally speaking. Do you think gays should be hopeful, Bill? And do you see those margin differences as a more accepting attitude among Americans?
Momentum is very decisively on the side of traditional marriage. A *MAJORITY* of states now have constitutional amendment to prevent homosexual "marriage," on top of already having state laws against it.

The HRC has done its best to misrepresent the voice of the people on this issue, in order to keep the millions flowing in from naïve homosexuals who are still fooled by this issue. In addition to TN, many other states in this round produced very high pluralities for constitutional amendments to prevent disenfranchisement of voters on this issue. SC exceeded 78%. WI, known as a liberal state, produced a sizable majority for the amendment, dispite misrepresentations by the HRC that passage was likely.

The score really isn't much different in the courts. There was another string of court cases rejecting any "right" to force a redefinition of marriage on an unwilling electorate. Of about a score of decisions, only NJ decided that there should be discriminatory benefits and subsidies for homosexuals at all, and even they refused to dictate "marriage."

Most significant of all was the Supreme Court's refusal to hear arguments against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage in federal law as solely between one man and one woman.

Homosexuals themselves continue to overwhelmingly reject "marriage" as an actual practice everywhere that it has been established in law.
Bill

Stockton, CA

#15 Nov 14, 2006
Momentum is decisively on the side of traditional marriage.

A *MAJORITY* of states now have constitutional amendments to prevent disenfranchisement of voters on this issue, and a number of other states have new amendments in process.

Despite HRC efforts to misrepresent the current round of votes to keep the millions rolling in, there was an 81% plurality in TN, a 78% plurality in SC, and a large majority even in WI, which the HRC had claimed was likely to not pass the amendment.

The recent score of court cases are most devastating to anti-democratic efforts to establish homosexual "marriage," especially the Supreme Court's refusal to hear arguments against the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
OO - Openly Okie

Palm Springs, CA

#16 Nov 15, 2006
Bill wrote:
Momentum is decisively on the side of traditional marriage.
A *MAJORITY* of states now have constitutional amendments to prevent disenfranchisement of voters on this issue, and a number of other states have new amendments in process.
Despite HRC efforts to misrepresent the current round of votes to keep the millions rolling in, there was an 81% plurality in TN, a 78% plurality in SC, and a large majority even in WI, which the HRC had claimed was likely to not pass the amendment.
The recent score of court cases are most devastating to anti-democratic efforts to establish homosexual "marriage," especially the Supreme Court's refusal to hear arguments against the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
You're certain?
DC Gay

Washington, DC

#17 Nov 15, 2006
Bill wrote:
Momentum is decisively on the side of traditional marriage.
A *MAJORITY* of states now have constitutional amendments to prevent disenfranchisement of voters on this issue, and a number of other states have new amendments in process.
Despite HRC efforts to misrepresent the current round of votes to keep the millions rolling in, there was an 81% plurality in TN, a 78% plurality in SC, and a large majority even in WI, which the HRC had claimed was likely to not pass the amendment.
The recent score of court cases are most devastating to anti-democratic efforts to establish homosexual "marriage," especially the Supreme Court's refusal to hear arguments against the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
really? I dont see it that way at all. 30 years ago, I could have been institutionalized by my family for being gay. 12 years ago, I could be fired in every state in the US for being gay. 5 years ago, an act of consentual sex in my home with my partner was still illegal in many states.

None of that is true today.

As for marriage, the polls show a shife of about 17 percentage points in favor of SSM, between 2003 and 2006.

We'll see.
anonymous

New Berlin, WI

#18 Nov 15, 2006
I say live and let live. Why do straight people oppose this so much? I don't know. I'm a straight woman and I could care less if a couple is same sex; I'm just happy to see them happy together. So many "straight" marriages are horrible marriages full of lies and deception and adultery...how can this country condemn two people for wanting to be together legally is beyond me. A gay couple getting married does not negatively affect me in any way. I say more power to ya; and I can't see the reasoning in trying to stop it. Love, family and commitment are what is important here...why should we try to get in the way of that??
Carrot Cake Man

Union City, CA

#19 Nov 15, 2006
anonymous wrote:
I say live and let live. Why do straight people oppose this so much? I don't know. I'm a straight woman and I could care less if a couple is same sex; I'm just happy to see them happy together. So many "straight" marriages are horrible marriages full of lies and deception and adultery...how can this country condemn two people for wanting to be together legally is beyond me. A gay couple getting married does not negatively affect me in any way. I say more power to ya; and I can't see the reasoning in trying to stop it. Love, family and commitment are what is important here...why should we try to get in the way of that??
Thank you for your kind and compassionate post, anonymous. A majority of Americans feel the same as you. Some of the posts from the gay-haters are filled with lies. One of the posters in particular above simply refuses to acknowledge any factual information that differs from his prejudice and hate.
Bill

Stockton, CA

#20 Nov 15, 2006
anonymous wrote:
I say live and let live. Why do straight people oppose this so much? I don't know. I'm a straight woman and I could care less if a couple is same sex; I'm just happy to see them happy together. So many "straight" marriages are horrible marriages full of lies and deception and adultery...how can this country condemn two people for wanting to be together legally is beyond me. A gay couple getting married does not negatively affect me in any way. I say more power to ya; and I can't see the reasoning in trying to stop it. Love, family and commitment are what is important here...why should we try to get in the way of that??
Do you really think this is about "two people wanting to be together?"

In fact, homosexual "marriage" has failed to attract a significant percentage of homosexual participants anywhere it has ever been enacted. "Marriage" flies in the face of the realities of homosexual life. Many homosexuals realize this ( www.beyondgaymarriage.com )

The homosexual "marriage" movement is a political charade attempting to undemocratically force a contrived radical homosexual philosophy of "marriage" on others. It has no real basis in how homosexuals live.

It is a cruel lie and an unrealistic expectation for homosexuals and their families to think that the choice of a homosexual lifestyle is ever going to result in anything even vaguely resembling marriage and family.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Carbondale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Resident Goldsmith - Steve Spangler (Sep '13) Feb 4 Disgusted mother 12
News Thousands mass in downtown Denver for Women's M... Jan '17 barrack 1
Roman Travertine for decoration background Jan '17 fusa 2
News 'River bandit' pleads guilty in four cases (Jul '09) Dec '16 Kerru 3
News Mother, 2 Kids Go Missing In Highlands Ranch Dec '16 Kelly 9
Trump vs Clinton 2016 Oct '16 MAGA2016 1
Dear Annie, Advice Column (Mar '07) Oct '16 mary fleming 37

Carbondale Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Carbondale Mortgages