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
Sopot

Ottawa, IL

#83 Dec 15, 2006
Leticia Perez wrote:
I am an American Citizen, but to me it means nothing. I believe in gay marriages having the same rights as the rest of us in the world. I yself am not gay but I know friends that are gay and i have family that are gay. It really don't matter what you are, whether if its your color your culture your rase your religion and or your sexuality. I think everyone should have the right to marry who they love. NOBODY has the right to tell anyone who they can be with or who they CANNOT marry!!!!!!
Most Americans disagree with you. Do you believe that Americans should be disenfranchised on this issue?

To most of us, marriage is very different from any homosexual relationship. Marriage involves economically unequal genders and usually produces children. Marriage forms the basic building block of American Society. The state has a rational interest to be involved. If marriage ends, children and often "mommy track" mothers can fall to the state to support.

None of these factors apply to homosexual relationships.

Why do you feel the state should be involved in any legal homosexual relationship?

Why should such relationships receive discrimnatory benefits and subsidies at the cost of all other taxpayers?

Why shouldn't Americans be able to govern themselves on this issue?

Since: Dec 06

Palm Springs, CA

#84 Dec 15, 2006
Sopot wrote:
<quoted text>
Most Americans disagree with you. Do you believe that Americans should be disenfranchised on this issue?
To most of us, marriage is very different from any homosexual relationship. Marriage involves economically unequal genders and usually produces children. Marriage forms the basic building block of American Society. The state has a rational interest to be involved. If marriage ends, children and often "mommy track" mothers can fall to the state to support.
None of these factors apply to homosexual relationships.
Why do you feel the state should be involved in any legal homosexual relationship?
Why should such relationships receive discrimnatory benefits and subsidies at the cost of all other taxpayers?
Why shouldn't Americans be able to govern themselves on this issue?
Pure BS.

Read this and weap, you bigot.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/con...
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#86 Dec 17, 2006
Sopot wrote:
Most Americans disagree with you.
Given America's history, this is immaterial.
Sopot wrote:
Do you believe that Americans should be disenfranchised on this issue?
In effect, given your *FIRST* sentence, you just supported gay marriage.
Sopot wrote:
To most of us, marriage is very different from any homosexual relationship. Marriage involves economically unequal genders and usually produces children. Marriage forms the basic building block of American Society. The state has a rational interest to be involved. If marriage ends, children and often "mommy track" mothers can fall to the state to support.
You have zero right to define marriage as you see fit; and fortunately, many now recognize this and are *not* allowing you to define it for *everyone* as *you* see fit. Hello, racism!
Sopot wrote:
None of these factors apply to homosexual relationships.
See previous response. Nor should you be confusing your own opinion with fact. However, there are numerous intelligent people in this forum who will very quickly disabuse you of this notion, unfortunately for you.
Sopot wrote:
Why do you feel the state should be involved in any legal homosexual relationship?
The question is entirely inapplicable.
Sopot wrote:
Why should such relationships receive discrimnatory benefits and subsidies at the cost of all other taxpayers?
The question is entirely inapplicable and *outright prejudiced*, no different from homophobia, sexism or racism.
Sopot wrote:
Why shouldn't Americans be able to govern themselves on this issue?
Because if we followed this philosophy, blacks would still be enslaved by whites. "Good" job!
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#87 Dec 17, 2006
Bill wrote:
If you voted for William Jefferson Blythe "Bubba" Clinton, you had a say in defining marriage in America as solely between one man and one woman. He signed it into law in 1996, with the overwhelming support of Congress.
And here, you have given yourself away in terms of *another* dimension of your philosophy. You *just* claimed that anyone who supported Clinton *was required to support his every view, philosophy and action*, hands down, without exception. No.
Bill wrote:
As for the homosexual "marriage" movement being anti-democratic. Look at the facts. Americans have overwhelmingly rejected homosexual "marriage" in direct referenda.
See: racism.
Bill wrote:
Courts have overwhelmingly rejected any supposed "right" by radical homosexuals to undemocratically force their contrived philosophy of homosexual "marriage" on others.
You just *CONTRADICTED* your claim that the final arbiter should be democracy. From one sentence to the next.
Bill wrote:
Congress and our previous President overwhelmingly supported the Defense of Marriage Act. The Supreme Court has refused to hear arguments against it.
Despite this, radical homosexuals have wasted millions in an unprecidented national assault on the judiciary, court-shopping for like minded radicals to undemocratically force homosexual "marriage" on an unwilling nation.
Well, doesn't that bite for you and people like you. Indeed,*you and your ilk* perpetuate this. You're doing it with this reply.
Bill wrote:
If you don't understand how homosexual "marriage" is discriminatory, tell me just why you think homosexual "couples" should receive benefits and subsidies that elderly sisters sharing a home don't get, or that graduate students sharing an appartment don't get, or that single people don't get.
Because, unfortunately for *you*, no one is falling for your comparison. You attempt it over and over and *no one is buying it*. In your list here, you conveniently *OMIT* any comparison to *marriage between people of opposite genders*. It's the *ONLY COMPARISON* which is *MISSING* from this list. That alone is far too telling for anyone to address your egregious, misleading and, frankly, almost-as-if *RACIST* question.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#88 Dec 17, 2006
Bill wrote:
You aren't making any sense here.
The person made *100.0% perfect sense*, and you *know it*. I, too, can claim randomly that you are 6' 4", enjoy ice hockey, and hate brussels sprouts. Any of us can claim *anything*, but you never *BACK IT UP*. That which follows, from you,*does not* back up this claim.*We can all see that*.
Bill wrote:
There is no relationship between race and the choice of a homosexual lifestyle.
*You know homosexuality is inborn*.*We all know that you know it*.*We all know, moreover, that YOU know that you know it*.
Bill wrote:
African Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage," and deeply resent the racist claim that it has anything to do with their long struggle for equality.
Too bad. If those same African-Americans are going to claim, with prejudice, that homosexuality "is a choice" -- and you certainly have a very big mouth, speaking for all of them -- then it is a simple matter to point out that *THEY THEMSELVES* are nullifying their own struggle with equality by deliberately and willfully refusing to recognize the same objective in and for another group.
Bill wrote:
Equality means one person one vote. It means that you have no "right" to undemocratically force the contrived radical homosexual philosophy of homosexual "marriage" on others.
What part of that don't you understand?
Quite frankly, indeed, it has actually come to this: There is no way to state the following politely.

You have just shown that you are actually *stupid* and that the preceding poster, whose *intelligent post was entirely logical*, is the bane of *your* existence, so you're going to *pretend* the previous poster is ignorant/stupid when, in actuality,*YOU* are due to what you *JUST* said here.
Bill wrote:
You say, "No one should impose their moral ideals on others," but apparently you feel that doesn't apply to you and your cause. Why is that?
Because *we know you know* that homosexual marriage truly affects *no one* except those homosexual couples *who decide to engage in it*. Your question is specious and entirely misleading.
Bill wrote:
Why do you think you have a right to undemocratically force a redefinition of marriage on others?
Because you, conversely and yet *in exactly the same way*, have *zero* right to instruct others as to *YOUR* definition of marriage, which all of us *know you know*. You would only *hope* you've succeeded in attempting to convince others that, by your logic *RIGHT HERE*, you have *NOT* actually forced *YOUR* definition on others -- which is exactly what you are attempting to do.
Bill wrote:
All have an equal right to marry as things stand. You *DON'T* have a right to undemocratically force a contrived radical homosexual philosophy of "marriage" on others.
No one in any of these forums has yet adequately addressed my repeated and very, very concise and unforgiving comparison between this and actually *TELLING OTHERS* what to wear, to whom to speak, and what to do with their lives -- which is what you, in effect, attempt to do here. If you would so gleefully enjoy telling others what to do, the same *WILL* happen to you amongst the members of general society, and that will be that. However, people like you whine and cry once it affects *you*, pretending that something which has *NOTHING* to do with actually *does* affect you when it doesn't.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#89 Dec 17, 2006
Sopot wrote:
It is racist and wrong to claim that the horrible suffering of African has anything at all to do with anti-democratic attempts to force a contrived radical homosexual philosophy of homosexual "marriage" on others.
If you think you are going to stop people from speaking about what is *right* by claiming them to be racist, you do a disservice to the very *TERM* of racism, nor are you *ABOUT* to "shut up" those who believe very, very strongly in what they stand for. With your beliefs and the way you conduct yourself in these forums, you *MIGHT AS WELL* be racist.
Sopot wrote:
Above and beyond any religious considerations, I have yet to see a rational case for homosexual "marriage."
Because you *DO NOT WANT* to see one; you are dead-set against seeing one, you would not see one if it were spelled out for you within the confines of your own brain. That is not my problem or anyone else's; it is yours, and will *NOT* stop those who do see reason and logic in such arguments. Your claim, in fact, to see no reason or logic is *MOOT* since you have proven yourself *DEAD-SET AGAINST* seeing any such logic for what it is.
Sopot wrote:
Homosexuals themselves have overwhelmingly rejected "marriage" as an actual practice everwhere laws were changed to allow it.
This is *literally equivalent* to saying that blacks *DESIRE* to be enslaved by whites.
Sopot wrote:
There are legitimate reasons for government to be involved in marriage. There are none for government involvement in any legal homosexual relationships.
This was almost-as-if racist.
Sopot wrote:
Why to you think discrimatory benefits and subsidies should be given to homosexuals against the common will of the American People?
This was almost-as-if racist.
Sopot wrote:
Why do you think Americans should be disenfranchised in order to have radical homosexual philosophies forced on them?
You *might as well* be virulently racist.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#90 Dec 17, 2006
Sopot wrote:
Homosexual "marriage" would cause all others to be taxed to provide benefits for the tiny minority of homosexuals who would ever "marry." It is unjust to undemocratically force single people, single mothers, sisters sharing a home, etc., for discriminatory benefits and subsidies that they don't themselves receive.
You just argued *AGAINST* the institution of marriage *ITSELF*. You just implied that it should be *ALTOGETHER* abolished. Because if you *didn't*-- if you *deny* that you did so -- then your argument is so *VICIOUSLY SELFISH* that it becomes a non-argument, akin to saying, "Who cares about the welfare of anyone else if it affects me in a way I dislike." By this logic, we shouldn't stop for *SCHOOL BUSES* allowing children to alight because it *HOLDS US UP* on the way to our own selfish, selfish errands.
Sopot wrote:
Many places, the government didn't even get involved in marriage until divorce developed. In PA, for example, there was no civil registration of marriage until 1876. Marriage involves economically unequal genders and usually produces children. When government took welfare functions from churches, it became the government's business to protect itself against breadwinners who abandoned their families. NONE of this, of course, has anything to do with any homosexual relationship. Just what business to you think the goverment has in being involved in any legal homosexual relationship????
While you are continuing to pretend that "relationships" are only "valid" if they exist between people of opposite genders, you cannot and will not *FORCE* others to see them in the same way, unfortunately for you. Your repeated attempts to do so *come to nothing*. Others *DO* see those relationships as legitimate and valid, and are uninterested in your own almost-as-if *RACIST* claims that they are invalid -- as blacks' very own humanity used to be denied them under the tenets of racism and enslavement.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#91 Dec 17, 2006
Bill wrote:
In fact there is no discrimination in marriage laws related to sexual orientation. The ex-Governor of New Jersey married several times. What we're really discussing is anti-democratic attempts to redefine marriage. That's a completely different matter.
You just, in effect, said that there was *NO REASON IN THE WORLD* to abolish enslavement of whites by blacks because blacks could "still be free" within the confines of racism/enslavement. That is, in effect, what you just said.
Bill wrote:
It is completely irrational to claim that marriage involving more than one race has anything to do with anti-democratic attempts to force the contrived radical homosexual philosophy of homosexual "marriage" on others.
This "conveniently" sidesteps the fact that interracial marriage was once *ILLEGAL*.
Bill wrote:
Homosexual relationships have positively nothing to do with either marriage or race.
Too bad others disagree with you. Suck it up.
Bill wrote:
Most African Americans find this irrational correlation to be extremely distasteful. That fact is widely known, so I assume you offend willingly. In doing so, you only make yourself look racist and irrational.
*Still* trying to stop others from speaking by egregiously playing a "race" card? Perhaps you need to be confronted by more people like me who *WILL NOT* be stopped by such deliberate falsification and deliberate,*EXTREMELY* manipulative BS.

Like *ANYONE* in this forum would stop for a moment to expose your *EXTREMELY* manipulative viewpoint given your own *vicious, hateful* prejudice. The interesting part is that the other poster *IS NOT REMOTELY* being racist.*YOU* are using that term in an extremely manipulative way; you have a big mouth, you gleefully lie, and need to be told these things.
Bill wrote:
As for unmarried people paying taxes to support marriage and family, the fact remains that they are the basic building block of American Society and society as a whole as an interest in its well being.
You just supported gay marriage, or on the converse, argued for the abolishment of marriage as a whole.
Bill wrote:
Numerous studies confirm that having both a mother and father in the home is one of the biggest advantages that a child can have in life.
And now you *EXTREMELY* manipulatively bring *CHILDREN* into the argument. If you think this is going to stop anyone in their right mind, you have a long, long, long life ahead of you.
Bill wrote:
Most Americans benefit from marriage as children even if they are never involved in it as adults.
They also benefit from lack of prejudice,*YET YOU MAKE PREJUDICED POSTS THROUGHOUT THESE FORUMS*.
grammaw

Stockton, CA

#92 Dec 18, 2006
rdg1234 wrote:
<quoted text>
You just, in effect, said that there was *NO REASON IN THE WORLD* to abolish enslavement of whites by blacks because blacks could "still be free" within the confines of racism/enslavement. That is, in effect, what you just said.
<quoted text>
This "conveniently" sidesteps the fact that interracial marriage was once *ILLEGAL*.
<quoted text>
your so full of hate you cant read.
ease up and let others live.
Too bad others disagree with you. Suck it up.
<quoted text>
*Still* trying to stop others from speaking by egregiously playing a "race" card? Perhaps you need to be confronted by more people like me who *WILL NOT* be stopped by such deliberate falsification and deliberate,*EXTREMELY* manipulative BS.
Like *ANYONE* in this forum would stop for a moment to expose your *EXTREMELY* manipulative viewpoint given your own *vicious, hateful* prejudice. The interesting part is that the other poster *IS NOT REMOTELY* being racist.*YOU* are using that term in an extremely manipulative way; you have a big mouth, you gleefully lie, and need to be told these things.
<quoted text>
You just supported gay marriage, or on the converse, argued for the abolishment of marriage as a whole.
<quoted text>
And now you *EXTREMELY* manipulatively bring *CHILDREN* into the argument. If you think this is going to stop anyone in their right mind, you have a long, long, long life ahead of you.
<quoted text>
They also benefit from lack of prejudice,*YET YOU MAKE PREJUDICED POSTS THROUGHOUT THESE FORUMS*.
your so full of hate that you cant read. ease up.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#94 Dec 19, 2006
grammaw wrote:
<quoted text>
your so full of hate that you cant read. ease up.
You sound very much like someone who has come into the discourse *in the middle* of what is occurring, has attempted to peg others using *pop psychology*, and who might very well love to be correct if only for the sake of your own pride ... but on that last one, we shall see.
equally treated

Fresno, CA

#95 May 11, 2013
I know shes right no one in this world should have the rigbt to choose love for you you are who you so be it, i agree with her on the same sex equilibrium

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#96 May 12, 2013
equally treated wrote:
I know shes right no one in this world should have the rigbt to choose love for you you are who you so be it, i agree with her on the same sex equilibrium
Uh, what? Whatever meds you're on, cut the dosage in half

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
News Bugs Found Crawling Inside Man's Scalp (Jul '07) Mar 1 Anonymous 22
Review: Resident Goldsmith - Steve Spangler (Sep '13) Feb '17 Disgusted mother 12
News Thousands mass in downtown Denver for Women's M... Jan '17 barrack 1
Roman Travertine for decoration background (Aug '16) 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
Dear Annie, Advice Column (Mar '07) Oct '16 mary fleming 37

Carbondale Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Carbondale Mortgages