Civil unions clear Colo. Legislature, head to gov

Mar 12, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: SavannahNow

Civil unions for gay couples was a rallying cry for Democrats who took control of the Colorado House in last year's elections and vowed an early vote on the proposal.

Comments (Page 8)

Showing posts 141 - 160 of210
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Headed toward the cliff”

Level 1

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148
Mar 20, 2013
 
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> You try to make yourself sound important. You're not. I merely point out and challenge your dishonesty and stupidity. You are cheap entertainment, nothing more. Certainly not a person to be taken seriously.
YOU are the one who implied I was SO influential as to turn undecided people against my cause by speaking out.

Now you're trying to claim I'm insignificant.

Can't have it both ways, as much as you always try.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Level 1

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149
Mar 20, 2013
 
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Any.
And he's quite emphatic about gay rights, and how gays are treated and perceived. Once again, your assumptions (based on little or nothing other than your own prejudices) are wrong.
I was just asking for clarification.

So that makes him a true Uncle Tom.

Make sure you pass those previous examples of other Uncle Tom's along to him. Maybe it will help him to understand the harm to himself and millions of others that he supports.

“Live and let live”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150
Mar 20, 2013
 
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> If you choose to limit your options, so be it. Sadly you seem to be at the word game stage where you won't accept any possibilities other than those you are already locked into as noted by your "only" parameter. I'm not going to go there because it's a discussion ender. Believe how you choose to believe and I'll believe as I choose to believe without my demanding that you subscribe to my position. We'll likely have to agree to disagree.
I was only asking what you thought the other options are. I stated my ideas. Now you say there are other options. What are they?

“Live and let live”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151
Mar 20, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
Civil unions aren't marriages; that's why I support civil unions.
Well, if civil unions are good enough for me, then they are good enough for you and everybody else too. I think government ought to get out of the marriage business, and leave the decision up to churches and the people. The only reason for any government involvement is to protect people's familial rights- i.e. inheritance, POA, parenting, etc...

“Live and let live”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152
Mar 20, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage supporters ignore the consequences of their novel policy; changing marriage law changes adoption and custody rights, tax policy and entitlement benefits to name just three consequences. Rewriting marriage law doesn't have "no effect at all on opposite-sex marriages", it affects everyone including singles.
Now that is a straw man argument if I ever heard one. Nothing in the law would change except to specify that marriage includes same-gender couples. That means people like myself and my husband would have the exact same rights as married heterosexual couples. The only thing complicated about it would be if states decide even after granting marriage to treat same-gender couples differently. In effect, that would create a crazy patchwork of laws... not unlike the complexities gay couples have to put up with because civil unions are not equivalent to marriage in the eyes of the law. It means one set of rules applies here, but not there. If applied consistently for all couples, it would actually simplify matters.

Don't believe me? Ask anyone in an HR role how complicated it is to set up partner benefits for company employees who happen to be gay. The crazy patchwork of laws makes it an entirely arduous task.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#154
Mar 21, 2013
 
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
Well, if civil unions are good enough for me, then they are good enough for you and everybody else too.
True, if I had wanted a same sex relationship, I'd accept civil union.

.
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
I think government ought to get out of the marriage business, and leave the decision up to churches and the people.
By Josh's reasoning, polygamy would be as permissible as same sex marriage.

.
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
The only reason for any government involvement is to protect people's familial rights- i.e. inheritance, POA, parenting, etc...
^^^These are good reasons to keep marriage male/female. If a gay man wants his partner to inherent, then he'll write a will. That's not unreasonable.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155
Mar 21, 2013
 
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
I was only asking what you thought the other options are. I stated my ideas. Now you say there are other options. What are they?
Sadly, you and Sheeple are reduced to playing silly word games. I am fortunate in that however the decision goes, it doesn't affect me. And as far as both of you go (especially Sheeple), I just don't care. I don't care if you are happy, sad, victimized, or anything else. I no longer care if you ask questions.

My guess is that Sheeple has experienced some bad things because of his homosexuality. Unfair, but sadly, I no longer care. He is just a bitter old queen and his misery is semi-deserved.

I maintain my position and (once again) don't ask anybody to adopt it. Many on your side, especially like bitter old queens like Sheeple get positively hysterical if anybody has the audacity to not agree with them. Losers only have blame. Sheeple is a loser and will only blame others. He is miserable. He deserves to be miserable. I feel sorry for him because he *is* so miserable. On the other hand, he brings it on himself which negates my pity for him.

Hopefully you will avoid his many, many mistakes. If not, you'll end up an angry old queen like Sheeple. Your choice. I'm outta here.

Sheeple will now make several stupid comments and claims assuming some kind of delusion of victory. Of what? Over whom? Me? Is he that stupid as to thing anybody will believe that? I think he is.

Good luck to you. I hope Sheeple gets what he deserves... and I think what he deserves isn't very nice.

But neither is he.

Since: Jan 12

New Port Richey, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156
Mar 21, 2013
 
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> And yet your bullsh!t here would have an effect of working against the acceptance of gays by those who have less experience interacting with them.
Sometimes I have the notion that's you're actually a nut job breeder trying to sabotage the interests of gays. Unlikely, but it's a concept. You certainly are a nut job.
I'm not one to agree much with steeple but hes quite correct on this one I don't think the uncle tom comment was appropriate to prove his point but I have seen on the news gay republicans speak out against same sex marriage, there party means more to them than there own personal well being it seems

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157
Mar 21, 2013
 
Trolli wrote:
Put it up for popular vote and see what happens. You know you don't have the majority of people on your side. So enjoy your win knowing most people are not with you.
Let's just put the right to marry for ALL couples up for a popular vote......you'd be okay with that, right? I mean if you think it's okay to vote on my right to marry the person of my choosing.....then it should also be okay to vote on your right to marry the person of your choosing.......I mean fair is fair!!!

We could also vote on making procreation mandatory in order to get a marriage license, meaning just between that heterosexual couple.....no surrogacy, no INF, no sperm donor, would you be okay with that?

In other words, if the heterosexual couple is infertile/sterile or beyond childbearing age......they should be denied the right to marry, right?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Level 1

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158
Mar 21, 2013
 
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Sadly, you and Sheeple are reduced to playing silly word games. I am fortunate in that however the decision goes, it doesn't affect me. And as far as both of you go (especially Sheeple), I just don't care. I don't care if you are happy, sad, victimized, or anything else. I no longer care if you ask questions.
My guess is that Sheeple has experienced some bad things because of his homosexuality. Unfair, but sadly, I no longer care. He is just a bitter old queen and his misery is semi-deserved.
I maintain my position and (once again) don't ask anybody to adopt it. Many on your side, especially like bitter old queens like Sheeple get positively hysterical if anybody has the audacity to not agree with them. Losers only have blame. Sheeple is a loser and will only blame others. He is miserable. He deserves to be miserable. I feel sorry for him because he *is* so miserable. On the other hand, he brings it on himself which negates my pity for him.
Hopefully you will avoid his many, many mistakes. If not, you'll end up an angry old queen like Sheeple. Your choice. I'm outta here.
Sheeple will now make several stupid comments and claims assuming some kind of delusion of victory. Of what? Over whom? Me? Is he that stupid as to thing anybody will believe that? I think he is.
Good luck to you. I hope Sheeple gets what he deserves... and I think what he deserves isn't very nice.
But neither is he.
Actually I'm quite happy with life in general.

Granted, I hate certain people like you, but there are always a few thorns in life.

I do enjoy knowing how absolutely miserable you will be when our marriages are treated equally.

It's the best revenge we can get for the centuries of discrimination we've had to tolerate.

“Live and let live”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159
Mar 21, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>True, if I had wanted a same sex relationship, I'd accept civil union.
.
<quoted text>By Josh's reasoning, polygamy would be as permissible as same sex marriage.
.
<quoted text>^^^These are good reasons to keep marriage male/female. If a gay man wants his partner to inherent, then he'll write a will. That's not unreasonable.
What is unreasonable is that regardless of what arrangements gay couples want to make together (inheritance, credit, bank accounts, home ownership, joint adoption, etc...) at every step of the way there are tax penalties. Take the case of Edith Windsor for example. After her wife died, the IRS forced her to pay more than $350,000 in taxes on her estate when a similarly situated surviving spouse in a heterosexual relationship would have had nothing to pay. Now that is just not fair.

If you're interest is in treating gay couples differently and with fewer rights, then I suppose there is no reason for me to argue with you about this. Unless you can except that we are all supposed to be equal under the law, then you are just a proponent for state sanctioned discrimination, and by any definition of the word- a heterosexist bigot.

“Live and let live”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160
Mar 21, 2013
 
*correction: accept, not "except"

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161
Mar 22, 2013
 
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
What is unreasonable is that regardless of what arrangements gay couples want to make together (inheritance, credit, bank accounts, home ownership, joint adoption, etc...) at every step of the way there are tax penalties. Take the case of Edith Windsor for example. After her wife died, the IRS forced her to pay more than $350,000 in taxes on her estate when a similarly situated surviving spouse in a heterosexual relationship would have had nothing to pay. Now that is just not fair.
^^^That's an excellent argument for tax and entitlement reform. I'll join you to petition our government to simplify the tax code and reform entitlements. Then, we can fight for human rights world wide so gays can march in Moscow without being hit with batons and live in the Muslim world without being executed for expressing their physical love.

Let's not get distracted by same sex marriage that will only benefit a tiny percentage of Americans while changing the way government treats marriage for everyone.

.
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
If you're interest is in treating gay couples differently and with fewer rights, then I suppose there is no reason for me to argue with you about this.
There have always been marriage standards, just as there are standards for to be an airline pilot. It might not be fair to someone who wears glasses, that she doesn't meet FAA's standards to have a passenger plane license but that doesn't make the standards bad. We have to look beyond our gay friends and relatives, at the greater good for the whole of society.

.
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
Unless you can except that we are all supposed to be equal under the law,
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else; gays are marred as husband and wife now. There is no orientation test for a marriage license.

.
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
then you are just a proponent for state sanctioned discrimination, and by any definition of the word- a heterosexist bigot.
I can make my arguments without insulting my political opponents; why can't Josh? I'd suggest it may be because Josh basis his views on feelings, consideration for homosexuals, above rational and reasoned arguments considering the consequences of his novel political goals.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162
Mar 22, 2013
 
Gay couples and their families have now received at least some protections under the law, in a state where FOF reins. GOOD.

Now it's time to gear up and fight for full marriage equality.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163
Mar 22, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>......
Let's not get distracted by same sex marriage that will only benefit a tiny percentage of Americans while changing the way government treats marriage for everyone.
....
First, it's good that you finally admit that legalizing same sex marriage will be good for gay folks and their families. That's a start.

But, you would need to prove your claim that it will force the government to treat every other married person differently.

Please list all of the ways that allowing gay couples to marry will change the way our government treats all married couples who are not gay.

I would be surprised if you could even name just one.

Come on. We are waiting for the list.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164
Mar 22, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>.
<quoted text>There is no gender equality right in the Constitution....
Please list the gender exception clause in the Constitution. I've read it, and I can't seem to find where Americans can be excluded from certain sections and amendments based on gender.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Level 1

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#165
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Brian_G wrote:
Let's not get distracted by same sex marriage that will only benefit a tiny percentage of Americans while changing the way government treats marriage for everyone.
How will the government treat an opposite-sex marriage any different if same-sex couples can marry?

Since: Jan 12

New Port Richey, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#166
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^That's an excellent argument for tax and entitlement reform. I'll join you to petition our government to simplify the tax code and reform entitlements. Then, we can fight for human rights world wide so gays can march in Moscow without being hit with batons and live in the Muslim world without being executed for expressing their physical love.
Let's not get distracted by same sex marriage that will only benefit a tiny percentage of Americans while changing the way government treats marriage for everyone.
.
<quoted text>There have always been marriage standards, just as there are standards for to be an airline pilot. It might not be fair to someone who wears glasses, that she doesn't meet FAA's standards to have a passenger plane license but that doesn't make the standards bad. We have to look beyond our gay friends and relatives, at the greater good for the whole of society.
.
<quoted text>There is no gender equality right in the Constitution. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else; gays are marred as husband and wife now. There is no orientation test for a marriage license.
.
<quoted text>I can make my arguments without insulting my political opponents; why can't Josh? I'd suggest it may be because Josh basis his views on feelings, consideration for homosexuals, above rational and reasoned arguments considering the consequences of his novel political goals.
Every thing you posted confirmed your bigoted viewpoint that gays are second class citizens.

“Live and let live”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^That's an excellent argument for tax and entitlement reform. I'll join you to petition our government to simplify the tax code and reform entitlements. Then, we can fight for human rights world wide so gays can march in Moscow without being hit with batons and live in the Muslim world without being executed for expressing their physical love.
Sorry, and I mean this with respect, but that is an oversimplification of the matter. DOMA is the reason why Edith Windsor was taxed $350 K on her estate after her wife died. Tax reform could not suffice to correct these problems because government is mandated to treat same-sex couples as legal strangers. Unless that problem is somehow corrected, or government abandons taxing inherited assets on non-family members, then whatever reform in place is meaningless.
Brian_G wrote:
Let's not get distracted by same sex marriage that will only benefit a tiny percentage of Americans while changing the way government treats marriage for everyone.
I don't know why you keep saying it will change marriage for everyone. Not one thing would change for married heterosexual couples except maybe the form that is used to apply for a marriage license, and that is all.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There have always been marriage standards, just as there are standards for to be an airline pilot. It might not be fair to someone who wears glasses, that she doesn't meet FAA's standards to have a passenger plane license but that doesn't make the standards bad. We have to look beyond our gay friends and relatives, at the greater good for the whole of society.
Gay marriage is for the greater good of society. Instead of having government try mandating that gay people stay single for life, we should encourage monogamy, not discourage it. Yes, marriage has standards, but when it comes to gay people, the determination is made based solely on gender. Therefore, gay marriage bans amount to what is essentially a state-imposed gender role saying the proper role of a man in marriage is to a woman and v.v.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.
Yes, but the Constitution explicitly forbids the creation of any class of people other than citizens, persons, and criminals (i.e. 14th Amendment). Government cannot treat people differently from others on any basis whatsoever except when there is a compelling state interest and rational basis for doing so (For example, the blind cannot drive).
Brian_G wrote:
Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else; gays are marred as husband and wife now. There is no orientation test for a marriage license.
What? That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you assuming gay people have a right to marry their significant other, or are you saying they have a right to have a sham marriage with a person of the opposite gender? That's like asking somebody who is black to act and appear "more white" if they want the same rights as everyone else. For someone like me, the right to marry a woman is no right at all. I would have to essentially give up being who I am... break up with my husband, etc... that no option.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I can make my arguments without insulting my political opponents; why can't Josh? I'd suggest it may be because Josh basis his views on feelings, consideration for homosexuals, above rational and reasoned arguments considering the consequences of his novel political goals.
No, I am gay, and if you do not support that am an equal under the law, then I consider you a bigot.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#168
Mar 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

They call traditional marriage protectors bigots because ad hominem arguments work best to persuade low information voters. In the universe of reason, ad hominem arguments are fallacies.

Same sex marriage is bad because it's based on falsehood.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 141 - 160 of210
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

23 Users are viewing the Denver Forum right now

Search the Denver Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 4 hr Kawalski 11,313
7 best things to do in Denver this weekend 17 hr Trigger 1
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 23 hr DNF 1,417
BangItAmmo.com Fri Concerned Citizen 1
So what's the story with Richard Kirk the pot p... Wed Commander Bunny 2
You rule the planet. How do you save the human... (Dec '12) Apr 16 Retired SOF 1,181
CO Colorado Primary Election August 10: Will you v... (Aug '10) Apr 15 paula baby 30
•••
•••
•••
•••

Denver Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••