Gay Marriage Debate - Denver, CO

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Denver, CO.

Do you support gay marriage?

Denver opposes
Oppose
 
373
Support
 
335

Vote now in Denver:

“I think therefore I...forgot!!”

Level 5

Since: Nov 12

Denver, CO

#531 Dec 30, 2012
Juan Valdez wrote:
Take all away all the damn privilages your government gives to married people and treat everyone the same, then who cares if marriage is legal or not. When did it become part of a government to decide who can and can not get married. It seems like your forefathers had the foresight to keep church and state sepparated and yet you people can't keep a relationship sepparated or together.
You make a good point Juan.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#532 Dec 30, 2012
catsmews wrote:
<quoted text>
so that is all you think the women is good for is just for a toy for the man?.. talk about ingnorance... contract?.. why do so many hetero sexual couples live together without being married.. and for the record.. homosexual couples get married it is legal in certain states .. in others they get holy unions.. because of religous bigots who wouldn't know anything ab out love even if it came and bit the in the ass!
Before you start casting stones... read up on the conversations. My reply was to Brian G. Read the whole conversation and my posts and you will realize what side I am on.

Oh btw marriage is a legal contract... look it up. If a contract was not in place divorce would not be needed.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#533 Dec 30, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
U.S. Supreme Court
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)
Maynard v. Hill
No. 194
Argued February 16-17, 1888
Decided March 19, 1888
125 U.S. 190
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE TERRITORY OF WASHINGTON
...
Marriage is something more than a mere contract, though founded upon the agreement of the parties. When once formed, a relation is created between the parties which they cannot change, and the rights and obligations of which depend not upon their agreement, but upon the law, statutory or common. It is an institution of society, regulated and controlled by public authority. Legislation, therefore, affecting this institution and annulling the relation between the parties is not within the prohibition of the Constitution of the United States against the impairment of contracts by state legislation.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12...
"Marriage is something more than a mere contract, though founded upon the agreement of the parties."

Yet you notice how it says it IS a contract....
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#534 Dec 30, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>True, and no state bans homosexual love. The issue is redefining the social institution of marriage, not love.
.
<quoted text>I will note, you will also find heterosexual relationships offer a benefit to government that no homosexual couples provide; the next generation of taxpayers.
.
<quoted text>Let's work together against violence and hate speech instead of against each other on radical social change to create a unisex standard of marriage.
I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality; I stand by that statement.
"I will note, you will also find heterosexual relationships offer a benefit to government that no homosexual couples provide; the next generation of taxpayers."

So are you saying that ssc do not have children.....
Are you saying that if a heterosexual relationship does not benifit the government by "providing the next gen. of taxpayers" they should not be allowed to marry?,,, If they should be allowed to ... why the double standard?
.
Correction Please

Las Vegas, NV

#535 Dec 31, 2012
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>

So are you saying that ssc do not have children.....

.
He's saying that two men can't produce a baby and neither can two women. Only a man and a woman can create new life.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#536 Dec 31, 2012
come on now wrote:
"I will note, you will also find heterosexual relationships offer a benefit to government that no homosexual couples provide; the next generation of taxpayers."
So are you saying that ssc do not have children..... Are you saying that if a heterosexual relationship does not benifit the government by "providing the next gen. of taxpayers" they should not be allowed to marry?,,, If they should be allowed to ... why the double standard?.
I've written procreation is a benefit society receives from marriage, it's C.O.N. who claims that's a requirement.

Dividend income is a benefit investors receive from stock ownership, but not all stocks have dividends. The fact that some stocks don't give dividends doesn't change the fact that dividend income is a benefit.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#537 Dec 31, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've written procreation is a benefit society receives from marriage, it's C.O.N. who claims that's a requirement.
Dividend income is a benefit investors receive from stock ownership, but not all stocks have dividends. The fact that some stocks don't give dividends doesn't change the fact that dividend income is a benefit.
"I've written procreation is a benefit society receives from marriage, it's C.O.N. who claims that's a requirement."

Twist of words denied...
What I said was that per your logic ssm shouldnot be allowed to marry because they can not produce children (which is untrue) and thus do not benifit society.....
Well if that is true then anyone who for what ever reason can not have children will not benefit society by getting married. So there is no difference between them and the ssc... Can't allow one group who does not meet the "benefit" to marry if you do not let the other.

"Dividend income is a benefit investors receive from stock ownership, but not all stocks have dividends. The fact that some stocks don't give dividends doesn't change the fact that dividend income is a benefit."

Ok... the ssc stock gives dividend income example Kat Kora of iron chef fame and long time partner have produced 4 dividends. Sure some of the ssc stock will not produce dividens, just like some of the osm couples will not produce dividends but in your words "The fact that some stocks don't give dividends doesn't change the fact that dividend income is a benefit."

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#538 Dec 31, 2012
come on now wrote:
"I've written procreation is a benefit society receives from marriage, it's C.O.N. who claims that's a requirement."
Twist of words denied...
What I said was that per your logic ssm shouldnot be allowed to marry because they can not produce children (which is untrue) and thus do not benifit society.....
Well if that is true then anyone who for what ever reason can not have children will not benefit society by getting married. So there is no difference between them and the ssc... Can't allow one group who does not meet the "benefit" to marry if you do not let the other.
"Dividend income is a benefit investors receive from stock ownership, but not all stocks have dividends. The fact that some stocks don't give dividends doesn't change the fact that dividend income is a benefit."
Ok... the ssc stock gives dividend income example Kat Kora of iron chef fame and long time partner have produced 4 dividends. Sure some of the ssc stock will not produce dividens, just like some of the osm couples will not produce dividends but in your words "The fact that some stocks don't give dividends doesn't change the fact that dividend income is a benefit."
I've never written: "ssm shouldnot be allowed to marry because they can not produce children"; those are C.O.N.'s words, not mine.

Everyone has their own reasons for defining marriage as one man and one woman; I've never written homosexuals should be denied the right to marry. In fact, I've lauded homosexuals who have married so their children can be raised by the kid's mom and dad; like Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter.

I've never written homosexuals don't benefit society; just the opposite. I've always said, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.

I've noted that society receives a benefit from marriage; posterity. That's not the same as a requirement. It's C.O.N. who confuses benefit with requirement; I'm clear on the difference.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#539 Dec 31, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've never written: "ssm shouldnot be allowed to marry because they can not produce children"; those are C.O.N.'s words, not mine.
Everyone has their own reasons for defining marriage as one man and one woman; I've never written homosexuals should be denied the right to marry. In fact, I've lauded homosexuals who have married so their children can be raised by the kid's mom and dad; like Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter.
I've never written homosexuals don't benefit society; just the opposite. I've always said, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.
I've noted that society receives a benefit from marriage; posterity. That's not the same as a requirement. It's C.O.N. who confuses benefit with requirement; I'm clear on the difference.
You noted re posterity... yet when shown that a ssc benefits society by having children... you say that is different.... how?

I do not confuse one thing. If you are saying the benefit is nice but not needed.... then no reason to deny ssm... If you are saying the benefit IS the reason to deny ssm... then you must not allow anyone who will not benefit the government by having children to marry. Now since a ssc can benefit the government in this way... no reason to deny ssm

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#541 Dec 31, 2012
Same sex couples don't have children, one of them finds a surrogate or sperm donor. This is why most same sex marriage supporters are wrong, they don't understand human reproductive nature.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#542 Dec 31, 2012
Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised without either a mother or father. If that doesn't fit the definition of 'harm', what does?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#543 Dec 31, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised without either a mother or father. If that doesn't fit the definition of 'harm', what does?
So you are essentially saying all single parents are harming their children. Boy, you just keep being meaner.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#544 Jan 1, 2013
When a parent deserts a child; yes, that's intentional harm. When a parent dies, that's unintentional. Do you see the difference?
TheWhydah

Commerce City, CO

#546 Jan 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex couples don't have children, one of them finds a surrogate or sperm donor. This is why most same sex marriage supporters are wrong, they don't understand human reproductive nature.
And you don't comprehend human nature at all. Stop pretending you do. Your ignorance is dangerous.

You don't understand, or won't understand, these very easy concepts:

1: Gay people entering straight marriage is not equality.
2: Gay people can and do reproduce.

You're incredibly insulting, and it's very obvious that you don't have a shred of understanding, empathy or compassion for your gay brothers and sisters.

The reason people get so mad at you is because you are so dense. You have swiss cheese for brains, sir.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#547 Jan 2, 2013
TheWhydah wrote:
And you don't comprehend human nature at all. Stop pretending you do. Your ignorance is dangerous.
I understand the facts of life, if you disagree with me, please cite examples.

.
TheWhydah wrote:
You don't understand, or won't understand, these very easy concepts:
1: Gay people entering straight marriage is not equality.
Of course it is; one law for everyone. Many homosexuals marry; I assume that's because they want their children raised by the kid's mom and dad.

.
TheWhydah wrote:
2: Gay people can and do reproduce.
I've often cited Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter as examples of gay people who had children when married like most heterosexuals. Homosexuals never reproduce as a gay couple, they ALWAYS use heterosexual methods of reproduction.

.
TheWhydah wrote:
You're incredibly insulting, and it's very obvious that you don't have a shred of understanding, empathy or compassion for your gay brothers and sisters.
Keeping marriage male/female isn't fair to homosexuals; life isn't fair. We have standards because blind airplane pilots and same sex marriage create more bad than good. Same sex marriage would harm homosexuals, probably more than it would harm heterosexuals. Backlash and scapegoating are well documented historical and political forces. I don't want to get rid of marriage standards to satisfy sexual predilection no matter how you feel.

Most same sex marriage supporters base their arguments on emotion, "empathy or compassion", instead of consideration of the consequences.

.
TheWhydah wrote:
The reason people get so mad at you is because you are so dense. You have swiss cheese for brains, sir.
I make my arguments without insulting other posters; this is where we differ.
whoawhoawhoa

Commerce City, CO

#548 Jan 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I understand the facts of life, if you disagree with me, please cite examples.
.
<quoted text>Of course it is; one law for everyone. Many homosexuals marry; I assume that's because they want their children raised by the kid's mom and dad.
.
<quoted text>I've often cited Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter as examples of gay people who had children when married like most heterosexuals. Homosexuals never reproduce as a gay couple, they ALWAYS use heterosexual methods of reproduction.
.
<quoted text>Keeping marriage male/female isn't fair to homosexuals; life isn't fair. We have standards because blind airplane pilots and same sex marriage create more bad than good. Same sex marriage would harm homosexuals, probably more than it would harm heterosexuals. Backlash and scapegoating are well documented historical and political forces. I don't want to get rid of marriage standards to satisfy sexual predilection no matter how you feel.
Most same sex marriage supporters base their arguments on emotion, "empathy or compassion", instead of consideration of the consequences.
.
<quoted text>I make my arguments without insulting other posters; this is where we differ.
It must be nice to be an old, straight, white dude. Unpack your backpack of privilege, man.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#549 Jan 2, 2013
whoawhoawhoa wrote:
It must be nice to be an old, straight, white dude. Unpack your backpack of privilege, man.
Ad hominem arguments are fallacies. Most same sex marriage supporters don't use reason, they base their arguments on emotion. It's unfair that same sex couples can't marry just as it's unfair that blind people can't see. Life isn't fair.
TheWhydah

Commerce City, CO

#550 Jan 2, 2013
@ Brian

Being blind is out of our control. Granting people the right to marry is within our control. I agree with whoa. Unpack your privilege old, straight, white dude. You don't even realize how many rights you have just because you're a straight, white male. It's infuriating that you get treated so well in society compared to, let's say, a black female lesbian for no reason other than the fact that you're white, straight and male!!!

“Lily Pad Pre-school!”

Level 1

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#551 Jan 2, 2013
Love is love. Doesn't matter what sex you are.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#552 Jan 2, 2013
We don't license blind people to drive cars or fly airplanes and we don't license same sex couples to marry. Life isn't fair.

Government gets a benefit from marriage; the next generation of taxpayers. Same sex couples can't provide that benefit and the blind can't see.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Denver Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 9 hr Go Blue Forever 12,622
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 13 hr Terra Firma 3,494
**KONG Dog Toy Warning** 20 hr Terry 1
Rocky Mountain Upset? Polling shows once-popula... Tue harmonious 73
COMFORT DENTAL ....How Many of you feel Ripped ... (Apr '08) Sep 29 Tooth Fairy 86
Nude photos of 12-year-old girl circulated via ... (Feb '10) Sep 29 jayaraj 306
Investigation underway after one found dead (Jul '07) Sep 28 Gomez 25

Denver Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]