Gay marriage plan offered

'It seems like a civil rights issue,' proponent says

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 10, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated February 10, 2009 at 9:20 a.m.

Text size

Brian Lehmann © The Rocky

Stuart Allen, 23, sits at a table in his home on Feb. 9, 2009. Allen is looking to amend the Colorado constitution changing it from a marriage between one man and one women to any union between two consenting adults.

More Colorado Government

Comments

February 10, 2009

12:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

lilymatha writes:

Supports right of individuals to choose partners regardless of sexual orientation. Supports recognition of equal rights to gay, lesbian, transsexual or bisexual citizens in housing, jobs, medical benefits, marriage and child custody. I have a friend getting married with the same sex under the help of the site **BiLoves dotcom** (a site for exploring sexuality, coming out,enjoying life, etc. And there are about 150 members per day and they are very active). And they live happily and wonderfully.If you come here frequently, you may find what you are looking easily and quickly.
February 10, 2009

4:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

If it feels good, fornicate with it, marry your heart to it. 23 states including Colorado have no laws if you decide to make a trip to the barn and consumate a biblical relationship. From sheep to your second cousin, who cares, be happy! Just understand if I don't accept your definition of "marriage" or your choices of what I should accept, and perhaps vote for more traditional values I find more appealing. Sorry if you disagree with me. My law supercedes your law in my heart; it's my freedom to chose as well, what I believe. There are many laws I don't agree with, laws are so abundant these days, you can always find one or several you or I do not obey. So even if gay marriage becomes legal, like many other laws, I will not honor it if it conflicts with my beliefs.
February 10, 2009

6:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Tom writes:

Why do people like LOUIE equate the love and commitment of two consenting adults to bestiality or incest? Why is that always the comparison?

And why do we put individual rights and freedoms up for popular vote? It all seems horribly wrong.

We are living in times of substantial change and evolution, and I hope I live to see the day when two consenting adults can marry without the consent of their neighbors.
February 10, 2009

6:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

BobJack1968 writes:

This road has already been traveled and this issue has already been voted on by the people of Colorado with the majority NOT in favor of gay "marriages".

Rocky Mountain News, November, 2006
Colorado voters passed a ban on gay marriage and rejected spousal benefits for same-sex couples, dealing a setback to the gay-rights movement.

Voters approved Amendment 43, a citizens initiative that defines marriage as between one man and one woman in the state constitution, virtually eliminating the chance for gay marriage.

And voters opposed Referendum I, which would have granted gay and lesbian couples many of the legal rights and responsibilities of married couples, such as the ability to make funeral arrangements for a partner and to inherit a partner's property.

"People in Colorado have realized what became clear to people in New Jersey, that marriage needs to be cemented within the constitution to protect it from activist judges," said Jon Paul, executive director of Coloradans for Marriage, the coalition of 10 Christian groups that sponsored Amendment 43.
February 10, 2009

6:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

cjames2000 writes:

Louie, so glad that you got your daily shot of bigottry in your coffee this morning. Why don't you pray that you won't be judged as harshly as you tend to judge others. Wake up to the 21 century. Just because you have those "homosexual" thoughts doesn't mean you have to denounce those that aren't scared to openly love one another.
February 10, 2009

6:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

It's not a comparision of one to the other, it's a total liberation of humanity and it's desires regardless of what you decide to define legally. If you love whatever, it's your choice. Why must I approve of it, because you say your definition is correct? If I don't define two of the same gender a marriage, that's my right. Your belief is no better than mine. When it come to laws, there are many on the books I strongly disagree with. I teach my children that homosexuality is wrong; you will not agree, but that not your right to rule your belief over mine. One day gay marriage will most likely be legal, but my children will most likely still view it as wrong. Abortion is legal, yet my children view it less than favorable as I place a different set of laws in their heart. Church and state are seperate, especially where personal beliefs are concerned. So I must endure equal amount of ridicule for my beliefs as well. God is not exactly something that people like or even believe in and ridicule regularly in their disagreement. Not much different than a gay person receives today being gay, except the majority of society in voting have defined marriage as I do today. Tomorrow that may change, but it doesn't change my belief no more than the definition of marriage today suits your beliefs. Every type of relationship is being practiced in America today, whether legal or illegal, each one has a select amount of advocates, including relationships that even many gays don't approve of. So some of us chose the laws we write into the hearts of our children. Tolerance of the beliefs of others is a two way street. I tolerate many laws I don't approve of, gays do as well.
February 10, 2009

6:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Tom:
Maybe because Louie is right. And the age old question is still the same. How do two gays make love? Not in a natural way. Maybe thats why so many of us believe it is wrong. There is a natural order of things in this world. You may not want to accept it, but that is the way it is. Yes, the voters of this state do have a right to vote it down.
February 10, 2009

7:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

A 23-year-old golf club salesman thinks...
Don't believe he is thinking very much, just trying to get his 15 minutes. Its up. Actually, gays practice you-know-what to make love. The number 2 definition in the dictionary for you-know-what includes doing it with animals. So, Louie, your comparrison is correct.
February 10, 2009

7:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

louie is NOT right in his comparison by ANY MEANS.

two consenting adult human beings is nowhere near the same thing as human being wanting to fornicate with an animal.

it's sad his children have to grow up with such and ignorant person at their helm.
February 10, 2009

7:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

elkman, you're clearly just as ignorant and stupid as Louie if you really think that.
February 10, 2009

7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

GK writes:

Louie, what will you do if one of your children is gay?

elkman you are nothing more than a bigot.
February 10, 2009

7:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

TheDenverB
look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe it. People are not stupid and ignorant just because they don't believe as you do. Problem with people like you is that no one else has the right to disagree with you. I will not lower myself to name calling, as you have. Obviously you cannot get your point across without being rude. There is nothing natural about gay people making love to each other. Deep down inside, you know that.
February 10, 2009

7:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

GK writes:

elkman you are certainly entitled to your opinion, however ignorant, bigoted and uneducated it is.
February 10, 2009

7:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

GK
And I suppose your opinion is correct, smart, and unbigoted? Your mentality is truely amazing. You and The DenverB are one and the same. Both intolerant of anyone who disagrees with you. Get a life.
February 10, 2009

7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

no, having an opinion that homsexuality is wrong is just that: having an opinion.

thinking that two consenting adults wanting to love each other and be married for the rest of their lives is ANYTHING like a human being sodomizing an animal is ABSURD.

you would have to agree that straight married couples don't have to have sex to be married, right? (this happens a lot, especially with soldiers returing home from Iraq in pieces).

and gay couples are the same way. not all have sex, but they love each other the same way you love your wife (believe it or not and like it or not, it's true)

you don't need sex to be married (i'm sure some of you on here know that all too well)... and while sex is a part of love, the two aren't mutually exclusive by any means.

THAT is why you are both ignorant and stupid -- because you can't approach this in a mature way and provide any SOLID explination for not approving of homosexuality other than a definition you looked up in Merriam Webster.

you can have your opinion that homosexuality is wrong... but when you tell others your reasons for thinking that and the come off so juvenile and LOGICALLY wrong, then expect to be called out for it. While I don't agree with them, I can respect people who don't agree with homosexuality and can provide a solid argument.

the both of you, however, have completely failed to do that.

"There is nothing natural about gay people making love to each other. Deep down inside, you know that."

actually, that's completely wrong. i think gay people have every right both socially and naturally to love one another.

and i dont know why you all get so worked up over this and how it's going to rub off on your offspring. there were gay people when you were growing up, and you turned out as bigoted and igorant as they come.
February 10, 2009

7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

coskibum writes:

You know right winger's are always claiming they want the government out of their lives. Yet they are the first ones in line tell anyone what is permissible behind closed doors. Gee what's the word I'm looking for HYPOCRITES...

I agree that we should either call all marriages unions or unions marriages. Since when does one's religious belief trumps ones rights?
February 10, 2009

7:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

GK
Actually, when I grew up, I WAS educated that the practice of gay love was wrong. So, don't be too quick to call someone uneducated. I may be far more educated than you.
February 10, 2009

7:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"Both intolerant of anyone who disagrees with you."

wrong. i'm completely tolerant of differing opinions when it is clear the person arguing them has put some intelligent thought into it.

However, I AM intolerant of other people being IGNORANT and still spouting off like they aren't.

Judging by your posts so far, though, I don't expect you to understand the difference.
February 10, 2009

7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

I won't even touch the comments above. Some people simply won't or can't understand that two people of the same sex can actually love each other and would like to enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. It's not about sex, it's not about "being perverse" it is simply about love and wanting the same rights to marriage that so many people take for granted.

That said, this young man's goal is admirable but misguided. Our country is designed in such a way that the rights of anyone cannot be subjected to a simple majority vote. By putting this measure on a ballot, you are sending the message that in Colorado we have decided it is acceptable for the majority to vote on the rights of the minority.
February 10, 2009

7:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Congratulations to Stu Allen and Hallie Atencio! Great Idea. Good luck and God's speed.

Elkman defines gay people by the sex act. This is and old, tired and frankly offensive tactic used by the anti-gay bigots. In the past the church made a list of “unnatural” sex acts, and positions. The church defined a woman on top as a sin. It seems like Elkman is going back to that way of thinking. Gay's don't define Heterosexuals by the way they like to have sex. But guys like Elkman seem to love to focus on the sexual act. (how do you like to “do it” Elkguy?

Actually Elkman animals in the wild engage in homosexual behavior. So the “it is not the natural order” argument does not hold water.

A marriage contract is a legal contract offered by the government to adult citizens. As such it must be offered to all citizens. Just like any contract recognized by our legal system.

Yes the voters spoke in 2006, but they will speak again in 2010.

In the meantime I suggest Elkman and louie have a shrimp salad for lunch...or better yet some nice grilled trout.
February 10, 2009

7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

coskibum writes:

Well said DouginDenver!
February 10, 2009

7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"A marriage contract is a legal contract offered by the government to adult citizens. As such it must be offered to all citizens. Just like any contract recognized by our legal system."

agreed.

but if the argument is that marriage is a sacred thing in religious terms to people...

and we have a separation of church and state...

then we should be banning all legal marriage - straight or gay, since clearly it crosses that boundary.

logically, a civil union would be the only thing legally recognized and it should be up to your church, cynagoge, mosque, whatever whether or not your are 'married' in the eyes of god.
February 10, 2009

8:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

GK writes:

"Actually, when I grew up, I WAS educated that the practice of gay love was wrong."

I can just imagine where you were "educated."
February 10, 2009

8:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

IRUNMAN writes:

Hey Louie, I remember reading a previous post of yours that you are a business owner in Cherry Creek? Or you at least claim to be.

Assuming you are a retail store or any business for that matter, do you accept money from gay people? What does your cholesterol laden heart tell you if two men come in to buy something?

If you feel so strongly on YOUR laws, please post here the name of your business. I can help spread the word that you equate two women or two men loving each other as a man fornicating with an unconsenting animal. Surely you wouldn't want to accept "gay money."

And believe me, we do not want to support you.
February 10, 2009

8:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

History writes:

Elkman it is a good thing our laws are not derived from ... the dictionary
February 10, 2009

8:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

IRUNMAN writes:

I digress with the above post, I shouldn't even respond to the trolls.

You go kid, am glad a 23 year old can see the real issue as opposed to some crusty old people.
February 10, 2009

8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

good one Irunman..

Louie... you should put your opinion where your wallet is and see if it makes any difference...
February 10, 2009

8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

JB
"It's not about sex, it's not about "being perverse" it is simply about love and wanting the same rights to marriage that so many people take for granted."
It most certainly is about sex. Thats what its all about. You really expect anyone to take you seriously when you say things like that?
DouginDenver
"Actually Elkman animals in the wild engage in homosexual behavior. So the “it is not the natural order” argument does not hold water."
You must not know anything about wildlife. Animals may spar and look like they are mating, but in fact they do not. Male animals will not allow another male to mate with them. Look it up and then you will not be embarrassing yourself.
So, DenverB, are you saying that gays don't engage in sex? That is what you are implying. Get real.
February 10, 2009

8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

SteveM writes:

There was a time in OUR country and in OUR state that intercourse between Black and White people was considered an abomination, and they could NEVER even think of marriage. There was an inexcusable time in OUR country when black people, as we ALL know, were considered animals not people. And, sadly there are still people in OUR country and OUR state who share these same racist views. Fortunately, OUR nation and OUR state, over the course of time, recognized the truly ignorant, disgusting, and despicable nature of these laws, customs, and/or practices that justified racism. Today, in 2009, it is time for the same evolution in thinking and the massive realization that people who harbor prejudices against Gay people of the same type once held and justified against Black people need to take a back seat, hold their tongues, and realize they are outmoded, outnumbered, and shamefully prejudice. No one is asking non-Gay people to do anything. No one is asking you to marry a person of your same gender. No one is asking you to go to a gay wedding if you don't want to. No one is asking you to be at their bedside in death or to inherit their home. Gay people having the same rights as non-Gay people is absolutely fundamental to our national Constitution which says that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. It may well be time, just as Dr. King inspired a national civil rights movement, for the same type of national movement in the USA. Maybe this should no longer be up to states. There were plenty of states, as we ALL know that would never have desegregated had it not been for national laws and protections which took precedence over state laws. The nation Constitution must protect all law-abiding, tax-paying, legally present citizens. Now is the time for ignorance and hate against Gay people in Colorado and the nation at large to end. This prejudice and ignorance are beneath us as a society and as backward and despicable as was racism against Black people.
February 10, 2009

8:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elkman et al. Here is a great clip from youtube for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKExZK...
February 10, 2009

8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

TheDenverB
You are so full of yourself. My agrument is solid, but you will not address it. Two males were not made to mate together. Even you must realize that. Love is sex. You can sugar coat love all you want, but it involves sex. And sex between two males in unnatural.
February 10, 2009

8:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"#

So, DenverB, are you saying that gays don't engage in sex? That is what you are implying. Get real."

if that is REALLY what you got out of what i typed, then you confirm just how stupid of a man you must be. Good luck in life, moron.

I really don't have the time or care to waste any more energy on your ignorance anymore.

thankfully you do more of a disservice to the anti-gay side of things every time you open your mouth or type on this thread than anything the pro-gay movement could accomplish. kudos.
February 10, 2009

8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

At least you could tell who was in the klan by their pointy little hats...

I'm kind of sick of the namby pamby people who disapprove of gays and think they should be excluded from having the same rights as they have...but then get their panties all in a bunch when someone suggests they are intolerant or hateful.

They can't even see the irony and dichotomy of what they say.

These are usually the same people who believe that gay people CHOOSE to by gay...these are the same people who think that gay relationships are only about sex, and never about love...they think they know what is on other people's hearts and minds...and will pass laws based on what they think they know about those people.

But, boy oh boy, don't suggest that you know what is their hearts and minds...don't suggest that they are haters just because they spew vile..or that they're ignorant just because they spew nothing but tired rhetoric and regurgitated propaganda...

At least have the courage and integrity to own your own hate, people. Stop peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining. You're not fooling us. We know better.
February 10, 2009

8:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

I will say this, however:

for someone who is so adamantly anti-gay, you sure seem to know a lot about homosexuals, what they like, how they have sex, etc...
February 10, 2009

8:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

SteveM
You are comparing apples and potatoes. Black and white marriage can in no way be compared to gay marriage. That argument is worn out and does not hole water. One case is man and woman, the other is man and man or woman and woman. If you cannot come up with a better comparison than that, give it up.
February 10, 2009

8:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elkguy....do you eat shrimp? Trout?
February 10, 2009

8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"My agrument is solid, but you will not address it."

what argument? you have none! you think two consenting adults is the same thing as a man sodomizing a helpless animal!

you also equate sex with love! Thats absurd and even straight people would tell you that isn't the case even in heterosexual relationships!

you also think that all love = sex... which is kind of a scary thought when i think that you might have kids you love... or that you can't accept that some STRAIGHT couples do'nt have sex, just like some GAY couples don't have sex.

you also seem to equate sex SOLELY with procreation, which is absurd (or sad, if the only time you have sex with your CONSENTING partner is when you want to have a kid and even then you don't enjoy it).

Really man what argument do you have that is solid in any way? What have I now not addressed and completely blown out of the water using basic logic and common sense??

none!
February 10, 2009

8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

TheDenverB
Is that your final tid bit of crap? Trying to throw me into your cess pool? Forget it. You still have not addressed my logic of two males mating. But, I am right, so what can you say? All you can do is call me names because I am not gay like you and you cannot answer one simple question.
February 10, 2009

8:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"You are comparing apples and potatoes. Black and white marriage can in no way be compared to gay marriage."

and yet he did compare it, and very accurately at that.

i'm sorry you cant see the similarities... but again, you've already proven to be operating at the level of a fifth-grader on a Mississippi public education scale.
February 10, 2009

8:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

O_TRAIN writes:

Gay people can get a Drivers License, Fishing License, Business License, Pilot License, Licenses to teach, practice medicine, etc..

So why can't they get a Marriage License?
February 10, 2009

8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

MBR693 writes:

coskibum writes:

"You know right winger's are always claiming they want the government out of their lives. Yet they are the first ones in line tell anyone what is permissible behind closed doors. Gee what's the word I'm looking for HYPOCRITES..."

You have it quite backwards. It is we who want the government out of our lives. We could care less what you and your boyfriend do behind closed doors. What we care about is the government allowing liberal political action groups to indoctrinate elementary aged children into the homosexual lifestyle. We care that gay groups visit high schoolers all over the country and urge them to experiment with alternate lifestyles because hey, they might prefer it. We care that groups like GLSEN and other gay groups routinely pressure schools to only adopt text books that are not only gender neutral, but do not depict heterosexual couples because gays might find that offensive. We care when gay groups want to redefine marriage, when clearly, marriage is a cornerstone necessary for the continuation of any civilized society.

We’re sorry that you are offended that we have taken a stance against your activism.
February 10, 2009

8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

cableboy764 writes:

If the word "marriage" is anywhere in the bill, it will be defeated. The issue with straight people is that homosexuals want to call it marriage, not that they want to be together or recieve the benefits of married hetro couples. Call it anything other than marriage and you may have a chance to get it passed, but keep it worded with the phrase "marriage" and it will never pass.

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.
February 10, 2009

8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

TheDenverB
What are you? A gay monk? Sex is love. Let me repeat that. Sex is love. If you are in love with another person (not your mother, father, etc.) then there is a sexual connection. Again, you can sugar coat it all you want, but love involves sex. And, two males cannot naturally have sex.
February 10, 2009

8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"You still have not addressed my logic of two males mating."

two males can't mate. But that has nothing to do with love and enjoying sex -- i already went over that, though.

You just are too dumb to understnand that -- even when i use real examples using heterosexuality to prove you wrong.

again, i have answered every one of your (illogical, juvenile and unintelligent) arguments again and again.

You have failed to provide any intelligent insight into this debate whatsoever. I call you names like stupid and ignorant because they are accurate and fitting to you -- not just to call you names.
February 10, 2009

8:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elkguy apparently you did not get the memo. Heterosexuals engage and enjoy a wide range of sexual positions and acts. It seems you are going back to the “anything other than the missionary position is a sin”...given the name of that city near Gomorrah . If you want to stick to missionary that is fine with me. But you should really try oral. It is great. But then again you think it is unnatural. The Church used to also teach that engaged in for any reason other than producing children is a sin. If you also adhere to this church teaching... I hope you have some good premium channels on cable.
February 10, 2009

8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

Hey Elkman,

Dani Newsum, a black woman married to a white man, has been an outspoken champion of gay equality, would beg mightily to differ with your assumption that the challenges gay couples face have nothing in common with the challenges interracial couples dealt with.

She has drawn very distinct parallels not only between the injustices that both groups have endured but between the perpetrators of those injustices, as well.

I think she knows a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do because she has actually lived it while you have only pondered upon it.
February 10, 2009

8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

sex is not love. sex is sex.

the guy picking up a woman on colfax is having sex for sex. not for love. (proved you wrong)

and i love my friends, and don't want to sleep with them. (proved you wrong)

of course, if you are talking about a specific type of MUTUAL and CONSENSUAL love... then i might agree with you. however, your sexuality has nothing to do with it....

gay people and straight people can both love and both enjoy sex more because of that love.

But here's where you are wrong: "Again, you can sugar coat it all you want, but love involves sex. "

no, it doesn't. I have a friend who served in Iraq with a guy who got his penis blown off by an IED. His wife and him are still together, they love each other, and they do not and can not have sex ever again. (i proved you wrong)

"And, two males cannot naturally have sex."

sure they can. they do it all the time. in fact, i bet two men are having sex right now.

what more do you really have to offer here, bud? nothing. your opinion looks like swiss cheese.
February 10, 2009

8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

Gay or otherwise is not one of the conditions of love GK; the human heart has compassion in great measure. However, as I instruct my children, and lead them, their hearts also become humble to that which I fear. Love and raising my children has been a real challenge in today's world. Much competes for a child's attention. They need and receive direction and a guiding hand in the direction the parent most impresses upon them. The state could never be more powerful than the family in writting laws upon the hearts of my children. If it were reversed, even I would reassert with greater demand the seperation of church and state.
February 10, 2009

8:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

UNV_ME writes:

Do you people really care if two women or men get married? Who gives a $hit? Marriage is a religious ceremony, do you really think "God" hates those who are gay? I think "God" would hate those who hate more so.
February 10, 2009

8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"f it were reversed, even I would reassert with greater demand the seperation of church and state."

but if it was upheld, you'd be all about the state protecting your church's beliefs...

i get it, you're a hypocrite.

people like you should be calling for marriage to be completely taken out of ALL laws, considering the religious connotations that world holds for you... You should be pushing for civil unions only, with a marriage being something sacred you do in your church.

but you aren't.

and as someone said, you wouldn't openly associate your beliefs with your business... put your money where your mouth is, perse.
February 10, 2009

8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

TheDenverB
"they do it all the time. in fact, i bet two men are having sex right now."

You use one isolated example and think you have a case? Wow!
"And, two males cannot naturally have sex." Said it once, and will stand by it. It is unnatural. Men are made to have sex with women. Men are not made to have sex with other men. Maybe that is why you are so confused. You have been gay for so long that it seems natural. New flash. A lot of people out there do not think is is natural. I have an opinion on the matter. For you to call me ignorant and stupid only shows how immature and foolish you are. Too bad you are incapable of having a real discussion.
February 10, 2009

8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Beergut writes:

elkman: What the hell in natural sex? Two people who love each other because that is what they feel is as natural as it comes. You are one of most disgusting people I've read on these boards. "Sex is love". That's just so false it's laughable. Sex is sex. Love is love. They are two different concepts. Do you think desk is sky or a toe is enlightenment? It makes as much sense as sex is love. You need to get some help, your mind is really messed up.
February 10, 2009

8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

O_TRAIN writes:
"Gay people can get a Drivers License, Fishing License, Business License, Pilot License, Licenses to teach, practice medicine, etc.."
Nice try, but those licenses are professional in nature. Trying to equate a drivers license with a marriage license is plain nonsense.
February 10, 2009

8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Tell me Louis, how would you deal if one of your children were gay? Just wondering.
February 10, 2009

8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"You use one isolated example and think you have a case? Wow!"

A) it's called sarcasm
b) i'm pretty sure it's several million examples worldwide.

also, I'm not gay.

two males naturally have sex all the time. a penis fits in a hole, and whammo! you have sex! seems pretty natural to me...

now, two males can not naturally procreate, however. i think that's what you mean.

and i agree with that. however, procreation isn't a prerequisite for marriage by any means. I know plenty of straight couples who don't and won't have kids.

once again, your argument is weak. And I think I've shown that I'm more than capable of having this discussion. It's you who brings nothing to the table but the same tired, and unthoughtful arguments over and over and over again.

you are ignorant -- this isn't even arguable anymore.
February 10, 2009

8:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Gonzopozo writes:

How many times do the voters of Colorado need to vote this down?

Give it up for a while, will ya? Move to Massachusets or something.

Wait for another generation to be corrupted and then give it another try - I'm sick of it already. I've heard all the arguments repeatedly and so has everyone else. It won't pass so just give it a rest.
February 10, 2009

8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"Nice try, but those licenses are professional in nature. Trying to equate a drivers license with a marriage license is plain nonsense.
"

a marriage license is about as professional in nature as a driver's license. both give you legal rights by the state.

again, it's a very good example that (predictably) goes right over your head.
February 10, 2009

8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Gonzopozo, if you're "sick of it already" why are you posting regarding such an article?
February 10, 2009

8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Beergut
Natural sex is a man and a woman having sex. Unnatural sex is two men having sex. Pretty simple. Go back to drinking your beer with your gay partner. My mind is not messed up. Yours is a bit cloudy because you do not think I have the right to an opinion.
February 10, 2009

8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

O_TRAIN writes:

elkman - a fishing license is a professional license????

Discrimination cannot be justified because you think it is "icky". Nothing more unamerican that trying to deny someone life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in a matter that does not affect you, just because you don't like it.
February 10, 2009

8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Denver B
"two males naturally have sex all the time. a penis fits in a hole, and whammo! you have sex! seems pretty natural to me..."
Wow, you amaze me. So, because animals have a hole, that is natural too? What kind of things are you involved in?
February 10, 2009

8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

IRUNMAN, not only accept but attend their weddings, funerals, hospital bed, wherever a friend be. I have this very debate on many an occaision. In business, in public, in church, on the bus, in any endeavor where I stand. Business? I own nothing, I want nothing. Redefining marriage or traditional institutions I am extremely conservative. If one of my sons or my daughters, grand daughters, brothers, or family were gay it wouldn't change my heart to not have compassion or love. It hasn't served to change many of my friendships either. If someone obtains an abortion, and I don't believe in abortion, and that person is hurting, that is a responsibility of all humanity to have compassion. Marriage is a man and a woman, it's what I will always believe.
February 10, 2009

9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Barbarosa writes:

Scream and yell and jump up and down all you want, but when it comes down to the privacy of a voting booth, it's pretty obvious what's gonna happen. The people of Colorado have decided this issue time and time again, and you know what? Like it or not, we're never going to vote in favor of gay marriage. Deal with it.
February 10, 2009

9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

elkman, exactly why are 2 men (or women) having sex "unnatural?" And don't tell me because they can't procreate (lots of hetero marriages use birth control so they won't bring more people into the world).

Gay sex still has the NATURAL HUMAN feelings of hetero sex: falling in love, wanting to bond with your partner, running a household and maybe create a family together. What's unnatural about that and why does it upset you so much about what other people do in their bedrooms?
February 10, 2009

9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Denver B
"a marriage license is about as professional in nature as a driver's license. both give you legal rights by the state."
You really need some help. Equating a drivers license to a marriage license. Getting a drivers license requires a person to study an pass a test in order to operate a motor vehicle. What kind of test do you take to get a marriage license? You really are in left field.
February 10, 2009

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Lions, Ducks, Zebras, Dolphins, Ox, all have homosexual relations...sounds natural to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKExZK...
February 10, 2009

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Elkman, do you feel the same way about 2 women having sex? Just wondering.

Also, very curious as to why this subject upsets you so much? Would like to know. Thanks.
February 10, 2009

9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Steph
What upsets me is gay marriage. Don't believe in it, don't want to see the bill passed. Do what you want in your bedroom with your gay partner. But, don't tell me it is natural and expect me to vote for it (marriage).
February 10, 2009

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

hell, i'll even work with elkboys' argument.

gay sex is just that. gay sex.

kinda like how oral sex is just that, oral sex.

true, neither is vaginal sex. but, anyone would agree that both examples above are viable ways of having (the very broad term of) sex -- even for CONSENTING straight couples.

now, as we have already proven using examples of straight marriages: not all sex is for procreation, and not all married straight couples have children.

two gay men can love each other, regardless of how "wrong" you find it. Believe me, their love is as real as that between you and your wife.

and since we have already concluded that marriage is not simply about having children, and that even straight people don't have sex simply to have kids... then you STILL have no argument here.

you simply think it's gross. that's fine, but that is really the only factual basis of your only argument. Otherwise, it's pretty easy to shoot down.

So, the only way I can accept your opinion as being truly valid is if you have only had sex to have your kids, or if you have no kids, then you must not have had sex. I'd have to throw in m--terbation in there too... I mean, judging by your argument any type of sexual contact that doesn't eventually lead to an impregnated egg is wrong.

Otherwise, you're simply being a hypocrite due to your ignorance.

and FedEx just came, so I can finally get up to Vail and stop wasting my time pointlessly proving you wrong again and again.
February 10, 2009

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elkman what is your response to the youtube video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKExZK...
February 10, 2009

9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

You really have to wonder why people like Elkman become so obsessed with something that ultimately has nothing to do with them.

We get it, Elkman. You disapprove.

But what you and so many other people can't seem to wrap your minds around is that you don't have the right to define who other people are or who they love.

I don't give a damn if you disapprove of me. Disapprove away.
But you will not stand between me and my civil and constitutional rights to be treated fairly and equally under the laws of this country.
February 10, 2009

9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"You really need some help. Equating a drivers license to a marriage license. Getting a drivers license requires a person to study an pass a test in order to operate a motor vehicle. What kind of test do you take to get a marriage license? You really are in left field."

you really are dumb as a box of doorknobs, man.
I'll let someone else, likely even an INTELLIGENT person on your side of things, explain to you how dumb the statement you just made is.

good luck in life, you clearly are going to need it.
February 10, 2009

9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

elkman, how did you come to your beliefs against gay marriage? If this goes up to vote, you can easily (and should) exercise your right to vote against it. Just don't understand your extreme problem with this issue.

Are you saying that you could whole-heartedly accept gay people who are celebate?
February 10, 2009

9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

theairdog writes:

zivo:

And what gives you the same right, but on the other side of the argument?
February 10, 2009

9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

TheDenverB
Maybe, because you are so smart, you can explain it to me? I mean the drivers license and a marriage license being the same. I really am curious. Again, when you have to resort to name calling to appear to win an argument, you have lost. By the way, I never once have discussed "procreation". You wrote: "now, as we have already proven using examples of straight marriages: not all sex is for procreation, and not all married straight couples have children. Guess you willl try anything to prove your point.
February 10, 2009

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

elkman, why does this upset you so much? You have the right to vote against it, noone will make you attend gay weddings or to deal with gay relatives is you don't want to.

Why are you so upset about something that (if you want) will not even touch or affect you in any way yet you want to deny other people's rights?

You seem to be reluctant to answer this question.
February 10, 2009

9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

GK writes:

"Getting a drivers license requires a person to study an pass a test in order to operate a motor vehicle. What kind of test do you take to get a marriage license?"

Apparently you've never been through a Catholic marriage.
February 10, 2009

9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

What the hell is all of this talk about sex? This bill has nothing to do with sex. People; gay, straight or bisexual are going to continue to have sex whether or not this bill is passed. This bill is not somehow going to increase the amount of sex people are having. It's not about sex. It's about marriage and all of the rights and responsibilities that come along with it!

However, I will say it again. In this country, we DO NOT put people's rights to a simple majority vote! It is wrong!
February 10, 2009

9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

one last point before I spend the rest of the day more productively:

yes, someone sodomizing an animal would be that person having sex with that animal by definition -- as sick and twisted as that forceful rape of another species would be.

is it natural? i wouldn't go so far as to say that.... But is it unnatural? i can't say that either. Unnatural, to me, is things that aren't plausable or possible - like flapping your arms and flying.

It may be gross (it grosses me out to be typing this) for someone to have sex with a sheep, but it isn't implausible or impossible. Am i defending such actions? hell no!

but that's why a nebulous and immeasurable term like 'natural' has no place in a logical argument about homosexuality.

but again, an animal isn't a consenting adult. you keep going back to this false argument that really makes no sense and has no relevance to two adults consenting to mutual pleasure....

the discussion of animal sex has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality -- unless of course you know sheep who openly and freely court humans and consent to sex with them...

in which case, i'd say it's you who is the one into some weird stuff.

you can't disagree with that logically, therefore it completely proves that analogy to be false. so, prove me wrong that you aren't ignorant and at least accept that that much of your argument is unthoughtful and flat out wrong.
February 10, 2009

9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

I don't agree with what the KKK says at their rallies, but I believe they have a constitutional right to express their nonsense.

I don't like homosexuality, but I believe gay marriage is a fundamental human right.

I don't advocate, enjoy, agree with, either of these 2 groups, but we all deserve the same constitutional rights.

It really is pretty simple.

Who cares what your personal beliefs are. This argument should be about the interpretation of the constitution, not wether you agree or disagree with homosexuality. That's irrelavent.

The constitution is not to be used for the "protection of the sanctity of marriage" or for the "gay agenda". It exists to provide equality to all people in this country.

I find the constitution and the Bible to be very similar because they both are a guide for human society, yet there are many that interpret them in a way that supports their own beliefs. They "use" them to support their arguement when it is convenient and ignore the real purpose or meaning.
February 10, 2009

9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Amen, Calvinbrodus! Great point.
February 10, 2009

9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

zivo24
I do not have an obsession with the subject. I am obsessed with golf, fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, and my family. It is my belief that the gay community is looking for acceptance for their behavior and the way to validate that behavior is by having a marriage license. To say that "You really have to wonder why people like Elkman become so obsessed with something that ultimately has nothing to do with them." Really? Gay marriage has nothing to do with me? Think about the future, Jack. It has everything to do with me and every other person in this state!
February 10, 2009

9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

"Think about the future, Jack. It has everything to do with me and every other person in this state"

How EXACTLY will this affect YOU and every other person in the state in the future?

This seems to be the crux of your argument. Do you have any specifics?

Probably not.
February 10, 2009

9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

What is the primary commonality between a drivers license and a marriage license.

They're both regulated by the government.

The difference between a driver's license and a marriage license is that to get a driver's license you have to be tested and determined to be capable of performing the duties entailed.

The only "qualifications" for getting a marriage license is prooving that one of you has a penis and the other a vagina.

Hmm...wait..I thought marriage was about love?

So, why are so many people saying that the most important qualification to get married...is what two people have between their legs? Shouldn't it be what they have in their hearts?

Maybe I'm just old fashioned and traditional..but I believe marriage should be about love and commitment instead of about sexual organs.
February 10, 2009

9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Denver B
"you can't disagree with that logically, therefore it completely proves that analogy to be false. so, prove me wrong that you aren't ignorant and at least accept that that much of your argument is unthoughtful and flat out wrong."
So, as long as "consenting" adults think it is OK, it is? Consenting adults might think that public sex is OK, but it is in fact not. That is your total "logic"? I do not accept that you believe I am wrong. I believe you are wrong. I have tried to be nice in the discussion, but you are totally incapable of manners. Your PWT comments are amusing, but misguided.
February 10, 2009

9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Looks like elkman went back to his cave to lick his wounds. He can keep spouting his usual argument but can't seem to think outside that box.

It must be horrible to have such hate for something other people do that doesn't affect him.
February 10, 2009

9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Oops. I was wrong. Elkman is back.

Why haven't you explained your statement regarding how gay marriage will affect yourself and everyone in the future? Surely you must have based that statement on some kind of thought line or reasoning.

I would be very curious to learn your way of thinking leading you to that statement.
February 10, 2009

9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

Elkman, I AM thinking about the future. Are you sure you are?

Oe day, you may have a child or grandchild that tells you that they are gay.

Don't be so sure it won't happen. Oral Roberts has a gay son. D. Cheney has a gay daughter. True republican Barry Goldwater has a gay grandson that he is extremely supportive of.

My parents didn't expect to have a gay child. In fact, I haven't met a single parent who ever expected or planned on having a gay child.

I'm sorry..but that the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody ever wants to talk about. What if YOUR child turns out to be gay?

To be fair, you don't seem like an unreasonable man, and I have a feeling that you would love your child or grandchild unconditionally..just as my family does me.

But if it were your own child you were talking about..instead of someone else's..like my mother's child..would you still be saying things that you know are sure to hurt them and make them feel excluded?

You're so worried about some slippery slope future of society that you're not even thinking about the future of your relationships with your own kids and grandkids.
February 10, 2009

9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Steph
You picking up the insults after the Denver B left? It figures, you people just cannot make an argument without throwing out the insults. How does it affect me? When I try to teach my children values, like gay behavior being wrong, and the gay community teaches that gay behavior is OK, well then, I guess that affects me and my children. Let me repeat what I said before. The gay community wants acceptance. Is that not right? They want their behavior to be validated by a law. Right?
February 10, 2009

9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"Consenting adults might think that public sex is OK, but it is in fact not."

define "OK"...

i mean, yeah it's against the law... but that doesn't mean it's wrong or, to use your word, 'unnatural'. Have you ever had sex on a camping trip?

besides, though it may be against the law... both adults consented to doing it. It's not wrong in that sense by any means. Against the law, yes. Wrong? hardly.

once again, i prove your weak argument wrong.

"I have tried to be nice in the discussion, but you are totally incapable of manners. Your PWT comments are amusing, but misguided."

i have manners, i just don't suffer idiocy lightly. YOu are the one who chose to come on here and spout your ignorance for others to read and respond to. If you don't like how you are confronted on it, then either keep your thoughtless opinions to yourself or be better prepared to defend them with SOME ounce of logic and thought.

And you haven't tried to be nice at all. You tried to be as forceful as me, but failed because you have no argument, and now are playing it off like i'm the big-bad-meanie for calling you out for being an ignorant fool.

And maybe I am. And maybe this will show you that not everyone will listen to your crap and not call you out on it.

And trust me bud, you come off as the PWT to anyone paying attention to this.
February 10, 2009

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Elkman, how did I insult you? I don't remember calling you names or calling your statements stupid or ignorant. I've just been asking you to clarify your points. You could make a good case for your own beliefs if you were able to calmly explain your way of thinking but you don't seem to want to do that.

"The gay community wants acceptance. Is that not right? They want their behavior to be validated by a law. Right?"

Not their "behavior" elkman. It's their "humanity" that should not be invalidated.
February 10, 2009

9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"The gay community wants acceptance. Is that not right?"

no. they could care less if you remain a bigot and teach your kids to be close-minded fools. trust me, the gay population doesn't care if you accept them or not.

"They want their behavior to be validated by a law. Right?"

no. they simply want equal rights. YOU percieve it as being 'validated', and that is YOUR problem.

if homosexuality isn't valid to you, or your family, then fine. nobody is forcing you to accept any ideologies. The only thing you are being asked to accept is equal human rights.

this is why you fail, time and time again, to see logic.

"you people just cannot make an argument without throwing out the insults."

but at least we can make an argument...
February 10, 2009

9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Beergut writes:

elkman: You have the right to an opinion, but when your opinion is about denying the rights of others you should examine yourself. Trying to make others unhappy through unjust actions such as denying them the legal rights of others is not a reflection of themselves, but of your own soul. Such thoughts of denial is a reflection of your own insecurities. All love in natural.
February 10, 2009

9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

"When I try to teach my children values, like gay behavior being wrong, and the gay community teaches that gay behavior is OK, well then, I guess that affects me and my children."

It seems to me that if you teach your children certain values, why are you worried what the gay community will teach them? Do you honestly think the gay community has so much power over children or do you think you're "teaching" is not strong enough to protect them from the ways other people think?
February 10, 2009

10:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

GK writes:

elkman you are accusing others of throwing insults when everyone of your posts are insulting.
February 10, 2009

10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Billy writes:

Louie your homophobic attitude is so far out in left field it's dangerous. Any who decide to marry be it hetero or same sex has nothing to do with your pitiful life. I think you post just to see your words. And Steph, your values are just that, yours. You raise your children to be hateful and prejudiced, go ahead. But the gay community are trying to teach your children anything, they are just trying to live in this world happy just like everyone else.
February 10, 2009

10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Well, it looks like elkman is gone. No doubt he'll pop up again when this issue is written about in the paper.

Looking forward to debating you again elkman.
February 10, 2009

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Uh, billy, I think you confused my quotes from elkman as being from me. Please notice the "quotes" in my responses.
February 10, 2009

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Triumph writes:

It appears the proponents of perversion and immorality are out in force this mornining. Homosexual marriage has nothing to do with "love" or "consenting" adults as it hast to do with "Lust" and their agenda to re-define marriage and to destroy it as it has been known and it true purpose. To perpetuate the family. The pedophiles will be following in their foot steps. NAMBLA with the help of the ACLU has been trying to lower the age of consent for years so they can have sex with children under ten years old. Once they accomplish this goal the next step is to also marry children as consenting partisipants. The people into incest will follow also and daddy can marry is daughter or son.
The goal of gays is to have gay marriage legalized and then they can force Christian ministers to marry them and if they refuse the can be prosecuted for a hate crime.

The next step ministers will not be able to preach the truth about the immorality of homosexuality or face being jailed for hate speech as they are in Canada and in the Netherlands. This what is driving these bogus gay marriage agenda. Soon the pedophiles and those into incest will be calling those who are against this abomonation BIGOTS also. That is their new buzz word to demonize decent people who know right from wrong and make themselves loo like victims to the public when in reality they are the victimizers of not only society but of their own people.
February 10, 2009

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Denver B
"Ihave manners, i just don't suffer idiocy lightly. YOu are the one who chose to come on here and spout your ignorance for others to read and respond to. If you don't like how you are confronted on it, then either keep your thoughtless opinions to yourself or be better prepared to defend them with SOME ounce of logic and thought."
The ignorance you speak of is evaluated by you. Seems to me that you have quite the ego? You seem to think you have the right to post here, but I don't? Again, what an ego. Just because I don't agree with you does not make me ignorant. Or, are you ignorant because you don't agree with me? Same difference, is it not?
Steph
Did you or did you not say" Looks like elkman went back to his cave to lick his wounds. He can keep spouting his usual argument but can't seem to think outside that box" That is not an insult? By most normal persons, that is an insult.
GK
9:42 post of mine
Just where is there an insult there. You say EVERY one of my posts are insulting? Maybe you need glasses?
February 10, 2009

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

LockNLoad writes:

This is so wrong on so many fronts.

The ultraleft wing residents of California rejected gay marriage, and so should we.

Marriage has always been between a man and a women, not a man and a man, or a women and a women.

What's next? Special privliages for pedafiles and rapists?

The gay community has tried to force their lifestyle on others, and have resorted to violance of those who oppose their lifestyle. Case in point, their attacks of teh Mormon church for support for Prop 8 eventhough it was an overwhelming number of blacks who got the proposition approved, not Mormons. It is not a socially acceptable to go after the black community apparently on this issue.
February 10, 2009

10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

HayMaker

"decent people who know right from wrong " Do you include yourself in this group?

what does "abomination" mean?
February 10, 2009

10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Denver B
"The gay community wants acceptance. Is that not right?"
no. they could care less if you remain a bigot and teach your kids to be close-minded fools. trust me, the gay population doesn't care if you accept them or not."
If that is true, why do they need a marriage license? Why does the gay community even bother to bring up the issue if they don't care? Oh, yes, my friend, they most certainly want acceptance. That is what this whole issue is all about.
February 10, 2009

10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

LockNLoad. If you do very little research, you will find that the overwhelming majority of pedophiles and rapists are caused by heterosexuals. Why do you connect them to gay marriage?
February 10, 2009

10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Beergut writes:

LockNLoad: How has the gay community force their lifestyles on you? Did the break into you house and your a makeover then force you to have hiney sex on the kitchen table? To equate a gay man to a priest or rapist is just wrong.
February 10, 2009

10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Once again Elkman. Gay people want acceptance of their HUMANITY.
February 10, 2009

10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

Tom writes:

"Why do people like LOUIE equate the love and commitment of two consenting adults to bestiality or incest? Why is that always the comparison?"

It's called "projection".
February 10, 2009

10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elkdude and HayMaker, The opion polls are changing if favor for equality...have fun today making comments...because your days are numbered.
February 10, 2009

10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

timothyc writes:

No one is asking for special rights. We are asking for the ame rights. Marriage between two consenting adults is no one else's business. How, exactly, would my homosexual marriage negatively effect a heterosexual marriage? Please give me an INTELLIGENT answer. times are changing. People's attidtudes are changing. Get used to it.
February 10, 2009

10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

i never said you don't have the right to post. nor did i imply it or that you don't have a right to your opinion.

and yes, i have a HUGE ego.

"the ignorance you speak of is evaluated by you."

well, yeah... but i'm pretty sure others agree with me here. As would any intelligent person on EITHER side of this argument.

"Seems to me that you have quite the ego?"

yes, i have a HUGE ego. I hear that all the time. Of course, i'd rather have a huge ego than to think less of myself.

"You seem to think you have the right to post here, but I don't? "

where did i ever say or imply that? All i said was that if you are going to post your opinion publically, then expect others to have an opinion about your opinion and to take you to task on it.

if you are so convinced you are right, then it shouldn't be hard for you to prove why with some logic. You can't do that, however, and I made it a point to prove to you why your opinion isn't thought out. Yuu still have a right to express it here, however. Just as I have a right to express mine. It's a two-way street.

"Again, what an ego."

again, yup. It's as big as this state.

"Just because I don't agree with you does not make me ignorant."

you're right. it doesn't. But you choosing to continue arguing your point using ignorant and thoughtless points DOES make you ignorant. I'm not saying that to insult you. It's simply a fact.

"Or, are you ignorant because you don't agree with me? Same difference, is it not?"

no. it is not. You are ignorant because you are uneducated and because your logic is not thought out and contains so many holes in it. This isn't a matter of articulation, either. That I could understand... But no, you have not put any thought into your argument other than the fact that homosexuality is gross to you. And when pushed on it, and when you do try and put up some sort of reason why you feel this way -- it gets shot down.

By definition, you are ignorant of the facts in the argument you are presenting. That makes you ignorant.

if you don't like that designation, then again... either get a better argument or don't post. I"m not saying you don't have a right to post, but you certainly don't have a right to act offended when people take offense to your publicly-posted opinion.

ESPECIALLY considering this is an anonymous message board.

and now, since you have been made aware of your ignorance (albeit from an egocentric a--hole like myself), you still carry on thinking you are right. That is the definition of stupidity.

validating that is how you seem more concerned with people insulting you (and making a big deal of that) than actually trying to come up with some sound backing to your argument that could actually shut us up.
February 10, 2009

10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Steph
"It seems to me that if you teach your children certain values, why are you worried what the gay community will teach them? Do you honestly think the gay community has so much power over children or do you think you're "teaching" is not strong enough to protect them from the ways other people think?"
If you read what some experts say, that homosexuality is often times a learned trait, then I do have to ask the question of what the gay community will try to teach my children, at school for instance. Then yes, the gay community does have power over children.
February 10, 2009

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

coskibum writes:

"You know right winger's are always claiming they want the government out of their lives. Yet they are the first ones in line tell anyone what is permissible behind closed doors. Gee what's the word I'm looking for HYPOCRITES..."

ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!! You win the prize!

Social conservatives stand back to back with the ultra-left. The only difference is the social conservatives want to legislate their morals, and the ultra-left want to legislate everything else.
February 10, 2009

10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

Marraige has been redefine for centuries in both sectarian and secular history. Divorce is common practice, racist laws have been erased, marraige eqaulity is the law of the land in Europe, Canada and at least three states. And guess what, the republics still stand, and the churches still stand, and all is well.

So for all the chicken littles out there, who are all worried about who is married to whom ..(and we're not talking about incest, animals, pedophilia which the fascists on the family and their ilk jump to), relax! You can still pray to what ever diety you want and live your life and let others enjoy theirs in the spirit of our pledge of alligiance states...."WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL" --not some.
February 10, 2009

10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

LockNLoad writes:

"The ultraleft wing residents of California rejected gay marriage, and so should we."

Actually, it was the old people from both the right and left that rejected gay marriage. Of course, old white people are the majority of the republican party. So, when all the old people die off, the world will be a better place.
February 10, 2009

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

HayMaker writes:

"The next step ministers will not be able to preach the truth about the immorality of homosexuality or face being jailed for hate speech as they are in Canada and in the Netherlands. This what is driving these bogus gay marriage agenda."

Not true.

We have separation of Church and State in this country. That is something you bible thumpers don't seem to understand.

So the government can't tell a church what to do, or what to think, or what to preach.

AND

Churches and various Religions can't tell the government who gets to have a valid license and who cannot.
February 10, 2009

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"If that is true, why do they need a marriage license? Why does the gay community even bother to bring up the issue if they don't care? Oh, yes, my friend, they most certainly want acceptance"

no, they want equal rights, you idiot. How much more clear does that need to be spelled out to you?

equal rights is NOT the same as acceptance. There's still plenty of people in the south who don't accept blacks and whites marrying, even though they have the equal right to do so.

hell, I refuse to accept the KKK's ideology as being anything legitimate, but i can accept their RIGHT to the same freedoms i have.

see how that works? they don't want or need my acceptance, but this is america so they do deserve my freedoms.

and homosexual people aren't asking for acceptance either. Nor would passing such a bill validate them to people like you. You're always going to think that they are wrong, just like i think the KKK is wrong.

But in the end, it doesn't and shouldn't effect you at all. Raise you kids the way you want to raise them. and if you do it well, they will listen to you.

it's sad that you truly can't see the difference here.
February 10, 2009

10:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

GladysKravitz writes:

"marriage has been redefine for centuries in both sectarian and secular history. Divorce is common practice, racist laws have been erased, marriage equality is the law of the land in Europe, Canada and at least three states. And guess what, the republics still stand, and the churches still stand, and all is well."

Against with the facts. ;)

The other fact is that marriage in America is nothing more than a legal contract between two people and a representative of the state. You can have as many "marriage ceremonies" in any church as you want, but it means nothing until you and your spouse sign the document.
February 10, 2009

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

Wow..the ignorance of the true history of marriage is astounding.

Up until just a couple hundred years ago, marriage was primarily an economic arrangement between people of weath, nobility or power. Ever heard of a thing called arranged marriages?

Marriage, as a civil (LEGAL) contract only came into existence in the last couple hundred years also.

The point is that marriage has always been evolving to be more inclusive.

The greatest threat to the institution of marriage isn't people who want to partake in it..it's the people who don't respect it enough (Britney Spears, JLo, Larry King, etc.)
February 10, 2009

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"But in the end, it doesn't and shouldn't effect you at all. Raise you kids the way you want to raise them. and if you do it well, they will listen to you."

of course, they might end up being way more intelligent and caring than you and actually be accepting of other people. And it won't be because of some 'gay agenda', it'll be because your kids are actually caring and sensitive human beings.

that is actually the best we can all hope for.
February 10, 2009

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

Elkman....What experts? What is the gay the community teaching your children at school? If you have children, then it is your responsibilty to parent them rather than blame the gay community. If you want to teach your children to hate, than do so. If you want your kids to go a school that teaches your values, than send them there. Likewise there are parents who will do the opposite and teach their kids to love their neighbors and respect their differences. No one is holding a gun to your head to watch TV shows with gay themes, forcing churches to welcome gay people or conduct wedding rituals, or make you educate your kids to accept gay people, etc. So calm down, otherwise your statement just reflects your own weakness and fears of your sexuality.
February 10, 2009

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

zivo24 writes:

"Wow..the ignorance of the true history of marriage is astounding."

History isn't a good subject for a lot of religious people. Remember, some think that the Bible is a true telling of history. The same people selectively forget that the Bible says fathers can sell their daughters into prostitution (among other wonderful things).
February 10, 2009

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

GoldenKid writes:

Haymaker
How dare you expose our agenda. Did you steal one of our gay tactics manuals from our headquarters in Frisco! Just because we let NAMBLA march in our big gay pride parades and NYC doesn't mean a thing. That's like trying to associate Obama and Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers. You are a bigot and oh so hateful. Next you'll be saying gay marriage in illogical and insane! Shame on you. In the future keep this information to yourself!
P.S. It can either be spelled abomination or Obamination for your information!
February 10, 2009

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Denver B
"and now, since you have been made aware of your ignorance (albeit from an egocentric a--hole like myself), you still carry on thinking you are right. That is the definition of stupidity."
Sorry, but you have failed again. Your ego clouds your thinking. I don't understand why you have this child like mentality of thinking that you have in insult me in your posts. Again, if you have to insult people to justify your personal beliefs, you may just want to re-evaluate your thinking. My beliefs are just as valid and important to me as yours are to you. You are trying to prove that gay behavior should be acceptable. If you want to accept it, fine, but I don't. Marriage should be between a man and a woman.
February 10, 2009

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Great point Zivo!

Yup "traditional marriage", as in the Bible, is actually polygamy.

How's that for some good old fashion Christian family values?

As one sign at the pro marriage event here in Denver said:

"WHY CAN YOU MARRY 5 WOMEN AN I CAN'T MARRY JUST ONE?"
February 10, 2009

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

ZIVO>>> RIGHT ON!!
February 10, 2009

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

ski4fun writes:

SteveM says: "Gay people having the same rights as non-Gay people is absolutely fundamental to our national Constitution"

Gay people do have the same rights and that is the right to marry a person of the opposite sex just a heterosexuals do. What you are asking for is a special right. As far as trying to compare it to the rights of black people or the rights of woman there is a fundamental difference in that woman are biologically made a woman and black people are biologically made black. All the studies in the world throughout all the years have yet to prove without a doubt being gay is biological and not a choice. Not to say that that choice may not have been influenced by some outside forces. Child rearing, bad childhood, or just some some simple or complex reason why someone is not interested in the opposite sex could all be part of it. Whatever the case, the fact of the matter is that it is not biological so to compare it to being black or a woman is not reasonable.
February 10, 2009

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

"If you read what some experts say, that homosexuality is often times a learned trait, then I do have to ask the question of what the gay community will try to teach my children, at school for instance."

Who exactly are these experts, elkman? Can you provide us with any links?
February 10, 2009

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"Marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Do you believe that interracial marriage? Or what about inter-religion marriage? Or marriage as a man's ownership of his woman?

All of these forms of marriage have been laws throughout history and supported by the religious communities. I guess you can't see the hypocrisy.
February 10, 2009

10:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Tell me, ski4fun, when was the moment you CHOSE to be heterosexual?
February 10, 2009

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

DouginDenver writes:

"As one sign at the pro marriage event here in Denver said:

"WHY CAN YOU MARRY 5 WOMEN AN I CAN'T MARRY JUST ONE?" "

PMS five times a month sounds almost sadistic. ;)
February 10, 2009

10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

IRUNMAN writes:

Barbarosa writes:
"Scream and yell and jump up and down all you want, but when it comes down to the privacy of a voting booth, it's pretty obvious what's gonna happen. The people of Colorado have decided this issue time and time again, and you know what? Like it or not, we're never going to vote in favor of gay marriage. Deal with it."

I am sick and tired of being discriminated against for who I am. I am sick of having this debate because I hear the same, tired rhetoric.

Barb, your last sentence, "Deal with it." Well sweetie, that just reignites my passion.

I am not going to just "deal with it."

Is this something you would have told blacks who were fighting for equal rights? Or how about when women couldn't vote, would you have told them to just "deal with it"?

Your ignorance proves to me that I need to do a better job at providing information to uninformed people about gay marriage.

Thanks!

I am going to "deal with it" by continuing to fight for whats right.
February 10, 2009

10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

ski4fun...Ahem...it is the str8 people who have the special rights in this issue.... this would just extend that right to all... not only for an exclusive club of heteros.
February 10, 2009

10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elkperson -

I teach my children. Love, tolerance, acceptance, empathy and the teachings of Christ.

I don't hyper-focus on Leviticus

I hope you enjoy your shrimp salad at lunch
February 10, 2009

10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

GladysKravitz writes:
"No one is holding a gun to your head to watch TV shows with gay themes, forcing churches to welcome gay people or conduct wedding rituals, or make you educate your kids to accept gay people, etc. So calm down, otherwise your statement just reflects your own weakness and fears of your sexuality."
You are right, no one is holding a gun to their head. However, it is pretty depressing to watch TV these days. Hollywood has tried so desperately to desenitize people to the behavior of the gay community. The first way is to make comedy sit coms with gay people. Kind of like putting a frog in water and gradually turning up the heat. Gladys, do you really think Hollywood does not have an agenda about the gay community? All you have to do is turn your TV on.
I do not fear my sexuality. Why is it that people like you have to try to put me into their box? I do not question who I am. I am a person with an opinion. Just because you or DenverB do not agree with it, does not make it wrong.
February 10, 2009

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

DouginDenver writes:

"Elkperson -

I teach my children. Love, tolerance, acceptance, empathy and the teachings of Christ."

Amen. Too bad those teachings seem to be forgotten by some of the louder people in our society.
February 10, 2009

10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"Again, if you have to insult people to justify your personal beliefs, you may just want to re-evaluate your thinking."

i don't have to. I chose to. there's a difference.

"My beliefs are just as valid and important to me as yours are to you."

i don't disagree with that. But again, when you make your private opiniions public, people will come at them. And if you can't defend them in an intelligent or logical way (which you still can't do), then expect others to call you out for being ignorant. One sure way against people not calling you that, is to keep your ignorance to yourself.

"You are trying to prove that gay behavior should be acceptable. "

no, im actually not. I'm just trying to get you to explain to me why you are so against something you clearly know little to nothing about in a way that actually makes sense and doesn't contradict you. (which you have failed to do over the last three hours, and frankly I think you would fail to do if I gave you all week)

I'm saying that gay people should have the same rights as you, afterall they are human beings just like you and me. I could care less what you find acceptable and what you find unacceptable. -- and i've already used the KKK example to show you how this is true (you just don't want to listen to any logic or reason because it goes against what you think and probably frustrates you because of that).

sadly, even with my prodding and acting the part of the fuel-on-the-fire person... i still haven't gotten you to think about your answers at all and how you contradict yourself over and over again in the things you say.

just own it: you think gays are gross and you really have no other reason for not wanting them to get married. I can't really argue that, as that is your opinion.

But when you try and mask that opinion with your "arguments" and you try and tell us why using words with such nebulous yet strong definitions such as "wrong", you come off as an ignorant fool.

Again, if you'd just own up to the fact that thinking about two men together is gross to you, then there's nothing i can say about that as it truly is your opinion.
February 10, 2009

10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"I am a person with an opinion. "

An opinion is a result of thought, not a substitute for it.
February 10, 2009

11 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

I have a question for the bible thumping goyim here who selectivley follow laws of the so-called old testament and not others. Why do you not observe the dietary laws for example of the "old testament" which calls eating shelfish an abomination, yet you are not out there banning it's sale or consumption? It's so telling how "religious" people selectively choose biblical adherences for the sake of keeping themselves relevant.
February 10, 2009

11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

People opposed to inclusion and equality have fought against the end of slavery, blacks and women being allowed to vote, blacks being allowed to go to school, sit on a bus, or eat where they want and interracial couples being allowed to marry.

And I guarantee you that all those people believed they were right, moral, traditional and had God on their sides.

Yet, they all ended up on the wrong side of history on those issues.

The people who are opposed to gay equality will join them soon enough.
February 10, 2009

11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

If it is so right, why is there such a battle going on? I to am tired of all the old "when did you decide to be straight" crap. I have seen many, many posts here today, but honestly, not one that supports gay marriage has convinced me otherwise. Glad I get to vote!
February 10, 2009

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Ski4fun,

Watch this video clip next time you are waiting in a long lift line.
The fact is Homosexuality is natural, biological, and is not a choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKExZK...

Homosexuality is not a choice if you are born gay...it is a choice if you are a Heterosexual and what to try it.
February 10, 2009

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

again, elkman, you miss the point completely.

nobody is squashing your opinion. But when you try and argue something like that as fact, you are going to get taken to task.

opinions are fine to have, but don't espouse it as the 'truth', when even YOU admit to it being nothing more than your opinion.

And if you DO claim that your opinion is of the ultimate truth (and that ultimate truth in this case IS insulting), don't act so offended when others prove you to not have thought out any of it -- which is EXACTLY what went on here today.
February 10, 2009

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Triumph writes:

It is a fact that most homosexuals are atheists and with good reason. The rest that claim to be Christian try to pervert the Bible into saying what they want it to say. They claim it contradicts itself. Of course it does when they twist it to favor their immoral lifestyle. They also cherry pick it and disregard the truth that exposes them. They like Steph are always looking for loopholes. They are worse than the gays that claim to be atheists. The truth in the Bible has survived for thousands of years and wil be here long after all people who have tried to dicredit it are long gone and have been judged.
February 10, 2009

11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Beergut writes:

ski4fun: There is no special right wanted, only the right to marry the adult person you love. My grandmother married a black man, they had to move out of state to do it. That was a "special" right at one time as well.
February 10, 2009

11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"If it is so right, why is there such a battle going on? "

Simply because of ignorance like yours. Period.
February 10, 2009

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

coskibum writes:

MBR693 writes:

Sorry had to step away and take my kids to school. Before they left thought, I let them read your post and it was a great conversation piece on the way there. My son the 'high school er" said he had never heard of any group coming into his school to preach about gay rights. He did point out that he read that people with homophobic view points are statistically more likely to be in the closet themselves, not that's a bad thing. My daughter who is in her first year of middle school said she never heard of it either. Previously when my children were in elementary school, I volunteered often to help out in there classrooms. Never once was there any talk of "indoctrinate elementary aged children into the homosexual lifestyle". As a member of the PTA, there was never a time that an issue concerning anything with ones sexuality was ever brought up. Let me take that back, my daughter in 5th grade did have intro into sexual education. I was in one of her classes and again nothing was ever said about homosexuality and or the gay lifestyle. So what ever school your children go to, if you even have children, I would love to see their curriculum...

You said, "We care when gay groups want to redefine marriage, when clearly, marriage is a cornerstone necessary for the continuation of any civilized society." Since when do you or anyone for that matter have a right to dictate what is a cornerstone of civilized society? Your fear mongering shows just how pathetic your argument has become. Gay people make and contribute to all facets of America. They are our fireman, policeman, bakers, CEO's, teachers and even priest. They do so with dignity and are just demanding the same rights afforded to you. To marry the one they love. Nothing more and nothing less.

Your said, "We’re sorry that you are offended that we have taken a stance against your activism." I guess the same could said back to you. I'm sorry that you are offended that people are stand up for their right under the law! We all have the right to separation of church and state, I would hope we could amend that to separation of church and hate!

Oh by the way, my wife got a kick out of your boyfriend comment... Her comment, "that guys a piece of work"...

Facts not fear mongering!
February 10, 2009

11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

HayMaker writes:

"It is a fact that most homosexuals are atheists and with good reason. The rest that claim to be Christian try to pervert the Bible into saying what they want it to say. They claim it contradicts itself. Of course it does when they twist it to favor their immoral lifestyle. They also cherry pick it and disregard the truth that exposes them. They like Steph are always looking for loopholes. They are worse than the gays that claim to be atheists. The truth in the Bible has survived for thousands of years and wil be here long after all people who have tried to dicredit it are long gone and have been judged."

BWAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Thanks for the laugh.
February 10, 2009

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Billy writes:

Steph please accept my apologies. I did confuse your comment. And I did read elman's comments. I should have stated to him that he needs the help not you.
February 10, 2009

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

coskibum writes:

"Facts not fear mongering!"

It works for the republican party.
February 10, 2009

11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

DenverB
I guess you finally caught on. "just own it: you think gays are gross and you really have no other reason for not wanting them to get married. I can't really argue that, as that is your opinion."
Just one small detail, I don't think gays are gross, I believe their behavior is gross. I also believe that you have an agenda and will not budge any further than I. Egos are a great thing, until they get deflated.
February 10, 2009

11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Billy writes:

I do agree with all who post regarding elkman. He is truly a stupid individual.
February 10, 2009

11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"if it is so right, why is there such a battle going on?"

lol. okay. I can play that.

if it is so wrong, then why is there such a battle going on?

"It is a fact that most homosexuals are atheists and with good reason."

proof of this 'fact', please?

"The rest that claim to be Christian try to pervert the Bible into saying what they want it to say"

as opposed to what YOU want it to say?

"They claim it contradicts itself. Of course it does when they twist it to favor their immoral lifestyle."

hey kettle, the pot is calling you.... and the bible contradicts itself even if you aren't a homosexual. I mean, you don't own any slaves, do you??? because the bible says that's okay, you know.

"The truth in the Bible has survived for thousands of years and wil be here long after all people who have tried to dicredit it are long gone and have been judged."

you mean the bible that was written over and over again by religions under the influence of political powers to bend the will of the people? i mean, even noted theologans can accept that the bible is a man-made book.

and you seem to be quick to judging people... i mean, isn't it your own precious bible that advises against that?
February 10, 2009

11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Elkman, and all you have to do is turn your tv off.
February 10, 2009

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Billy
spoken by a true gay guy with an agenda
I have said it many times, but will say it one more time. Don't pi_s down my back and tell me its raining.
February 10, 2009

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"I guess you finally caught on. "just own it: you think gays are gross and you really have no other reason for not wanting them to get married. I can't really argue that, as that is your opinion."

Just one small detail, I don't think gays are gross, I believe their behavior is gross.

"I also believe that you have an agenda and will not budge any further than I."

oh, i have no agenda. nor do the gays. It's kinda scary how you think everyone is out to get you, though.

"Egos are a great thing, until they get deflated."

you didn't deflate anything here, bud. In fact, you actually boosted it unknowingly by actually proving me right by agreeing with me in your last post.

You owned up to the fact that you can't prove your opinion with your argument because the argument just isn't logical. those things i can and did argue with you successfully.

However, as I said, i can't argue with your opinion. I can simply disagree with it.

thank you for proving even more how much of an unintelligent man you are. You validate everything I have said today.
February 10, 2009

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Billy, no prob. It's not the first time it's happened. I should probably figure out a way to make quotes with italics or something so they would show up better.
February 10, 2009

11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

Haymaker,

I'm gay and I am NOT an atheist.

I believe very much in God but I don't believe the bible is his word. I know that it was written by men. Some were inspired by their faith in God. Some had ulterior motives that had nothing to do with God.

There are exactly six references to homosexuality in the bible.

Six.

You probably thought it was more, huh?

Jesus Christ..the man the Christians claim to be disciples of, didn't utter or author any of them.

Moreover, those six references have been taken out of context for the times and situations for which they were written and misconstrued to fit other their interpreter's agendas.

They have also, to this day, quite regularly taken out of context of the very chapters in which they are written.

Do you, Haymaker, heed every admonition noted in Leviticus, for example? Somehow, I doubt it.

So, you see..you have "perverted" the bible to mean what you want it to mean. You ignore the parts that you've decided can be ignored because they would inconvenience you but you have taken to heart the parts that you think give you the right to sit in judgment of others.

Don't use the bible as your weapon, Haymaker. It's obvious that you don't really know all that it says...or means..and that you don't abide by every word and/or intention yourself.
February 10, 2009

11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

Elkman....and you do not put gays in a box? I do not watch shows or channels that I do not like. If you are depressed by Hollywood's products, then seek help or choose an alternative that satisfies you. You can watch Disney, Family Channel, Daystar, Fox News, or maybe nothing. Read a book for example. Not every program in the media is "gay" sheesh! And mind you not every TV/film with gay themes or characters are all particulalry good. Some are pretty stupid and inane.

Just know this...the battle for eqaulity in our country has never been won overnight. What once was denied in the fight for civil rights in the 60's is no longer the practice. Likewise as the gay community is more visible in everyday life as everyday people; marraige equality will be the norm as well for all. Only the ignorant, the hate mongers, the KKKers, Aryan Nation, American Christian Talaban-gelists, will be quatered in their dark places, while the rest of society marshalls on with equality and respect.
February 10, 2009

11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"Ihave said it many times, but will say it one more time. Don't pi_s down my back and tell me its raining."

lol. is that because you're clearly so stupid that you'd believe it actually was a downpour?

man, you have to be happy this site is anonymous... otherwise people might actually connect you with the completely retarded comments you have made today. Thankfully you can go on being the closet bigot you likely are.
February 10, 2009

11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

rcop writes:

Many confused posters, stuck in gear because of their personal ideology and biases.

Marriage is not a civil right. Marriage is a societal institution created by religious teachings that later took on legal importance. Civil unions are the same thing as marriage, but do not carry with them the history and tradition of marriage.

Why do gay people not wish to have the same rights (legally) as married persons via civil unions? The answer seems to be that they want to destroy the historical meaning and significance of marriage in their quest for normality in our society. And that is wrong.
February 10, 2009

11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

DenverB
Thank you. You say "However, as I said, i can't argue with your opinion. I can simply disagree with it"
That is pretty much the point I have been making all morning. I do not tout that my "opinion" is "truth". I have never stated that on any of my posts. Because a person has strong feelings on an issue does not make them a "bigot", "idiot", or any of the other names that have been put on me today. I just find it strange that the gay community on this thread here today find it necessary to resort to name calling and insults to try to prove their case. Looking back, I don't see many people who dissaprove of gay marriage engaging in mud-slinging. Most are just stating their opinion.
February 10, 2009

11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"arriage is a societal institution created by religious teachings that later took on legal importance. Civil unions are the same thing as marriage, but do not carry with them the history and tradition of marriage.

Why do gay people not wish to have the same rights (legally) as married persons via civil unions? The answer seems to be that they want to destroy the historical meaning and significance of marriage in their quest for normality in our society. And that is wrong."

or maybe they are proving a larger point that marriage doesn't belong in our legal system at all and that we ALL should have civil unions under the law.... and you can get married in whatever religious institution you want.

if marraige is such a sacred religous term to so many different religous groups, then it truly has no place in our laws. Otherwise, it is strictly a legal matter.

It can't have two definitions.
February 10, 2009

11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

coskibum writes:

TheDenverB writes:

"I also believe that you have an agenda and will not budge any further than I."

oh, i have no agenda. nor do the gays. It's kinda scary how you think everyone is out to get you, though.

The DenverB, Elkman and his brothers are boarding on clinical paranoia. They must be off their meds to be saying the things they are. I guess they still believe that the boogy man still is under their beds.

It's ok we have a New President that believe in equality and we live in the Blue State of Colorado... The times they are a changing!
February 10, 2009

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

RCOP...you may have a point....we should just change the law that ONLY civil union contracts be granted at city hall for everyone and leave the marraige contracts for people's places of worship.
February 10, 2009

11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

"hat is pretty much the point I have been making all morning."

no. you tried to prove your opinion as fact using examples that i shot down one-by-one. It's all up there for you to scroll up and read, bud.

"I do not tout that my "opinion" is "truth"."

stating your opinion would have been something like: "homosexuality is gross to me, and i won't be voting yes on this."

But that's not what you wrote at all, and you KNEW you were going to get some reaction to it. even now i doubt you believe that, as i know you think your opinion is the truth. Otherwise you would be more open to the idea of gay marraige -- or at LEAST be open to discussing other viewpoints. But that is CLEARLY not the case here.

and im not RESORTING to any name calling. i could have shot you down in a polite manner.

I just chose to call you an idiot, because to me you are one. I"m a jerk like that, so what?

and calling you ignorant isn't calling you names. its stating a fact. you are ignorant to this issue, and are basing your arguments today on that ignorance.
February 10, 2009

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

RCOP: You have your history wrong there big guy.

zivo24 writes:

Wow..the ignorance of the true history of marriage is astounding.

Up until just a couple hundred years ago, marriage was primarily an economic arrangement between people of weath, nobility or power. Ever heard of a thing called arranged marriages?

Marriage, as a civil (LEGAL) contract only came into existence in the last couple hundred years also.

The point is that marriage has always been evolving to be more inclusive.

The greatest threat to the institution of marriage isn't people who want to partake in it..it's the people who don't respect it enough (Britney Spears, JLo, Larry King, etc.)

Great point Zivo!

Yup "traditional marriage", as in the Bible, is actually polygamy.

How's that for some good old fashion Christian family values?

As one sign at the pro marriage event here in Denver said:

"WHY CAN YOU MARRY 5 WOMEN AN I CAN'T MARRY JUST ONE?"
February 10, 2009

11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

DenverB
"man, you have to be happy this site is anonymous... otherwise people might actually connect you with the completely retarded comments you have made today. Thankfully you can go on being the closet bigot you likely are."
True to the end with the insults, but that is who you are. An egotistical bulley that likes to tell other people that they are stupid. Know this, you are not as smart as you think you are. Go ahead and keep up with your grade-school manners.
February 10, 2009

11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

coskibum writes:

DouginDenver writes:

You forgot the the "compassionate" in 'Christian Family Values"...LOL
February 10, 2009

11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Triumph writes:

Do you know what they call a dead gay atheist?
One scared believer :(
February 10, 2009

11:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

coskibum writes:

HayMaker writes:

Do you know what they call a dead gay atheist?
One scared believer :(

Haymaker Guess you're off the comedy circuit these days...
February 10, 2009

11:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

Oh, I bet I'm even smarter than I think I am.

and I don't care about manners. Your "politeness" still didn't successful argue anything you put forth today.

and just because i'm being rude doesn't mean my points weren't valid or that I didn't prove you wrong. sure, had i been a bit 'nicer' you might have listened to me... but i doubt it. In fact, if the only thing you have to go after is my abrasiveness, then I'd say you don't have much to go after in the first place.

Yeah, you may get more flies with honey than a swatter... but you're still going to get one or two buggers with a good hit.

but here, i'll be polite:

I hope the rest of your day is spent in ignorant bliss. :)
February 10, 2009

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

bw2012 writes:

I think this is the best thing for Colorado, not the outcome but the fight. Think about it the same people who did paid assistance in California Prop 8 fight will do the same for this ballot initiative.

The yes alone fight was 83 million. I think the economy of Colorado should support putting this on the ballot just to make some cash. And in the end we'll have an answer, and if it's not the answer you want then each vote we should put up a similar ballot. It's called CACHING!
February 10, 2009

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

Marraige changes over the centuries.

Divorce...Henry VII broke with the church and it is now common in civil law. Redfined!

Bi-racial marraige ....was angainst the law in 16 states 40 years ago...no wiped off the books. Redefined!

Polygamy...the Mormon Church redefined it's laws when the state of Utah which was primarily a Mormon majority community, entered the Union of the US. Redefined!

Vermont, Mass, Connecticut, (New England region), have equalized marraige....and those states are still intact, and there religious folks who do not like it still have their beliefs and can worship freely without invasion. Redifined!

WOW! Redefined and we're still here...struggling with our mortgages, jobs, economy, 2 wars, the real things that matter in our daily lives.
February 10, 2009

11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Triumph writes:

Do you know what they call a dead disobedient & unrepentent Gay Christian?
A Psuedo Christian that's even more scared than the atheist one :(
February 10, 2009

11:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

coskibum writes:

GladysKravitz writes:

Bravo -- Change is coming and the wing nuts can't believe it.
February 10, 2009

11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

coskibum writes:

HayMaker writes:

"Do you know what they call a dead disobedient & unrepentent Gay Christian?
A Psuedo Christian that's even more scared than the atheist one :("

Wow they're getting better... Keep it going, we love to watch you make a fool out of yourself...
February 10, 2009

11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

Haymaker....thank god I am Jewish and GAY and not a Chirstian Talabangelist!
February 10, 2009

11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

ski4fun writes:

DouginDenver; All that clip did was solidify my point. First of all I would like to tell you that I am not against the cause of what this article is about. I am simply stating that you cannot put homosexuality in the same "minority" arena as being black or a woman because there is no (no matter how many YouTube videos there are out there)scientific proof that homosexuality is biological. Many theories but no proof.
February 10, 2009

11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

What do you call a right wing anti-gay religious extremist (of any stripe) ....a terrorist!
February 10, 2009

12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

coskibum writes:

ski4fun writes:

DouginDenver; All that clip did was solidify my point. First of all I would like to tell you that I am not against the cause of what this article is about. I am simply stating that you cannot put homosexuality in the same "minority" arena as being black or a woman because there is no (no matter how many YouTube videos there are out there)scientific proof that homosexuality is biological. Many theories but no proof.

Ski4fun, No matter how much are how many times you say it, there is no scientific proof that there is a God...

Kinda make it even now, doesn't it?
February 10, 2009

12:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

ski4fun, if there is a good CHANCE that homosexuality is biological, would you change your way of thinking?

I can't speak for anyone else but my family and I knew I was gay when I was around 5 years old. I certainly didn't DECIDE to become homosexual with my limited 5 year old thinking capacity. Surely, you've seen or heard about children who, from the day they were born, were more interested in playing with the other sexes toys,or didn't seem to be interested in the traditional things that came naturally to their sexes.

Tell me, ski4fun, when did you CHOOSE to be hetero?
February 10, 2009

12:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

ski4fun:

There is lots of proof that it is biological. The "I don't accept the proof that is out there" pissing match can go on forever. Why does it exist with animals in a state of nature? Why has it existed with humans from the beginning?

That is a youtube clip from a great documentary film "For the Bible Tells Me So"

Homosexuals are a minority group that do not have equal rights under the law -- Fact.

Frankly it does not matter if they are biological or not...there are many non-biological minority groups..Mormons or Jews for example.

This is a simple issue of civil rights. Period. It is not about religion. It is not about the sex act and where you stick it. And it is not about biological or what one considers "normal".

There were lots of gay men who fought and died for this country in all of our wars. Don't you think they should get the same civil rights as anyone else?
February 10, 2009

12:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Hi Steph,

I'm confused as to how you knew you were gay when you were 5 years old. I had no sexual feelings at that age. I am definitely hetero but put aside my dolls to play in the dirt with trucks and did all kinds of other "boy stuff". I rode my wagon off a 10 ft wall, I rode my sled down a hill and jumped off right before I hit a busy highway, and I rode a dirt bike. I still do crazy stuff but have never been confused about my sexuality and am definitely a woman.
February 10, 2009

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

whenever we see this issue come into the public forum i always like to put the discriminator's arguments in the proper context. for instance...those who oppose equal rights for all americans regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation share the same place in history (not to mention the talking points) with those who once opposed interracial marriage:

"This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican senator from Wisconsin, “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”

"An organization opposed to this type of marriage claimed that legalizing it would result in “a degraded and ignoble population incapable of moral and intellectual development.”"

“I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose XXXX marriage as ‘prejudiced’ is in itself a prejudice"

"A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing this type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”"

"“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters. It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.", said a Kentucky Congressman"

In denying the appeal of this type of couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are “not only unnatural, but … always productive of deplorable results,” such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. “They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good … (in accordance with) the God of nature.”

A ban on this type of marriage is not discriminatory, reasoned a Republican congressman from Illinois, because it “applies equally to men and women.”

Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argued that such unions should be illegal because they are “distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the human race.” The state Supreme Court agreed, declaring these types of marriages would be “a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”

Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on this type of marriage is necessary to prevent “traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior,” and entered into by “the dregs of society.”

“The law concerning marriages is to be construed and understood in relation to those persons only to whom that law relates,” thundered a Virginia judge in response to a challenge to that state’s non-recognition of these types of unions. “And not,” he continued, “to a class of persons clearly not within the idea of the legislature when contemplating the subject of marriage.”

you are the company you keep.
February 10, 2009

12:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Grim_Reefer writes:

Elkman...you got owned on this blog. Booyah!
February 10, 2009

12:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Grim_Reefer
So, to you, that is what this is all about? Poor sad baby. Too bad you don't have any thing of value to say. I stand by what I say, as you don't have anything to say. Sad, poor, baby.
February 10, 2009

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Jay ---- I am worried about the company you are keeping.

“simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.” Says who?"

“traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior,” and entered into by “the dregs of society.”

The "dregs of society" are the close minded, bigoted, an intolerant.

“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters. It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.", said a Kentucky Congressman"

That's the old "lock up your daughters or the bogyman (negro) will have sex with them" argument. And frankly it works well in Kentucky
February 10, 2009

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Heidi, I and my family knew I was different when I wanted to go as "a girl" every Halloween instead of a fireman, cowboy, etc. I loved playing with my sister's makeup and I remember seeing movies and noticing the handsome men but not any of the women.

If you do a little research, you'll find that most people's personalities and orientations are set by the time the child is three years old.
February 10, 2009

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

ski4fun writes:

"I am simply stating that you cannot put homosexuality in the same "minority" arena as being black or a woman because there is no (no matter how many YouTube videos there are out there)scientific proof that homosexuality is biological. Many theories but no proof."

So, minorities are only people that have physical traits different than you? Does that mean handicapped people aren't minorities if you can't tell their handicapped?

There's no proof that there is a God, but you keep believing there is, don't you.
February 10, 2009

12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

DenverB
"Oh, I bet I'm even smarter than I think I am"
Pretty much says it all about you. You argued, but had no more real proof than I did. Your problem is that you are not as smart as you think. Did your mother tell you that? Because with an attitude like yours, only your mother could stand you. Your opinion does not count any more than mine. And for the records, you did not successfully argue anything. Your own blissfull ego has deluded you into thinking you are smart. When you have to tell everyone that you are smart...well...that pretty much sums it up.
February 10, 2009

12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"Grim_Reefer
So, to you, that is what this is all about? Poor sad baby. Too bad you don't have any thing of value to say. I stand by what I say, as you don't have anything to say. Sad, poor, baby."

So, he states his opinion and you call him a "sad baby", but we can't call you ignorant because of the lack of facts you have to back up your opinion?

Talk about hypocrisy.
February 10, 2009

12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

remember doug...as we've established many times here....being intolerant of bigotry or intolerance does not make one a bigot or intolerant.

understand?
February 10, 2009

12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Heidi, As a gay friend of mine says "who in their right mind would ever choose to be gay???"

He goes on...." It would be a whole lot easier to be straight in this society. Date girls. Not have job discrimination and other discrimination. Have 2.5 kids and raise them in the suburbs. That would be great...but those aren't the cards I was dealt. I love my gay life and am secure in my Homosexuality --but would I have chose this, if I had a choice? You got to be kidding me."

Heidi many gay people knew they were gay by age 5. Just ask them. One way to end all this confusion is for straights to talk to gays they know. In fact it is already happening..that is why attitudes are changing.
February 10, 2009

12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Say it another way Jay. Cuz frankly I don't understand your point?
February 10, 2009

12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

jay writes:

"remember doug...as we've established many times here....being intolerant of bigotry or intolerance does not make one a bigot or intolerant.

understand?"

Does that mean we have to vote for stupid people?
February 10, 2009

12:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

DenverB
Ok, smart guy. You said: "as i know you think your opinion is the truth. Otherwise you would be more open to the idea of gay marraige -- or at LEAST be open to discussing other viewpoints. But that is CLEARLY not the case here."
So, if I were more open to cousins marrying cousins or adults marrying children, then my opinion would count and I would be more "open"? You still have a problem with people with an opinion. Get over it. You have an opinion. Or do you?
February 10, 2009

12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Steph, so according to my interests when I was young, I could have been mislabled as gay. It seems that girls who like to do boy things are "tom boys" and are not considered out of the ordinary but boys that like to do girl things get labled as homosexuals. So I really don't understand how anyone can actually know at such a young age, even though there may be signs.
February 10, 2009

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Tom writes:

Wow. I've been away from this discussion since early this morning and LOOK...

Thank you, Jay, for showing that the popular and legal voices of a more ignorant past were eventually overturned. Many people do judge gay marriage in exactly the same terms past generations judged interracial marriage.

And so many anti-gay voices here are so obsessed with the gay sex act. Very suspicious as in "Methinks they do protest too much".

There is no RATIONAL reason to deny legal marriage to adult, consenting gay couples.
February 10, 2009

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

doug, i'm not sure where you are getting confused.

pointing out the bigotry in others does not make one a bigot any more than pointing out the ignorance in others makes one ignorant.

refusing to accept intolerance or bigotry doesn't mean that i'm guilty of either.

now...where am i losing you...or is this a case of willful ignorance?
February 10, 2009

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

timothyc writes:

Being gay is no more a sin then being straight. Jesus Christ himself said nothing against being gay; however, he did speak out against divorce and remarriage. How many of you keep the Sabbath (Saturday not Sunday) holy? How many of you abstain from eating shellfish or pork? What kind of fabrics are you wearing? Are they mixed? How many of you stone your children for misbehaving, own slaves, or wear make up or cut your hair? ho many of you believe a rape victim should be forced to marry her attacker? No, a person can be Christian and be gay.
February 10, 2009

12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

TeardropCowboy writes:

If the definition is merely "consenting adults" - why just stop at 2?
February 10, 2009

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Heidi --

It is not about what other people label you. It is what you know in your heart of hearts. We can often misjudge other people from the outside....but no one can confuse YOU about what and who YOU really are
February 10, 2009

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one
Did you have something of value to say, or just wanting to get in on the insults?
February 10, 2009

12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

TeardropCowboy

Actually traditional christian marriage in the Bible was polygamy. So you are right traditional christian values involved many wives.

Better yet they were owned as property.

So yeah lets stick to the traditional christian marriage.
February 10, 2009

12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"cynical_one
Did you have something of value to say, or just wanting to get in on the insults?"

If you are insulted by the statement that you have no facts to base your opinions on, then it must be true.
February 10, 2009

12:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

DouginDenver,

My remark was about what Steph said about his family knowing he was gay when he was 5.
I may have wished I was a boy when I was that age because I thought they had more fun, but don't remember thinking about being attracted to the opposite sex. Possibly I did and don't remember because I thought it was normal.
February 10, 2009

12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

Tom writes:

"There is no RATIONAL reason to deny legal marriage to adult, consenting gay couples."

Unfortunately, I doubt one can use the word "rational" when debate emotional issues like gay marriage, abortion, war, taxes... etc.
February 10, 2009

1:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one
You must be long on dumb and short on brains. Probably because you have not bothered to read all the posts. Nothing like jumping into the middle of a thread and acting like you know what is going on. Again, have anything of value to say, or just feeling your oats?
February 10, 2009

1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

elkman, i too, would like to hear any valid arguments you have for denying some of your fellow americans equal rights based on their gender, sexual orientation or race.

do you have any or are you here just to troll?
February 10, 2009

1:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Heidi,

both homosexual men and lesbian women come in all stripes and sizes. For example some gay men are very masculine and love "guy" stuff, they excel in sports in High School and college...and even in the pros. You would never think they were homos...but they are. By the same token some straight guys are not very masculine.

This dynamic happens in childhood too. I have friends who had kids where you could tell they were gay from the get go. And other ones where you would never have guessed until they came out.

It is good you are looking at your own experience and childhood. But peoples experiences differ. I knew I was a homo from the get go...grade school. Other guys don't figure it out till later. And it ain't easy..because the society either tells you it does not exist, or is wrong, or is not a good way to go. So every gay person has to address this difficult issue alone. In their own heart of hearts.
February 10, 2009

1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"cynical_one
You must be long on dumb and short on brains."

Because I haven't seen one fact that you use to back up your opinions?

"Probably because you have not bothered to read all the posts. Nothing like jumping into the middle of a thread and acting like you know what is going on. Again, have anything of value to say, or just feeling your oats?"

Sorry to correct you again, but I've been posting here all morning. It's your brainpower issue if you missed them.

If you want to willfully chose to live in ignorance, that's fine. But stop trying to push your opinion and your agenda as factual. It makes you look stupid.
February 10, 2009

1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

OK Jay
NOW I get you!
I agree :).
All those big words got me confused.
February 10, 2009

1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

DouginDenver writes:

"OK Jay
NOW I get you!
I agree :).
All those big words got me confused."

I had to re-read his initial post to understand too. It's scary that history always repeats itself.
February 10, 2009

1:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Steph
You wrote: " can't speak for anyone else but my family and I knew I was gay when I was around 5 years old"
You knew what homosexual was at the age of 5? Who told you what that even ment? You must be something special, because most people don't have much memory of when they were 5. Especially about being straight or gay.
February 10, 2009

1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

my bad, doug, sounds like we're on the same page.

still waiting on those valid positions of yours, elkman.
February 10, 2009

1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elkdude...some people have good memories. I knew it in grade school. Did not know what it was, and did not know what to call it. But it was already there. Many guys have similar memories too.

Elkguy...you are entitled to your own opinion regarding gay rights. But you can't tell gay people what they think, feel , or remember.

What is scary is first you are attempting to tell other people what to do regarding marriage --- now your are attempting to tell other people what to think.

Your over the line there big guy.
February 10, 2009

1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Doug and Steph, thanks for not being offended by my questions. I've seen parents who have judged their children before they really knew what was going on.
February 10, 2009

1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one
Your first post was at 10:25. You consider that "all morning"?
And where in all these posts are there any "facts" presented? They are ALL based on people's personal feelings and opinions. I don't not need "facts" to have an opionion on this matter (Unlike DenverB who believes that he is presenting fact, when in fact, he is simply stating his opinion). Again, you are long on dumb and short on brains. Let me get this straight. If you present your views on gay marriage on this thread, you are not pushing your opinion on anyone? On the other hand, if I present my views or opinions, I am ignorant? That is the sum of your intellegence?
February 10, 2009

1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

timothyc writes:

Elkman, I don't think Steph literally meant she or her family knew she was "gay" at the age of five. She meant she realized she was different from most little girls her age.
February 10, 2009

1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"On the other hand, if I present my views or opinions, I am ignorant?"

depends on your views, elkman.

if you choose to believe that the sky is green, then yes, you're ignorant.

if you choose to believe that sexual orientation is a "choice", then yes, you are ignorant.

if you support discrimination against your fellow americans based upon their gender, sexual orientation or skin color, then you perfectly fit the definition of a bigot.

take some accountability for your own views and opinions.

speaking of....do you have any valid arguments to deny equal rights to some americans or not?

stop running.
February 10, 2009

1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

DouginDenver
I am not telling gay people how to feel or think. Have you missed the point as well? My beef is with homosexual people getting "married". I am not "telling" anyone anything. If you read something else between the lines, that is your problem. Read, don't speculate.
February 10, 2009

1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

jay
You are not worth the keystrokes.
February 10, 2009

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Heidi,

Thank you for the thankyou! I think most gay people are very open to discussing "the whole gay thing" with straights. Actually it is very healthy and helps the straight world see us as people and not some weird martian invasion. That even goes for straight who do not understand gays, or do not like them, or disagree with them. Frankly dialoge with people like that is even more important. We might not change their views...but at least we can put a human face on the issue.

HOWEVER we can get very forceful when people attempt to deny us rights, or take away rights, or disparage us. And some people and groups love attacking us...but that is changing quickly.
February 10, 2009

1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

timothyc writes:

elkman, what, exactly, is your beef with gay people getting married? How, exactly, would my life partner and me getting married effect you personally? Are you that insecure? We're all still waiting for a logical answer.
February 10, 2009

1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elkie,

You are telling us we can't remember back till we were 5 years old. and you are telling us we can't get a marriage license.
February 10, 2009

1:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

still waiting elkman...

please give us ANY valid arguments that support your feeling that some americans shouldn't have equal rights.
February 10, 2009

1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one writes:
"you want to willfully chose to live in ignorance, that's fine. But stop trying to push your opinion and your agenda as factual"
Show me where my I express my agenda or opinion as "factual". Please, for the love of God, show me. Show me one place that I say that anything is a "fact". I state "my opinion", which you happen to disagree with. But do not get confused with "opinion" and "fact". Maybe go to the dictionary and look both of them up?
February 10, 2009

1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elkster, I think you should go to a gay bar around 11pm and express you views.

Better yet go to one where the butch macho gay muscle dudes hang out. I bet you will get some interesting opinions. Who knows you might be able to convert a few...I think you should try.
February 10, 2009

1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

DouginDenver:
This is what I wrote: "because most people don't have much memory of when they were 5". Sorry to dissapoint you, but that is pretty much true of most people. I am not telling you that you cannot have a marriage license, the state of Colorado is. Nor am I telling you that you have no memory at 5. Simply said: Most People have no memory. Funny how you manage to turn things around. And for all you "new comers", I stated my points earlier today. Not going to repeat all I have said again. Please go back to early this morning and read what I said. If you are really interested.
February 10, 2009

1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"cynical_one writes:
Show me where my I express my agenda or opinion as "factual". Please, for the love of God, show me."

elkman writes:

Tom:
Maybe because Louie is right. And the age old question is still the same. How do two gays make love? Not in a natural way. Maybe thats why so many of us believe it is wrong. There is a natural order of things in this world. You may not want to accept it, but that is the way it is. Yes, the voters of this state do have a right to vote it down."

You've been owned.
February 10, 2009

1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

DouginDenver
Get a life. You would not catch me in a gay bar for any reason. I don't want to convert anyone. Just against gay marriage.
February 10, 2009

1:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elkman's "natural order of things" scares me.

Frankly the natural order of things is if people are denied rights or privileges they fight for them -- and with time and effort achieve equity.
February 10, 2009

1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one
And where do I say anything is "fact"? Yea right, reading into it what you want. I have not ben owned, by you or anyone. Probelm with you people, is that you want everything to be fact so you can argure it. Problem is though, you really cannot argue my opionion. I have an opinion that there is a natrural order of things. Did I say that is a fact? NO. Again, wanting to make everything a "fact" that someone says. I wish you and others would read instead of speculate.
February 10, 2009

2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elkman --
You have your right to your opinions. However, laws should not be based on some people's opinions.

One group of people should not be denied licenses or contracts just because some people's opinions.
February 10, 2009

2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"cynical_one
And where do I say anything is "fact"?"

Amazing act of backpedaling. You want to try to prove that "gay sex" is "Not in a natural way" and "wrong". That would be trying to pass your belief as fact.

And yet no matter how many people ask for your proof that gay sex is "unnatural" and "wrong", you can't. Others have posted links to studies that prove that homosexuality is actually a biological issue and therefore natural, but you hand wave that as "wrong".

Keep digging.
February 10, 2009

2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elkman most people who are passionate for gay equity and gay marriage are either gay, or straights who believe in civil rights.

Why are YOU so interested in this issue?

What dog do you have in this fight?
February 10, 2009

2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

The natural order of things of which I speak. I am talking about "natural", not all this "new technology". Because this "new technology" was invented for women to have children from their husband in cases where the "natural" method does not work.
Women cannot procreate without a man. A man cannot procreate without a woman. A man has sex with a woman and implants his "seed" in her. Now, what purpose do you think it has for a man to implant his seed in another man? There is no natural reason or logical reason, is there? Animals procreate by male and female. I have been around wildlife long enough to know that one male animal will not allow another male animal to implant their seed in them. So, the question becomes, what is natural and what is unnatural?
February 10, 2009

2:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elkman have you tried oral sex?
February 10, 2009

2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"Women cannot procreate without a man. A man cannot procreate without a woman. A man has sex with a woman and implants his "seed" in her."

Is that the only reason to have sex? Procreation? Not to share the love of a relationship? You are incorrectly mixing science and emotion.

Just because gay people get married, do you think the human race as a whole will stop making children?

Gay marriage is a matter of civil rights, not natural selection. Get over it.
February 10, 2009

2:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one
You know as well as I do that I can come up with as many sources that say homsexuality is a learned trait, as you can that say it is biological. I am not going down that road for the umteenth time. You can find any source you want to defend what you are arguing. Show me where it is considered "natural" for men to mate with men.
February 10, 2009

2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

DouginDenver writes:

"Elkman have you tried oral sex?"

So-domy (I can't believe that word is censored) was illegal in Colorado until 1972 and is still illegal in a number of states and countries. Of course, it's also "unnatural".

Why would anyone want to give pleasure to their partner anyway. That's unnatural too.
February 10, 2009

2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.................

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
February 10, 2009

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"cynical_one
You know as well as I do that I can come up with as many sources that say homsexuality is a learned trait, as you can that say it is biological. I am not going down that road for the umteenth time."

Come on. Show us one independent non-religious source.

"You can find any source you want to defend what you are arguing. Show me where it is considered "natural" for men to mate with men."

You don't understand science very well, do you. If it happens in nature, it's natural.
February 10, 2009

2:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one
"Is that the only reason to have sex? Procreation? Not to share the love of a relationship? You are incorrectly mixing science and emotion."
Let me ask you this question? Then why do men have "seed" in which to procreate? If is it only for a sexual gratification, then there is no need for it. Are you saying that sex was not intended to be between a male and a female?
February 10, 2009

2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

"Why would anyone want to give pleasure to their partner anyway. That's unnatural too."

What? Your not serious. Here is one reason..because then they will give pleasure in return. You should try it sometime.

The Church used to define sod-omy as any sexual intercourse other than the missionary position. (that's why they call it that)

So if you have ever had your wife / girlfriend on top or sideways or any other creative position...well then you have practiced sod-omy. And according to the Church committed a sin. Dog style would also be considered "unnatural" and a form of sod-omy though that is how animals in the wild mate. Go figure. One man's unnatural is another man's natural.
February 10, 2009

2:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"Let me ask you this question? Then why do men have "seed" in which to procreate? If is it only for a sexual gratification, then there is no need for it. Are you saying that sex was not intended to be between a male and a female?"

Again, you are mixing science with emotion. The reason why men have sperm and women have eggs is to procreate. However, if that's they only reason for sex, why do animals mast-urbate?

If we only live to procreate, why have marriage?
February 10, 2009

2:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Doug
Stop the presses. So because you think some animals are homosexual and practice those traits, that people are no better then animals. News just in folks. Man has a brain that is far superior to any animal known on this planet. So, now we are no better than animals?
February 10, 2009

2:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

ski4fun writes:

dougindenver:

You do have the same civil rights as heterosexuals. The law doesn't state that marriage has to be between two people who love each other. It states that it has to be between and man and a woman. Therefore you have the same civil right as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex.
February 10, 2009

2:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

DouginDenver writes:

"Why would anyone want to give pleasure to their partner anyway. That's unnatural too."

"What? Your not serious. Here is one reason..because then they will give pleasure in return. You should try it sometime."

Of course I'm not serious.

"The Church used to define sod-omy as any sexual intercourse other than the missionary position. (that's why they call it that)"

I never knew that. I wonder if they thought that there was a better chance of pregnancy that way. Of course, I'm still baffled why the Catholic Church is still against birth control.

"So if you have ever had your wife / girlfriend on top or sideways or any other creative position...well then you have practiced sod-omy. And according to the Church committed a sin. Dog style would also be considered "unnatural" and a form of sod-omy though that is how animals in the wild mate. Go figure. One man's unnatural is another man's natural."

I'm going to hell for sure.
February 10, 2009

2:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

From the same Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo study ----

"One example of overlooking behaviour noted by Petter Bockman is a description of mating among giraffes, when nine out of ten pairings occur between males.

"Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings.

Mast-ur-bation is common in the animal kingdom.

"Mastur-bation is the simplest method of self pleasure. We have a Darwinist mentality that all animals only have sex to procreate. But there are plenty of animals who will mast-ur-bate when they have nothing better to do. Mastur-bation has been observed among primates, deer, killer whales and penguins, and we're talking about both males and females. They rub themselves against stones and roots. Orangutans are especially inventive. They make dildos of wood and bark," says Petter Boeckman of the Norwegian Natural History Museum."
February 10, 2009

2:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

timothyc writes:

DouglasinDenver, why would you not go to a gay bar? I have straight friends who go to gay bars with my partner and me. Are you really that insecure?
February 10, 2009

2:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one
Other than monkeys, show me animal that mast-urbates. Right, deer, elk, antelope, elephants, birds, etc. all do that. Your reasoning is getting weak here. Again I ask: "Are you saying that sex was not intended to be between a male and a female?"
February 10, 2009

2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

timothyc writes:

Sorry, meant ELKSTER. Not DouginDenver. My apologies.
February 10, 2009

2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

That settles it, we are no better than animals!
February 10, 2009

2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Elk guy I guess the "natural order of things argument" goes out the window now. I agree we have brains. Thats why we should have civil rights and equality.
February 10, 2009

2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"Man has a brain that is far superior to any animal known on this planet."

Another biased, unscientific, fact less opinion.

"So, now we are no better than animals?"

We share 60% of our DNA with bananas. Does that make you a fruit?
February 10, 2009

2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

Question for all those bloggers here against "gay" marraige. Why is this your business? This does not make you marry someone of the same gender. And I am not asking for biblical reasons....as a matter of civil, secular, private liberty. Why is this your issue? How does the lesbian couple in the house across the street, prevent you from marrying, loving or living with your spouse? How does this prevent you from procreating if you so wish? It doesn't. Even if you hold puritan beliefs, this doesn't stop from liviong your life in accordance to your personal code. So what does this matter to you? No one is invading your life?
February 10, 2009

2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"cynical_one
Other than monkeys, show me animal that mast-urbates. Right, deer, elk, antelope, elephants, birds, etc. all do that. Your reasoning is getting weak here."

Look at DouginDenver's post at 2:37 p.m.

"Again I ask: "Are you saying that sex was not intended to be between a male and a female?""

There are animals in the world that don't need men to have offspring. They actually use a form of cloning. But I don't want to confuse you with science, so let's keep this simple.

Procreation is between a male and a female. Sex is more that just a form of procreation. In simpler terms, your dog humping your leg is a form of sex.

So you are wrong. There is nothing unnatural about gay sex.
February 10, 2009

2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one
"Another biased, unscientific, fact less opinion." Sorry to prove you wrong, but what animal other than man has a brain that can reason? Can monkeys make computers? The reason man is superior to animals is their ability to reason, and compute things, and pass along knowledge. Are you really saying that is not fact? My analogy is right on. If animals are homosexual and people are homosexual, then we are no better than animals. That is the logic that you have just given.
February 10, 2009

2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

DouginDenver writes:

Ski guy.... I think you buckled your boots too tight. The "Only people of opposite sexes can marry " illogic is a-kin to the "Whites can only marry whites and blacks can only marry blacks" argument.

Didn't you get the memo? Anti miscegenation laws were thrown out a while back due to civil rights issues, and the idea that adults can marry who they dam well please. As will the anti-gay marriage laws.

Your side lost on that one.
February 10, 2009

2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one
By the way, which animal is it that has a superior brain to man?
February 10, 2009

2:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

GladysKravitz writes:

"Question for all those bloggers here against "gay" marriage. Why is this your business? This does not make you marry someone of the same gender. And I am not asking for biblical reasons....as a matter of civil, secular, private liberty. Why is this your issue?"

Same reason why they feel that abortion is their issue too. Something about pushing their beliefs on others makes them feel better.
February 10, 2009

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one writes:
You seem to be avoiding the question. It is simple enough.
"Again I ask: "Are you saying that sex was not intended to be between a male and a female?"
February 10, 2009

2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

Cynical...I hear you there...there is a Yiddish word for people like that...Farbisseneh...a person who is so unhappy unless they have something to be unpleasant about.
February 10, 2009

2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"cynical_one
"Another biased, unscientific, fact less opinion." Sorry to prove you wrong, but what animal other than man has a brain that can reason? Can monkeys make computers?"

Why would a monkey need to make a computer?

"The reason man is superior to animals is their ability to reason, and compute things, and pass along knowledge."

Boy, you are so wrong about this. There are thousands of studies that show that animals can reason, compute and teach.

"Are you really saying that is not fact? My analogy is right on. If animals are homosexual and people are homosexual, then we are no better than animals. That is the logic that you have just given."

There is no logic there. You haven't had a shred of logic in any of your statements all day. But you keep trying anyway.
February 10, 2009

2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"cynical_one
By the way, which animal is it that has a superior brain to man?"

This is not a binary issue as you try to pain it. A number of animals on this planet share the same traits as humans. Some animals can do things better than humans because they have evolved to do so.

Why don't you climb into a lion's cage at the zoo and see which one of you is better at survival.
February 10, 2009

2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

ski4fun writes:

dougie boy (and I do mean boy) Per the article you are getting all worked up about.

"If the measure makes it to the 2010 ballot and is approved, depending on the final language, it could override Amendment 43, the successful 2006 initiative that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman in the state constitution." I would say that is law. I didn't lose squat but you are obvioulsy just losing it.
February 10, 2009

3 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"You seem to be avoiding the question. It is simple enough.
"Again I ask: "Are you saying that sex was not intended to be between a male and a female?""

Again, you have a comprehension issue. Sex and procreation are not the same thing. Procreation is a result of sex. Get it?
February 10, 2009

3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

ski4fun writes:

Dougie: by the way I don't have a side but based on the hostility of you and your counterparts in this blog. I can certainly see why some people are so against you.
February 10, 2009

3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

ski4fun writes:

"If the measure makes it to the 2010 ballot and is approved, depending on the final language, it could override Amendment 43, the successful 2006 initiative that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman in the state constitution." I would say that is law. I didn't lose squat but you are obvioulsy just losing it."

So you are saying, just because there is a law, then it is right? Is that how you explain something like slavery?
February 10, 2009

3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

ski4fun writes:

"Dougie: by the way I don't have a side but based on the hostility of you and your counterparts in this blog. I can certainly see why some people are so against you."

You just posted:

"You do have the same civil rights as heterosexuals. The law doesn't state that marriage has to be between two people who love each other. It states that it has to be between and man and a woman. Therefore you have the same civil right as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex."

You obviously have chosen sides and are biased. Way to contradict yourself.
February 10, 2009

3:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

Ski....just because a majority vote in wrong laws...doesn't make it right. Cynical is on the money...the Jim Crow laws of the south were wrong, the Nuremberg laws in Nazi Germany that criminalized relations between Jews and non-Jews were wrong. That is why we have our courts to protect our rights when wrong minded haters pass unconstitutional and un-American ballot measures.
February 10, 2009

3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one
You wrote "Another biased, unscientific, fact less opinion." You have been busted. You wrote: This is not a binary issue as you try to pain it. A number of animals on this planet share the same traits as humans. Some animals can do things better than humans because they have evolved to do so.
Please.......... If you really think that any animal has a superior brain to man, then you are uneducated. Now, start digging deeper.
February 10, 2009

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one
So, don't answer the question. Most likely, everyone knows the answer. The question is very simple, yet you avoid it like the plague. "Are you saying that sex was not intended to be between a male and a female?" A simple yes or no would be nice.
February 10, 2009

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

GladysKravitz
If you are right, why has it taken so long for this issue to surface? This "right" should have been looked at back in the 1800's. Am I right?
February 10, 2009

3:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"Please.......... If you really think that any animal has a superior brain to man, then you are uneducated. Now, start digging deeper."

Have you done any research on the intelligence of dolphins, whales or other sea mammals? I didn't think so. You don't understand the concept of evolution, do you.
February 10, 2009

3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

ski4fun writes:

WOW Too bad none of you even bothered to go back and look through the blogs at what my original point was. It was in no way shape or form saying that I don't believe in gay rights or civil rights at all. I was simply pointing out a few barriers this initiative might have to overcome. That having been said. Based on the way I have been attacked on this blog, you can pretty much guess the way I'm going to vote if this ballot makes it. Go ahead and rip all you want. Obviously no rational behavior here so I'm done.
February 10, 2009

3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one
More so than you. Do some research and quit making a fool out of yourself. Even your gay friends on this web are probably getting embarrassed for you. There is no animal on this planet that is superior to man. For you to argue the point is foolish. If you believe in evolution, then you have to agree that man is superior. That, my friend, is FACT.
February 10, 2009

3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"cynical_one
So, don't answer the question. Most likely, everyone knows the answer. The question is very simple, yet you avoid it like the plague. "Are you saying that sex was not intended to be between a male and a female?" A simple yes or no would be nice."

You still don't understand the simple difference between procreation and sex. Use the dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...
February 10, 2009

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

Come on people! What is the point to this argument? Obviously people like Elkman aren't going to be swayed. There is no sense in trying to sway them.

However, there have been a handful of thoughtful folks on here like Heidi, who has posted thoughtful questions on the same topic in the past. It's admirable that these folks want to at least take the time to get a better understanding. They are the people you should spend your time talking to. Even if they don't change their minds right away, the fact that they are willing to ask questions and learn a different point of view is a step in the right direction. By continuing to engage those who have no interest, it only serves to further alienate those potential future allies.

Doug, Steph, Gladys and a few I have missed. Thanks for fighting the fight. Continue to talk openly to people who know you and those willing to listen. Those people will quickly see that this issue isn't about sex, but about love and wanting the same opportunity to marry the person they love that so many others take for granted.

A few other tidbits from conversations I've seen above. To those who question whether or not being gay is biological, check out the Fraternal Birth Order Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraterna...

As far as not having much memory at the age of 5: I have vivid and detailed memories from when I was 1. It still freaks my parents out when I can talk about a conversation they had in front of me when I was just toddling around.

As far as civil unions providing the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. Try again. There are well over 1000 rights and responsibilities granted to married couples not granted via civil union.
February 10, 2009

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

cynical_one
Have it your way. But don't expect me to answer your questions when you cannot answer a yes or no. Your willful ignorance is certainly shown to everyone now. I am out of here!
February 10, 2009

3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"cynical_one
More so than you. Do some research and quit making a fool out of yourself. Even your gay friends on this web are probably getting embarrassed for you. "

Says the guy that doesn't know the difference between procreation and sex.

"There is no animal on this planet that is superior to man. For you to argue the point is foolish. If you believe in evolution, then you have to agree that man is superior. That, my friend, is FACT."

Then go stand in a lion's cage and tell me who will be superior. Again, you call things facts that you don't understand. Your confusion between real science and your beliefs are laughable.
February 10, 2009

3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Grim_Reefer writes:

Elkman...I am pointing out that your arguments are getting b!tch $lapped up and down these pages....GOTDA*M!
February 10, 2009

3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

elkman writes:

"cynical_one
Have it your way. But don't expect me to answer your questions when you cannot answer a yes or no. Your willful ignorance is certainly shown to everyone now. I am out of here!"

Willful ignorance? LOL! This from a person who doesn't know the difference between sex and procreation?

Go back to thumping your bible if it makes you feel better.
February 10, 2009

3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

JB writes:

"Come on people! What is the point to this argument? Obviously people like Elkman aren't going to be swayed. There is no sense in trying to sway them."

Can't sway people who don't have a clue to start with; doesn't make it any less fun though.

"As far as not having much memory at the age of 5: I have vivid and detailed memories from when I was 1. It still freaks my parents out when I can talk about a conversation they had in front of me when I was just toddling around."

That's truly impressive. I have problems remember conversations I had a few days ago without some sort of stimulus. Focusing is hard these days with so many things to focus on.
February 10, 2009

3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

wow elkboy, you sure dug yourself a hole of stupidity today.

"So, if I were more open to cousins marrying cousins or adults marrying children, then my opinion would count and I would be more "open"?"

where the hell did i say anything even resembling that??? you are out-of-your-mind stupid, sir, and have done a darn fine job of proving it to EVERYONE on this thread today.

"Are you saying that sex was not intended to be between a male and a female?" A simple yes or no would be nice."

you're asking questions that i already proved were false earlier in this thread. you clearly learn NOTHING from this, which is why you are STUPID. stupidity is ignorance by choice, and you have clearly chosen not to learn a darn thing here.

sex and procreation are completely different things. yes, one needs the other... but they are not mutually exclusive. we have already been over this.

and sex does not equal love. we have also proven that wrong.

now, can you move ahead in this discussion? how many more people have to beat you over the head with your ignorance before you realize that you might just not know what you are talking about!

kudos, clown, for being THE joke of the RMN site this week. Even your fellow anti-gay-marraige folks have to recognize this distinction.
February 10, 2009

4 p.m.

Suggest removal

milesahunter writes:

I suppose I will never understand the issue people have with a government supported system for equal opportunity marriage. Folks, I completely understand your religious beliefs...you have a right to believe that our lifestyle is wrong, but why in turn would your religious beliefs have a right to impede on our ability to enjoy life?

Separation between church and state should ALWAYS be a reality, unless you want to become worse than the fundamental countries that we are systematically brainwashed to dislike in the middle east.

Furthermore, if you do in fact believe that gay marriage is horrible, then may be you should consider not having a gay marriage yourself. Mind your own business and trust in the fact that the homosexual agenda is just to obtain a few unalienable rights put forth in our constitution, not to rule the world...
February 10, 2009

4 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

"Focusing is hard these days with so many things to focus on."

That probably explains why some of us can remember things that happened when we were toddlers. We didn't have much to focus on or worry about then.

Thanks, JB, for your kind words. I can remember things back to when I was 3, but not 1! At least I can't think of anything right now. Oh wait, I remember that I was hungry all the time!
February 10, 2009

4:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

and no. sex can be between anything.

as i said in response to your question above (which you seemed to ignore, like most things i have pointed out today). so i'll recap two very big points that you have chosen to ignore (which is why you keep getting called an ignorant idiot)

yes, someone sodomizing an animal would be that person having sex with that animal by definition -- as sick and twisted as that forceful rape of another species would be.

is it natural? i wouldn't go so far as to say that.... But is it unnatural? i can't say that either. Unnatural, to me, is things that aren't plausable or possible - like flapping your arms and flying.

It may be gross (it grosses me out to be typing this) for someone to have sex with a sheep, but it isn't implausible or impossible. Am i defending such actions? hell no!

but that's why a nebulous and immeasurable term like 'natural' has no place in a logical argument about homosexuality.

but again, an animal isn't a consenting adult. (and neither is your completely off-base comparison to incest, forceful rape of a child or any other perversion that doesn't involve two CONSENTING (look that word up, tonto) ADULTS.

you keep going back to this false argument that really makes no sense and has no relevance to two adults consenting to mutual pleasure.

yes, using your words... two men were intended to have sex just as much as a man and a woman were intended to have sex.

a man and a woman were not, however meant to procreate. we can all agree to that.

however, procreation isn't a prerequisite for marriage by any means. I know plenty of straight couples who don't and won't have kids.

SO, what is the point you are making? can two men have sex together? sure they can. they do it all the time. is it natural? sure it is. if it wasn't, they wouldn't be able to accomplish it -- now would they?

and again, before you throw out the stupid and tired "so you are saying if you can have sex with that makes it okay" argument go back and reread what i said about CONSENTING ADULTS.

then go back and reread what has been said about sex not always having a relationship to procreation and how not all straight marriages end in procreation and realize how your logic just doesn't make any bit of sense to anyone with half a brain.

and if you STILL can't see what we are talking about, then you are truly a hopeless ingrate with absolutely no future. hopefully your children don't turn out like you.
February 10, 2009

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

thanks denverb, that's a wrap i think.

i believe we've seen all the usual debunked talking points from the far right about equal rights for homosexuals...."not natural", "it's about the sex", "it's about procreation", "because my god says so", "special rights", etc, etc, etc.

is there ANYTHING else that ANYONE can provide that is a valid reason to deny equal rights to some americans?

anyone?

bueller?

because if not...at least do us the favor of not repeating yourselves.
February 10, 2009

4:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

er, i meant to say a man and a man were not meant to procreate...

clearly:
"a man and a woman were not, however meant to procreate. we can all agree to that."

is not correct.
February 10, 2009

4:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

Although I don't believe in homosexuality, I believe I can still care enough about a person to set my beliefs aside on sexual orientation and find greater things with which to base a friendship on. I refuse to equate animal behavior as somehow on par with the manifest intelligence of human behavior as well. I had some great friends in prison who were gay, pumped iron with them, shared a friendship with them, and to be truthful the showers weren't exactly private in the joint. We both were rather secure in our sexuality as men to go on to more constructive issues than sexual orientation. I made a promise to God, I taught my children to honor that belief. My children also posses a security in who they are to be truthful and say what they believe. If one day one comes to me and says they are gay, I am more than able go on loving and caring for that child. I hope they don't hide it from me; I love them with all my heart. If someone voice a displeasure with my kid's choice, I hope they have the ability to do so with a measure of humanity and civility. I know some straight men whose insecurity causes them to abuse women; I know some gay couples that have been together forever it seems and have a mutual respect for each other. Sexuality is but one aspect that defines us; creating or rewriting a new definition for marriage is not going to remove or erase a belief, no more than $odomy laws stopped the practice. I was taught at a very early age it was wrong, just as Steph was aware she/ he was gay when she was 5. I like reading Steph's posts, she/ he is being truthful and sincere about her/his beliefs. I hope I never take the low road and call names or debate anyone less than in a respectful manner. There comes a point where you may disagree with the opinion or beliefs of others, but just like the many gay friends I have had throughout the years; if I refused the friendship of those who didn't share my beliefs or opinions, I'd have missed some great things that have shaped my opinion in many other ways other that sexual orientation. Many of my gay friends know I don't share their belief; but they know my friendship comes with much greater honor and loyalty than their sexual orientation. Sad thought is many have died from a terrible, incurable sickness; I can't begin to count the gay friends I've lost to AIDS. Caring about someone and sharing their beliefs are two different issues. Because I don't share a belief of someone different than myself, doesn't mean I don't care.
February 10, 2009

4:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

Great post LOUIE.
February 10, 2009

4:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

thanks jay.

and in no way am i saying these people have to accept homosexuality...

but they do need to accept equal rights for fellow human beings, regardless of whether or not they agree with them (like with the KKK example i used above).

and if we can't accept that because the word has secular background, then we need to do away with such a secular term in our legal society.

Either marriage should be a private thing sanctioned by religion (in which case, it has every RIGHT to be exclusive) or, if it remains the term for the public and legally binding contract between two consenting and loving adults, then it needs to include all pairs of consenting and loving adults.

and i can hear the argument now: "what about mormons wanting to practice plural marriage?"

we recognize marriage in a non-secular way in this country as a contract between two people.

if we did recognize it secularly, then mormons could have multiple wives, etc.

but we don't. it's nothing more than a contract that people connect with a secular activity of the same name....

so, since it is clear that our legal definition of marriage is not bound to any one religion, but rather a legal connotation...

and by law, every human being is equal in this country...

then why, logically and under our current system, are homosexuals denied this right? Because it is morally abhorant to you? well, the KKK and their message is abhorant to me... but it's america and they are americans and they have the same rights as me.

SO, is there any valid, intelligent, NON-SECULAR, reason for this that anyone can argue?
February 10, 2009

4:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

NPR did an interesting story on the evolution of the Y chromosome a few weekends past. I thought some of you might find it an interesting read.

Part 1: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...

Part 2: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...

And there are other related stories there too.
February 10, 2009

5:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

"and by law, every human being is equal in this country." - I'm sure DenverB meant that as a joke.
February 10, 2009

5:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

timothyc writes:

George Washington: "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

Homosexuals are worthy members of society; therefore, we deserve the right to marry our partners.
February 10, 2009

5:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Iceman7 writes:

elkman

"Please.......... If you really think that any animal has a superior brain to man, then you are uneducated. Now, start digging deeper."

cynical One

"This is not a binary issue as you try to pain it. A number of animals on this planet share the same traits as humans. Some animals can do things better than humans because they have evolved to do so.

Why don't you climb into a lion's cage at the zoo and see which one of you is better at survival."

ding! ding! Cynical that is not the question.

I would "think" that if we are dealing with the superior brain of a human the answer would be not to step into a lions cage.

Is as stupid as asking is a human faster than a horse or can a human produce more milk than a Cow? Goes on and on.

The question that was asked on animal traits was "do you think that any animal has a superior brain to man"

So it may not be a binary issue but it is a binary question:
Yes or No
Simple answer "No"
February 10, 2009

6:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

jfkdem47 writes:

Go ahead. Propose that idiotic initiative, and watch voters reject it by a landslide.
February 10, 2009

7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

localyokal writes:

Thankfully there are only about 25 people posting over and over regarding this ridiculous topic. I thought for a moment there was actually broad interest, but no, there isn't. Just the same back and forth harping that has been going on since Amendment 2, whew.
February 10, 2009

7:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Tom writes:

A while back, elkman said, "I can come up with as many sources that say homsexuality is a learned trait, as you can that say it is biological."

And I can come up with sources which say the Holocaust never happened and the earth is flat. No credible source supports the "choice" "learned trait" idea.
February 10, 2009

7:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

Iceman7 writes:

"I would "think" that if we are dealing with the superior brain of a human the answer would be not to step into a lions cage."

Agreed, but their are constant news stories of humans doing things like climbing into lion's cages. Just because humans may have superior brain capacity, doesn't mean that they use it.

Do you think that using prejudices and fears to decide the rights of other humans makes humans superior to animals?

"The question that was asked on animal traits was "do you think that any animal has a superior brain to man" "

"So it may not be a binary issue but it is a binary question:
Yes or No
Simple answer "No" "

Do you really think there is a simple answer to this? There are a number of animals that may have the same cognitive abilities that humans do. Research has shown that dolphins share a number of the same abilities as their human counterparts. Just because we can't communicate on the same levels doesn't make the humans the most superior being on the planet.

I don't think it's a simple question.
February 10, 2009

9 p.m.

Suggest removal

Iceman7 writes:

Cynical,

"Agreed, but their are constant news stories of humans doing things like climbing into lion's cages. Just because humans may have superior brain capacity, doesn't mean that they use it."

Good Point,

I might add is there a difference between a person stepping into a lions cage or jumping off a 10 story building? Or are you refering to lion trainers or circus acts? I would catagorize the first as suicidal and the later as an animal trainer. Brings to mind the bear man up in Alaska. He thought he could live with the grizzlies until he met the bear that was real hungry. I would say the dude was not all there. The shame of it all is that the bear also killed his girlfriend. Wheren't they both from Boulder?

"Do you really think there is a simple answer to this?"

My answer is that humans do have a superior intellect/reasoning capacity over other known species. I agree Dolpins are intelligent creatures, but I yet to see a Dolphin train a human to do flips in the water for a milk dud.

To me it is a simple question with a simple answer. We have different opinions on the topic. As humans beings thats a good thing.

Ice
February 11, 2009

7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

""and by law, every human being is equal in this country." - I'm sure DenverB meant that as a joke."

no. i didn't.
February 11, 2009

8 a.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

ICEMAN, can we be thankful humanity doesn't do "...flips in water for a milk dud." as you stated ? Might humanity be glad that we were created in the image of our creator, with all his vanity, reason, and judgements? Personally, I thought a fish pimped the dolphin into servitude.
February 11, 2009

9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Tom writes:

DenverB, if "every human being is equal in this country", why can't I marry my same-sex partner?
February 11, 2009

11:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

BigSky182 writes:

"I only support gay marriage if both chicks are HOT"

(Anyone who knows me even a little bit knows I fully support GLBT rights... we are all people no matter with whom (or what) we fornicate)
February 11, 2009

12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Iceman7 writes:

LOUIE,

Humanity should be greatful that we are created in his image!
It is a great gift..

But our fallen nature always tends to lead us astray.

Ice
February 11, 2009

1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

timothyc writes:

Tom writes:

DenverB, if "every human being is equal in this country", why can't I marry my same-sex partner?

Simple, Tom. Because, despite being told we're all equal in this country, not everyone is. But, some day, Tom, you and your partner will be allowed to marry, as will my life partner and me. Those out there who do not like that idea, I tell them: "You don't approve of homosexual marriage, don't participate in one."
February 11, 2009

2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

benzoo writes:

If the voters reject this (yet again) then what? Supreme Court? Law suits? Paint the rest of as homophobes? The point of a democracy is simple. Majority rules. That's why we vote. You're not supposed to against the will of the electorate by finding ways to get around it(such as California). I thought the reason married couples got tax breaks is to support their family. Any argument you have is invalid. Maybe if you tried to see things from the other side, you might stand a chance. It seems like you are whining until you get your way. You may be offended, but I don't care. I find it offensive that my tax dollars are used to "celebrate" your parade showing off your alternative lifestyle. You'll make a spectacle showing how different you are until you want something. Then we're all the same.
February 11, 2009

5:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

timothyc writes:

No one is whining to get their ways. I have a family. I have three kids. We are just as much a family as anyone else's. Did the majority vote to do away with slavery? Did the majority vote to allow African-Americans civil rights? Did the majority vote to allow the residents of Washington, D.C. to vote in presidential elections? Did the majority vote to make Native Americans citizens of their own country? No. Majority does not rule when denying other people rights. My family pays taxes just like you. We will fight until we get our rights, buddy!
February 12, 2009

2:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

ICEMAM, the analogies of animals to humans is seriously flawed; the lion was owned just by the presense of the cage itself. Man was created seperate of the beast, in the image of a Divine God, whose wisdom has yet to be superceded by man and all of science to date. He humbles nations, I believe one of His chosen tribes is noted as the Lion. I enjoy reading many opinions, thanks for yours!
February 15, 2009

8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

soonerviola writes:

I'm pretty disappointed to see what has been written on this board about this article. I lived in Colorado my entire life before college and since coming to Missouri I have built it up in my head as a place that, unlike Missouri, can put away its differences about religion and beliefs and agree that human beings and their rights come first. The fight is over a common ground that I think no one will ever cross because it's a fight about beliefs. It should, however, be a fight not about beliefs but about rights. If beliefs and religion had never entered into this argument, there wouldn't be the need to define what a marriage is and who is qualified to have one. I am sorely disappointed in both sides for the name calling and the need to prove the other side wrong.

To those with the strong feelings and beliefs based on whatever it is you base it on: while I disagree with your point of view entirely, I acknowledge strongly your right to have it. I understand that our beliefs are based on different things and we will never agree but you are entitled to your beliefs and I wouldn't dream of taking that away from you. Ever. That being said, I think the thing that is most worrisome to me is that that courtesy, from what I have seen demonstrated here, cannot be reciprocated. I heartily disagree with your beliefs but I will never in any way act to make it so that you cannot have them. However, in the same way, you disagree with gays being married and you act in a way that would only respect your beliefs and not the rights of others. I wish that you would step back and just see that if nothing else. My wish is that you would hold your beliefs as strongly as you ever would, because I know nothing will change them, but that those beliefs would not impact anyone but yourself. That is my wish. Whether or not you choose to act in that way is yet to be seen.

To those with whom I do agree. I decided long ago after many fights with my family that those on the opposite side are just as set in their beliefs as we are in ours and there will be no changing of opinions. That being said, it makes sense to spend less time arguing with them and more time being active to bring about civil rights for those still without them. We have got to get active to help this plan get on the ballot. We have to rile those friends and acquaintances that agree with us to play an active role in working toward this goal, and leave those who hold such strong beliefs against us to their own lives they only detract. The argument is futile, so let's put that energy toward good work.

To Joshua Allen's brother, Stu, I respect and thank you for your efforts and will help in any way that I can because civil rights are always worth the effort.

Home › Politics › Colorado Government

Gay marriage plan offered

'It seems like a civil rights issue,' proponent says

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 10, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.Updated February 10, 2009 at 9:20 a.m.

More Colorado Government

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs

Published February 10, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated February 10, 2009 at 9:20 a.m.