Is it illegal for me to throw tomatoes at those guys? I almost consider it prejudice that they would have so much hate for homosexual people that they would have to hold a sign up to prove it.
Guys holding "No Referendum 74" sign...
Danny, I think the way you've framed the question is not conducive to discussion.
A new law has been proposed using the state's official referendum process. Just because someone votes against it doesn't mean they hate anyone. Similarly, just because you support the referendum doesn't mean YOU hate anyone.
This word "hate" is really getting overused. Time was when it was reserved for people who actually said or did hateful things. Now, in Seattle, it seems to apply to conservatives generally. Or even just "anyone who doesn't agree with me."
Throwing tomatoes (either literally or figuratively) is worse than illegal: it's counterproductive. After the election, these anti-R74 guys are still going to be your neighbors, your coworkers, your fellow citizens. You're gonna have to hear what they have to say eventually. Might as well start now.
It's not nice to throw fruits.
Think of it this way, Danny. It's just like holding a sign that says "I'm with stupid --->". At least you know.
So, people can only advocate for thing you believe in? Nice.
Maybe they think marriage is a religious term and that all folks should have civil unions as I do (gay or straight).
Government should stay out of marriage.
Amen DBP and Smitty
You can get married in a church, but to be married legally, you have to fill out a government form, right?
And married people get tax breaks, do they not? Like it or not the government is involved. What if we redefined government supported unions as civil unions, and marriage as whatever is done by a recognized church or separately by judge but which wouldn't mean you get the benefits of civil unions.
All couples who were married could then separately decide to file the civil union paperwork and receive the benefits heretofore reserved for heterosexual marriages alone.
I seem to recall in the Middle Ages it was much more like the common law version where if you cohabited for 6 months, you were married. Marriage like religion is a cultural concept we invented--Cro-Magnon man may have had civil unions, but I can guarantee they were different than ours. 1,000 years hence it will be different again.
Tolerance isn't for everybody.
"What if we redefined government supported unions as civil unions, and marriage as whatever is done by a recognized church or separately by judge but which wouldn't mean you get the benefits of civil unions."
That is what I was trying to say......you said it much better!
Exactly. It is all a construct and we can change it. Married, great. Want all the benefits and encumbrances (including divorce)? Submit civil union paperwork.
"Think of it this way, Danny. It's just like holding a sign that says "I'm with stupid --->". At least you know."
thought the same thing when i passed the Admiral Safeway this morning and saw the guys with the Obama is Hitler photo...
i wanted to thank them for letting me know a conversation with them would be pointless...
but realized even that would be pointless
so i just smiled at them instead
kill em with kindness is my motto ;->
What about this guy DannyQ (see link) so much for tolerance
I definately don't condone even harassment..
but I think there isn't as much to this story as you make out..
the woman may or may not have been harassed ..
there is no videotape, no damage to her car and so far no unbiased witness account.
if this incident happened it is inexcusable..
When you have no tolerance for others it shouldn't surprise you when your intolerance is returned with intolerance.
Outrage score on this one.. about 3
I actually like seeing them up there with the approve 74 guys. I drove by the other day and thought to myself this is what is great about this country. Two groups of people standing in the same place with opposite opinions.
It seemed peaceful out there when I was watching sitting in traffic. Regardless of how you feel about the issue I was actually happy to see it.
I would say if you plan on assulting someone with fruit you should plan to be assulted back.
encouraging anyone to waste fruit in a fruit fight is just wrong..
though i do admit i find the fantasy of hurling tomatoes back and forth amusing.
some days I admit i would like to have access to a basket of over-ripe tomatoes.
instead i have to console myself with lobbing the occasional over-ripe comment here ;->
on a serious note.. i too find the sight of two groups of people standing civilly side by side promoting opposite viewpoints encouraging.
that freedom is after all what our democracy is all about.
Actually JayDee.. there is a heavy marriage penalty... haven't even read the Obama plan have ya? See what happens to incomes over 250K for married couples .. taxes go up. They go up for 200K individuals... that's a 150K penalty for married couples. Flat tax...
I've always kind of liked the shoe throwing of some cultures. Maybe we could adopt a soft slipper throwing trend. It would express our outrage and disgust without doing any harm.
would that mean we get to wear slippers in public?
I'd like that.
and Obama created the marriage penalty?
according to Wiki in their post on the marriage penalty
"The marriage penalty originated in 1969"
that boy certainly was precocious..
from the same site...
"The source of this increase in taxes has its roots in the progressive tax-rate structure in income-tax laws – that is, the earner of a higher income pays a higher rate of tax on the last dollar of income (the combination of the two incomes = higher tax bracket). It is mathematically impossible for an income tax system to have all three of these features simultaneously: joint filing for married couples; marginal tax rates that increase with income; and independence of a couple's tax bill from their marital status. With increasing marginal tax rates, income averaging is advantageous to the taxpayer."
Any couple facing the marriage penalty can reduce their total tax burden by using income averaging when they file...
unless of course the second income in the home that drives the income into the next tax bracket (the penalty) is not earned income..
The social security benefits i get for being permanently disabled ... pitiful though they are because i hoped i would recover again and waited until the very last possible filing day before filing ... actually cost us as a couple more in total tax between the actual tax that is levied upon them and the tax increase from the total income on the tax tables than I receive:(
and we don't have the advantage of filing separately since social security is not considered earned income even though 85% of it is taxed if your spouse earns a living wage.
I choose to receive those benefits because even though they reduce our total household income, they do offer security in worst case scenarios... no-one can count on their household's primary income these days:(
Should we call that one the Disability Penalty kootch?
what has been labeled a penalty is actually the result of both spouses being gainfully employed or in our case having the security of a safety net.
Married couples in which there is not second income do not pay a "marriage penalty"
so this should be more accurately described as a "Second Income Penalty" ..
if in fact it is a penalty at all.
The "marriage penalty" is only a penalty if one assumes two things..
1)that every individual in America should be taxed on their individual wages .. regardless of whether they take advantage of pooled credits and deductions ...
2) that those who make more should not pay more
Obama did it!
as i said.. precocious kid
if he was a kid then
i forget how long ago 1969 was
some days it's a very long time
some days.. well.. not so long after all
MIWS... Slipper pic would be cool here!
bostonman: if this country is so great, why do we have to debate this issue? i mean, we know that homosexuality scares the bejeezus out of christians, and they've gone so far as to deny other people civil rights in other states.
and smitty, that all sounds nice and reasonable, but are you seriously saying that you would deny people civil unions if they try to call it a marriage? how does that even make sense?
"marriage" is a two-syllable, simple word that everyone understands. and as tolerant as you sound in this thread, you are denying gay people their rights.
here's a better idea:
from now on, any time two people who love each other want to cohabitate, raise children, share incomes and resources, transfer wealth to each other, have POA and spousal privilege, etc. it will be called a civil union. straights, gays, a guy marrying his lawn mower, whatever.
but you are now hereby required by the state to be civilly joined before you can have a wedding and be "married."
does that put it into perspective, or are christians going to continue to whine and cry and demand that the icky people not play in their sand box?
let's start thinking about the marriage license - excuse me, civil union license - as a tool to solve this issue.
Best slipper pic ever!
If you look at Obama's new envy tax proposals... he intends to codify a new marriage penalty tax.... yes, there has been a marriage penalty, but his plan is over the top. "No one making 250K will see their tax increase one dime"... another 08 campaign promise.... unless you are married. Homosexuality doesn't "scare" anybody Messr redblack.. I have heard other words .. some not so nice but "scary" isn't one of them. It's not a civil right... not yet..Until DOMA is challenged and the Supreme Court chooses to hear the case... I do like your idea... and we have civil union right now in WA state. It's a property issue, if they want to say they are married..... I think there is a search to get a cultural acceptance that makes the word "married" such a passionate issue. Some Christians want to preserve a traditional definition... some don't, some don't even care.
You don't need to watch Fox News. You can find all their talking points and memes collected right here for you.
wow! A boneheaded list of homophobic talking points appears right there as we speak!
Which have been deleted, as per our rules. There is ZERO tolerance here for criticism/attacks/snideness/whatever based on traits with which people are born - and that includes sexual orientation. (Which goes the other way, too - let us know if somebody makes a generalization/attack/whatever against heterosexuals.)
I'm checking in on the site a little more closely because of the spam that the filter isn't catching, which means I'm catching a few more rule-breakers pre-flag, but please don't assume we'll see it - please hit "report this post" (as so many kindly do - I particularly appreciate the spam-slayers - why a bot in ShenZhen, China, is interested in messing around here, who knows) ... thanks, TR
Question here: if "love" is the criteria then shouldn't any combination qualify as a "marriage" then? If you say no, aren't you engaging in hate speech?
We are debating the issue because we don't live in a country where everyone is the same.
Hey Redblack. Everyone can get married. Nobody is stopping them. It might not be the person you want to marry but they can get married.
When I got married I was offended that I needed a Marriage License required by the state.
Personally, I didn't mind JV's pointed humor or sarcasm. Democrats complain more than Republicans and don't laugh as much, unless they are attacking Republicans.
Hmmm. This has got me thinking, if I were a member of the LDS or some similarly minded folks, I might start an initiative push for multiple partners. In the Arab Spring countries the more non-western Imam's and followers who have come to power are pushing to have multiple wives again. Even if it is 10 percent of them that is still 100 million.
Locally, I have been told it takes a village. I think I have a solution for all of the single moms out there. I have some attractive neighbors who are single (and some attractive married ones, but we need to leave them alone, it wouldn't be proper to be a home wrecker). I have needs... I mean. . . room in my home to help. Lets allow polygamy so men can marry the single moms. It works for the undecided gender participant. Straight, Gay, Bi, all get to join. Call it a civil union orgy. The Government will love it. Instant support group for the gals, guys, and undecided. Woo hoo. Wait a minute. I will only vote for traditional polygamy. One man many women. God help me when they gang up on me.
Nah. I voted for prop 74 and I am glad that the guys who were against it were up there. It is their right. If you call it hate you are being closed minded.
It really isn't about marriage, it is about government involvement in your lives regarding partnerships. I like Smitty's idea but you don't have to. Liberty. Love It.
After all the homophobic slurs are done with, here's the point. Marriage is licensed by the state, whether you like it or not. That's why you get a "marriage license". It's a contract you enter into that requires a sanction from the state. The state doesn't care at all what kind of ceremony, religious or not, that you have to comemmorate it. Once you buy the license you're married as far as the state is concerned.
Since the state is conferring certain rights on those with a marriage license it is discrimination to deny those rights to certain classes of people based on sexual orientation. It really has nothing to do with religion, or polygamy, or incest, or animal abuse. Why is that so hard to understand?
No, the state is not denying rights... they don't exist. If I call a a cow a crow, doesn't make it so. No matter how many times I do it. Man, did you see that hot looking lawnmower outside the True Value redblack?
But here is a thing to mull over Dobro.... look at the "special" rights granted to folks based on sexual orientation. That's blatant discrimination. "Hate' crimes gives preferential treatment and denies me equal protection ... a civil right, a constitutional protection denied. Want to give up those carved out exceptions?A mugging is a mugging... why is someone else being mugged more "serious" than I being mugged? Let's repeal hate crime statutes then. They are discriminatory.
C'mon kootch, that argument is far too rational! Using facts, reason and the constitution and stuff!
Be prepared, those who have no argument will just call you homophobic and declare that you aren't worth talking to. Not somebody with a difference of opinion: homophobic. (Ironically, calling somebody homophobic is tolerated.)
No argument needed! See how that works?
"No, the state is not denying rights... they don't exist."
Can you clarify please? Are you saying that people who are "married" do not have any more rights than those who are not married or who are in a domestic partnership?
I'm assuming here that dobro refers to "the state" as an inclusive term that covers all government, not just the State of Washington.
This state has a domestic partner registry for same sex persons and for people 62 and over. The Feds have passed laws regarding DOMA. That only men and women can marry. If this passes the state and Feds are at odds over a word. And it isn't the word "is". Kootch is right.
My former employer gave full medical insurance to same sex couples living together. (And it was owned by Rupert Murdoch). There was a time when I lived with a person who was the opposite sex. I couldn't get coverage for both of us, and I was helping to raise her son! The argument was that we could marry but the gay/lesbian couple couldn't. No they couldn't but they weren't prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex. I know, a bit inane but true. The market made room for the gender exception. Not everywhere but business after business and their HR departments made decisions that recognized the plight of same gender couples. So in essence, which I didn't mind, the same sex couple received special benefits. Yes, they had more rights.
By the way. Kootch and I are not against 74. But we aren't praising it as the second coming either. Some of your arguments assume everyone who is not with you is homophobic. Should I assume others are heterophobic automatically? Of course not. Relax. Read something funny. Make fun of a Republican if you want. Chill.
A) You speak for Kootchman now?
B) I asked for clarification on Kootchman's statement regarding married people vs domestic partnership people, as recognized by "the state" not people just living together for a good time, vs gay/lesbian couples, who have a beef with their former employer.
C) I'm pretty "chilled" as the old 80's term goes. Don't have to make fun of a Republican to "chill" although I'd be happy to look up some Republican jokes on the Internet if you need to laugh at yourself. I don't have a handy portfolio of jokes that make fun of others, but I'm sure I could find some.
D) If you were addressing someone else... my bad.
"Democrats complain more than Republicans and don't laugh as much, unless they are attacking Republicans."
my sister-in-law posted in facebook today...
"don't worry about the early lead democrats will have... Republicans will vote when they gt off work"
day before yesterday i heard a discussion on NPR in which this was said...
"democrats don't donate time or money.. they just want someone else to pay for it"
I can understand political attacks..
i will attack your ideas each and every time you post them...
but as a democrat who works,laughs and donates both time and money... I think these characterizations have gone too far.
want to know what a democrat looks and acts like?
take off your political hat and look in a mirror.
We are all people.
Some of us are nicer than others...
but we are still all people
i don't know how to tell you this kootch..
but in the right circumstances even you could be the victim of a hate crime
you won't think those rights are so special if you need them.
Rich, how would marrying somebody of the opposite gender be beneficial to a homosexual?
We are debating the issue because we don't live in a country where everyone is the same.
I don't want to jump to conclusions because
this statement sounds like you are thanking god that we live in a country where all men are NOT created equal. (which we currently do)
Could you please clarify?
"No, the state is not denying rights... they don't exist. If I call a a cow a crow, doesn't make it so. No matter how many times I do it. Man, did you see that hot looking lawnmower outside the True Value redblack?"
A cow and a crow are different species, right? I'm not even going to touch the absurdity of the lawnmower statement...
A man and a woman are the same species. No one is asking for (what I can only assume you're referencing here) interspecies wedlock here. They just want anyone of the same species to be able to be married.
The rights only don't exist because of the denial of them since a less culturally diverse time. When society grows and evolves it allows wrongs brought about by the ignorances of the past to be rectified. It happened when women were allowed to vote. It happened (kind of) when slaves were granted citizenship. It happened again with desegregation. People just want human rights to continue to evolve to where they SHOULD be. If you're against this, you're definitely on the wrong side of history. The history of HUMAN rights, not interspecies rights.
The false analogies are astounding, and just make people who use them look (warranted or not) like intolerant assholes.
Oh, and to JV: Calling someone homophobic is totally ok, just so long as they are displaying reasonably homophobic behavior. I'm not saying Kootch or you were doing so, but many people do.
"...look at the "special" rights granted to folks based on sexual orientation."
Ah, the old change the subject ploy. I know it plays well to your mini-kootch cheerleader, but we were discussing Ref 74. There's nothing in there about hate crimes. I know you'd love to have all those "special" rights that come your way when you're targeted for violence based on your sexual orientation, race, or gender but, alas, old white man, its not happening. Maybe start a new thread if you want to whine some more about how old white men are discriminated against.
No, the state is not denying rights... they don't exist.
The thing is, The Supreme Court says Marriage is a right. They figured it out in the sixties when the state of Virgina wanted to outlaw interracial marriage. These days, it seems super bigoted and absolutely ridiculous that people would attempt to 'define marriage' as being between one white man and one white woman.
Soon, you folks will sound just as shameful and ridiculous as those who opposed interracial marriage did.
Loving v. Virgina - 1967
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
"Hate' crimes gives preferential treatment and denies me equal protection ..
I agree completely. ALL crimes are "hate" crimes. There should not be a different punishment for committing the exact same crime on one citizen vs another.
Your "two wrongs make a right" 'logic' isn't cutting it.
i'm not sure what the hell is wrong with fully half of you - who seem to support R-74, but don't seem to get the compassion aspect of the effort.
blah blah blah marriage is already legal for gays blah blah blah whatever.
the fact is that gay "married" couples DO NOT have the same legal rights as hetero married couples.
i think you people are shameful. and not because you're christian or hetero or however you define yourselves.
i think you're shameful because you see a difference and because you see it so clearly that you want your government to make laws about it.
i don't know how to make you not see your own prejudice. then again, for the past 30 years, i've been saying the same thing about people who insist on seeing racial differences among americans.
because i have to tell you, it's really nice to not be bound by religious doctrine (perceived or otherwise), stereotypes, and prejudices.
Mike, it wouldn't be, but that is "legal". Like I said, an inane argument.
Now, here is some timely news to help the undecided.
Having adopted a child, this is good news.
Here's a newsflash from my own studies- children with loving, caring parents do better in school and are happier in life. Not homosexual, not heterosexual...the key words are loving, caring.
Redblack. I do not care who you or someone else falls in love with. But. Gay is not straight and Straight is not gay. That is the difference. There are some differences between the two in the area of attraction but as a general rule those are personal. That is all.
I need to be consistent here. Just like skin color or ethnicity, I too wish we were a bit more color blind. Prejudice exists and we who are old enough to know are seeing a changing paradigm.
We should be able to tolerate our differences without demonizing each other. I believe in Martin Luther King's statement about content of character.
So, to be clear. Some people in this election will vote for Romney because he is Mormon. Some will vote for Obama because of his African American biology. Some will vote because the name is funny. I am voting because I prefer the ideas put forth by one candidate over the other. Should I hold other people's feet to the fire because they are voting for a biological or theological reason?
I believe we need to take in all factors to make an informed decision. In the end I do believe we want the same thing, but I believe the labels will be the difference in our opinions.
I am voting for Romney because I want public schools in majority white districts, with incomes over 250K, to have dressage in their physical education programs at taxpayer expense. It that unreasonable? Laws of preferences are sometimes legitimate concerns of the state to engineer an outcome. SS Survivors Benefits for children being an example. Or, low income tax rates on capital gains so our businesses can capitalize at least possible cost and create jobs. Then they morph .. get worse... ie, capital gains on commodity trades where ownership may be measured in minutes...or when we create more SS dependents under the age of 62 than we do jobs. VA Home loans were designed to assist vets buy and purchase homes after WWll and relocate to the new urban centers of production and commerce. Then it became pork pie.. CRA, FHA, etc... so, pardon us as we look very cautiously and with a critical eye at things like expanded benefits and entitlements for "equality"... I would rather cut SS to preserve minor child survivor benefits and preserve the original intent and to keep the fund solvent. Regardless of gender status... if we are to preserve SS... childless couples IMO, should not get survivor benefits. If, one parent was occupied in non compensated childcare raising great kids and future citizens... they did us a great social service. Same sex or opposite sex. I would extend survivor benefits to the surviving partner.
so, pardon us as we look very cautiously and with a critical eye at things like expanded benefits and entitlements for "equality"
dude. no one is asking for benefits that other people don't already get.
it costs you NOTHING to support "gay marriage."
i would think that you, smitty, and HMC, with your libertarian leanings, would take your discerning eyes and fully support an initiative that stops discrimination against a demographic that is actually more stable and successful than the "traditional" nuclear family - as opposed to what you are doing here, which seems to be, "i'll vote for this initiative grudgingly, but i still have the right to hate the gays - or at least look at them with thinly-veiled disgust."
but i guess i'll take what i can get. if you check the yes bubble, we're making some progress. i just wish you fully knew why it's so important to so many other people.
You must log in to post.