West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(65 posts)

R-71 negative ads on radio

Started 2 years ago by Homer
Latest reply from Cait

Homer
Member Profile

OMG, can I tell you how absurd those radio ads "trying" to persuade people to vote no on R-71 are?!?! I mean, those alone make me want to be able to vote in favor of R-71 twice! I don't even know where to start on how bad and dumb they are!

Posted 2 years ago #
GenHillOne
Member Profile

so bad. Those along with the jibjab knock-off against Dow make me seriously think we need some quality control!

Posted 2 years ago #
KBear
Member Profile

I don't agree with the message, but I thought the anti-Dow cartoon ad was pretty funny.

Posted 2 years ago #
flowerpetal
Member Profile

Well don't count on the State's Supreme Court. They ruled that its OK to lie on the campaign trail... I guess its a free-speech thing (?). The Seattle Times used to have a "Truth Squad" but I doubt that I would be able to believe them anymore. Its not surprising to me that some people don't even vote.

Posted 2 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

The Seattle times endorsed Hutchnson..
they had to give up the truth squad to do that:(

Posted 2 years ago #
Trisket
Member Profile

Well, I for one will be getting great pleasure lining my food waste bucket with my sunday Seattle Times!

Posted 2 years ago #
rockergirl
Member Profile

Annoying and wrong! I turn them off or change the station when they come on!

Posted 2 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

They say it isn't about benefits.

They say it isn't about equal rights.

They say everyone should have the right to form whatever kind of unconventional relationships that work for them.

Don't Ask
Don't Tell
Works for them.

Do what you want..
but don't let them see you.
don't let them hear you.

Giving gays rights
infringes on their religious autonomy
next thing you know
the govt will be legislating equality

THEY CAN"T HAVE THAT!

Their rights trump everyone else's

Equality for everyone
but only if you believe like they do.

They say it's a slippery slope
and they should know
If they win this one
they'll grease the slide for the rest of us.

Equality for everyone
Who believes as they do.

but not for gays, or old people living in sin, or unconventional families, or ??????????????????
Who's next?

Vote yes on Referendum 71

This is about benefits
this is about equality

Posted 2 years ago #
AlkiRagdoll
Member Profile

This is an honest, sincere question, asked by a straight, middle-aged, single -- how does gay marriage or equality for gays undermine or destroy the institution of marriage? This is a serious question so please answer with serious response(s). I dont understand that argument. Seems to me that divorce is the only thing that undermines marriage.

Posted 2 years ago #
mpento
Member Profile

Because if you define marriage as a contract/agreement/arrangement between a man and a woman then the same contract between two people of the same sex is not marriage. I don't agree with the gay life choice but there are other lifestyle choices in society I don't agree with. What I mean is I'm not picking on gay people here. At best I will be tolerant and say what two adults agree to is their business. But all this equal rights stuff is the gay people saying look at me look at me, this is my choice and you have to approve of it. No I don't. If the definition of a car is a four wheel vehicle maybe of a certain weight and size then that is a car. A motorcycle with two wheels is not a car. Sure you can drive on the road the same as everyone else but when it rains you get wet. Don't go asking for me to keep you dry and especially don't go asking me to let you carry 4 more passengers because a car can. Your on your motorbike pissed off because you can't wear a seatbelt! Its a motor bike!!! Ride safe and wear protection!

Posted 2 years ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

mpento, your entire argument is predicated on an "if" that not everyone agrees with and which is by no means a universal legal definition.

Operational definitions can be changed. Look into the history of marriage sometime.

But all this equal rights stuff is the gay people saying look at me look at me, this is my choice and you have to approve of it.

Actually, no. It's about gaining the same legal standing that straight couples have.

If you were arguing about pride parades, then maybe you'd have a point. As it is, you can continue to disapprove of gay couples whether Referendum 71 passes or not. Legal recognition of same-sex unions no more requires you to change your mind than it requires religious institutions to sanctify gay marriages.

Posted 2 years ago #
bluebird
Member Profile

I always wonder what "lifestyle" these people don't approve of, that is such an insult to their existence.

Every gay couple I know is just trying to get by like the rest of us. Worried about their kids, mortgage, health, job security.

They all cry, laugh, bleed, work, play, the same as the rest of us. I even see them mow their lawn and buy groceries.

To equate some leather dude in chaps, picking up someone new every night to all gays, is tantamount to saying all the guys cruising prostitutes on 99, is the straight lifestyle.

You say you're not prejudiced and bigoted, when that is exactly what you are.

Perform some basic observations once in awhile. For every gay bar, their are what, a hundred, two hundred straight bars with straight people going home with strangers?

For every man/boy pedophile, there are how many hundreds, if not thousands of man/girl pedophiles? Yet we must protect the children from a gay predatory "lifestyle"?

My father-in-law told me his friends have to lock their vacation home doors now, because a gay couple moved onto the block? Apparently they're known burglars.

The simple fact is there are things we don't understand. That is frightening, so we assign a negative to it and want it to go away. You need to apply some logic, and overcome this impulse.

Gay people want nothing more than to be able to protect and provide for their family and who they love.

Posted 2 years ago #
GenHillOne
Member Profile

mpento, you're also basing your argument on the word "choice." Gay people can no more "choose" to be gay than someone can choose their gender or skin color. To say otherwise is at best ignorance and at worst bigotry.

Posted 2 years ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

mpento, just do what all the other biggoted scolds would do whenever inter-racial couples would walk by after anti-miscegenation laws were overturned: get a sour look of disapproval on your face, make a nasty little comment, shrink away and scurry past, then continue to disappear into the night.

Posted 2 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

mpento..

A man who puts his arm around his wife in public is saying look at me.. look at the woman who is mine... this is my choice and you have to approve...

or maybe he is just expressing his affection even if they are in public.

either way, it's his choice...

depending on your outlook, his actions are either appropriate or offensive.

What people see in all that "equal rights stuff" has more to do with their own perspective than with the intentions of those who make the choice to go public with a private issue in hopes of securing equal rights.

a gay partner with children is not paid less at their workplace because they don't have access to the partner benefits that are available to married co-workers.

They don't have less commitment to their families though they don't have the security of knowing that their partner will be able to retain custody of their children if they meet an untimely death... or that their partner will be able to retain joint assets upon their death.. or that their partner will be able to be involved in their medical care.. or able to carry out agreed upon funeral arrangements.. or...

You don't have to approve of their "lifestyle" to believe that they deserve consideration if and when crisis hits their family.

i don't believe the domestic partnership law goes far enough... it covers only homosexual partners and heterosexual unmarried partners over the age of 62... and there are a lot of other unconventional families that need to be similarly legally covered... including partners who share a commitment without sharing a bed... but it's a start.

Thankfully, marriage has evolved in my lifetime from an unequal partnership where one partner had all the rights to a more equal partnership with shared rights and responsibilites. It has also become a far less secure lifestyle choice for women and their children as divorce rates skyrocket and serial marriages become the norm.

Marriage has changed and with it the definition of family has changed. The "one man one woman and children of that union" family is no longer the norm... a family is far more likely to be a blended family or a single parent household these days.

If the family unit that the rights and benefits of marriage was based on has changed, the law needs to change with it.

Posted 2 years ago #
mpento
Member Profile

I'm sorry be even if everyone had the right to carry a gun it does not mean that society is better and justice is been done because everyone is treated the same. If I eat fast food everyday it probably won't kill me but it would not be good for me. Most people have a good idea what is good food and what is not good food. Just because I get bombarded everyday with fast food commercials I'm not going to turn around and say hey this fast food is just as good as all the other food it is REQUIRED that I integrate it into my diet. Society is defined and influenced by all the things that it brings into its home. I think it is important to be inclusive but there is a difference between be just and fair and trying to treat everyone the same. I would not want to define a relationship between two people of the same sex as being the same as a relationship between two people of different sex. When society has to remove the differences between a man and a woman rather than acknowledge the difference so that justice can be done then something is wrong.

Posted 2 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

mpento...love is the same, whether it's between two people of the same sex, or two people of the opposite sex. Why would it be different? Explain the difference to me. Please, please , please explain the difference to us all - if you can.

Posted 2 years ago #
GenHillOne
Member Profile

again, mpento, you have a choice to eat fast food or not, it is not a part of your dna. apples meet oranges.

Posted 2 years ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

mpento, all I'm seeing in your argument is "I don't like it, so it shouldn't be so."

Please acquaint the participants in this discussion with your definition of justice, and then explain how passage of Referendum 71 violates it.

And while you're at it, would you mind clarifying the following statement:

When society has to remove the differences between a man and a woman rather than acknowledge the difference so that justice can be done then something is wrong.

What difference must be acknowledged so that justice can be done? I honestly can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Can you explain?

(And by the way, every comparison you've made thus far is a false analogy. Domestic partnerships are not directly comparable to gun rights, categories of modes of transport, or fast food advertising. Find an applicable metaphor or abandon that line of argument, it's confusing the issue.)

Posted 2 years ago #
bluebird
Member Profile

Data, don't you understand. Same sex couples do icky things with each other. The bible says the sanctity of heterosexual divorce needs to be protected from that.

Posted 2 years ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

Bluebird: I lolled. :D

Posted 2 years ago #
mpento
Member Profile

First off if I am going to continue to comment or give an opinion I would appreciate that you don't dismiss it by tying in implied religious motivation or some homophobic distase or prejudice. You may not like my comments but I think I have been respectful and I expect the same. I'd prefer not to directly respond to some of your responses because some (I think) are bringing in misconceptions that I would say I don't think I said that and then it will just degenerate from there.
If I have two people apply for a job and one is gay. The fundamental issue is who can do the job but because I put "one of them is gay" at the end of the sentence now that also becomes an issue. That is an injustice to the person doing the hiring and to the people looking for the job. Another aspect is I am the one who is hiring. I am the one who defines the position before I even know the candidates and then determines who is best suited for the job. So ref71 comes along and its not just saying Oh you have to be fair when you hire for that position, it is says you have to redefine that job so that it is fair. No, you can always go and find a job that suits you but I don't think I have to create the job based on your qualifications.

Posted 2 years ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

But mpento, the legislation at issue has nothing to do with employment. If you have a contention with homosexuality as a protected class, that's a different law. (You also don't appear to understand what being a protected class means, but that's another topic.)

Since approving Ref. 71 would put gay couples on the exact same legal footing as straight ones, I really don't see how it's preferential at all.

Posted 2 years ago #
bluebird
Member Profile

None of these far fetched analogies remotely explain why it's a bad thing, to allow existing homosexual partners legal protections over their health decisions and personal property.

It isn't illegal now to have these protections. A couple just has to go through five thousand hoops, paperwork, money, and lawyers, to establish them. Then, upon death or illness, a blood relative can still challenge them, putting another financial and stressful hardship onto survivors.

So essentially, you're not against the current legal processes available to gays, you just want it to be difficult and expensive for them.

Posted 2 years ago #
AlkiRagdoll
Member Profile

I was not looking for a fight when I posed this question.
Mpento - I go back to your original post. That as its defined, marriage is between one man and one woman, and is a legal contract. Then that marriage would be undermined by gay marriage. I am still trying to understand that argument. Why is gay marriage a threat to a contract between a man and a woman? It doesnt stop it or change that which would be between a man and a women. Contracts are specific legally enforceable terms between the participating parties. I dont mean to be obtuse, but I am really trying to understand that argument.
If the argument is that someone does not support gay relationship, that is a different thing. However, I keep reading that marriage will be undermined, and that is what I am trying to understand.

Posted 2 years ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

You and me both, AlkiRagdoll. You and me both.

I've yet to encounter any such argument that holds water.

Posted 2 years ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

Mpento, what line of business are you in anyway, that you need to know, and can legaly ask, about the sexual practices of prospective employees? Must make for a mighty uncomfortable interview.
-
But seriously, how will another couple of people, who you most likely don't even know, getting the same legal rights as commited partners that are available to heterosexual couples, possibly affect you and your relationships?
What damage could this possibly do to any marriage?
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE enlighten me, because I JUST DON'T GET IT.

Posted 2 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

mpento

"I would not want to define a relationship between two people of the same sex as being the same as a relationship between two people of different sex."

my guess is that you don't have sexual or romantic feelings towards people of your own sex.

If you did, you would find that sexual and romantic relationships between people of the same sex are as messy and unpredictable as relationships between people of opposite sexes and that a committed relationship is as challenging when your partner is the same sex.

You would find that same sex partners want the same things out of life that heterosexual partners want. They want someone to make a home and a life with.. a life that might include children. They want to grow old together and to die together... and they want to leave their loved ones as financially secure as possible.

No-one is asking for employers to offer more in exchange for employment than they already do. They are simply asking them not to exclude one group of employees from the benefits that are already part of their wage package.

They are asking hospitals to allow committed partners access to both medical information and to their loved one's bedside.

They are asking funeral homes to stop interfering when partners try to arrange for funeral services for their loved ones.

They are asking that their partners have access to the pensions and benefits they earned through hard work.

If Referendum 71 is not ratified, they will be denied all of those basic rights and much more.

btw.. this big deal.. this fuss.. was not created by gay rights activists. Opponants of the domestic partners act brought this to our living room... with such slogans as the one you presented.. that allowing gay partners basic domestic rights would undermine the sanctity of marriage and would force good christian folk to condone homosexuality.

Approving Referendum 71 wouldn't accomplish either of those goals... it wouldn't even legalize gay marriage...

divorce continues to undermine the sanctity of marriage at an astounding rate...

and good Christian folk will still have the choice to attend churches that do not accept gay members.

But, they wouldn't be able to employ a gay person without offering the same dependent and spousal benefits available to other employees...

pretty reasonable when you stick to the issues, isn't it.

Posted 2 years ago #
AlkiRagdoll
Member Profile

I know that many feel very strong in support of both sides.... but please, lets not attack people for their beliefs (at least not based on my solicitation of information). I respect everyone's beliefs. Maybe I'm being unrealistic in light of the emotional nature of this issue. If we can avoid the emotions, maybe we can have a serious exchange of information. Thanks.

Posted 2 years ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

I AM being serious; I really want someone to explain to me HOW any relationship between two loving people who may just be the same sex could possibly affect their marriage in any way.
-
Unless the legal equalities obtained by same-sex couples suddenly allows them to come out of the closet and start a life with their true love, I really see no possible effect.
-
Seems like a simple question, but I never get an answer.

Posted 2 years ago #
mpento
Member Profile

One can say hey it apples or oranges, we are all fruit, its all the same. If its just about the rights of what two adults choose why is family being put into the mix? So its not just about apples and oranges, but also about apple trees and orange trees. Lets just put all the apple trees and orange trees into the same field and treat them the same? Lets suppose that I have a couple of children and circumstances transpire that I need to put them up for adoption. So someone comes to me with 5 folders and says OK here is a list of 5 possibilities who may adopt your children. Now pick one but wait we will not give you any information about them. All you need to know is they are all equally valid candidates. No, I would want details about each possibility. They may be equivalent but they are not equal. Yes maybe they are all perfectly valid but they are not equal. I would say a same sex couple should not be excluded from the possible adoptees but I don't think them being a same sex couple is irrelevant. If you want to define marriage as being between two people I don't think it makes marriage between two people of opposite sex any less valid but saying that they are equal does change things. The choices we make and what we do are not in isolation and that is why we end up with the legal system.

Posted 2 years ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

So some Americans are less equal than you...

Posted 2 years ago #
mpento
Member Profile

Yes when you put it in context. I might have a big afro haircut and someone else may be a skinhead. When we go to the barber/hair salon do we expected to get equal treatment? But does it mean that some Americans are less than me? I don't think so

Posted 2 years ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

Equating basic human rights with a haircut is astoundingly ridiculous. Are you truly so completely without empathy for your fellow human beings!?
-
You were born with a 'difference' from me, and most other people in the world, I guarantee it. It may be a difference I may dislike, a desire to do something that has never occurred to me and in fact may be totally antithetical to my sense of ethics or mores or self-preservation or intense desires. It may even be something that, if I CONSTANTLY dwell on it, "repulses" me to no end. BFD. My repulsion doesn't give me any right to deny you your constitutional rights as an American. I simply have to suck it up and learn to live with my distaste because, like it or not, I don't have the right to deny you your civil rights based on my own personal feelings.
-
You want to help the heteros stay married? Sign on with this movement:
http://rescuemarriage.org/

Posted 2 years ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

So basically, still, the principal objection here is "I don't like it, it makes me uncomfortable to give this arrangement equal legal treatment to that one, therefore it shouldn't be so."

"I don't like it" is not a valid basis for law. Which is pretty much my main issue with the referendum process, come to think of it.

Based on the haircut comparison (seriously, wtf?), you also seem to think that "equal" means "exactly the same as". It doesn't. It means that people who are DIFFERENT receive EQUAL TREATMENT under the law.

You know, like how women are supposed to be treated equally to men. How people of different races are supposed to receive equal treatment. (They don't, but that's another discussion.) How things like this won't happen because of legal protections in place; and when they do, those affected will have legal recourse.

It's not about your personal comfort level, though if you vote based on that, that's your right, I guess. It doesn't strike me as a good way to make decisions about others' rights, but it's your ballot and your vote.

It'd be nice, though, if your argument showed some ability to differentiate between what you personally are comfortable with, and recognition that legal rights are not about comfort.

But as long as we're talking about comfort and feelings, consider this.

Posted 2 years ago #
GenHillOne
Member Profile

apple trees and orange trees? mpento, WHAT are you talking about? I'm starting to think you aren't for real, but if you are, feel free to butcher your own metaphors, just please don't twist mine.

Posted 2 years ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

I'm starting to think that mpento's arguments never met a fallacy they didn't like.

Make a useful foil, though, even if they aren't adequate answers to the original question.

Posted 2 years ago #
KBear
Member Profile

I hate bigots.

Posted 2 years ago #
bluebird
Member Profile

These nonsensical analogies highlight the problem. When you allow people incapable of applying logic, to make decisions for others, we're all in trouble.

Posted 2 years ago #
Buddy
Member Profile

mpento....good too see a different opinion. THAT is the center of a discussion or debate isn't it? I posted on another discussion topic that I'd like to see an opinion from someone who may be a little more on the conservative side...Interesting thoughts you bring up.
I forgot to mention in my previous post though, be prepared!
Name calling is common..not very enlightening and ads nothing to the forum...
Debating is FUN.....name calling needs a "time out"

Posted 2 years ago #
westseattledood
Member Profile

Hey Team - you all are doing a great job of dispatching mpento's ignorance and prejudice. I would lose it trying to deal with this and it would just get deleted. I am in awe of your composure given the specious logic. For real. I suspect mpento is going to run out of baffling analogies any minute now. Those are HARD to come up with, don't 'cha know! ;)

Carry on!!

Posted 2 years ago #
Laconique
Member Profile

Agree with westseattledood. I can't believe how long y'all have kept up this one-sidedly rational debate! Like trying to nail jello to a tree. More power to you.

Posted 2 years ago #
bluebird
Member Profile

Jello to a tree is a keeper! Thanks.

Posted 2 years ago #
mpento
Member Profile

Well I find the analogies useful in expressing my opinion unfortunatley they can also be misunderstood because something might be implied that was not intended. However there are two possible responses to my analogies. That analogy does not make sense because there is a singnificant factor that the analogy ignores and so its not true. However I think an anology shows a possible truth NOT the whole truth. The other response is to say Oh don't be silly people are not apples and oranges. That is just dumb. I'm not saying people are apples or oranges. I am only making a comparison. I also want to follow up on the "less equal" response. I think to say something or someone is less equal or more equal is incorrect. I think it is important for me to make the point that when I say a same sex couple is not equal to a different sex couple I am not implying or intending to imply that one group is "more equal" or "less equal" I think that is the thin edge of the wedge to making victims and bigotry. I think that unfortunately it can be very easy to slip into that terminology because there are people who have that belief and "knee jerk reaction" and usually they shout louder. I think it is valid to say yes there are so many aspects, hopes, fears, rights, mistakes good qualities and bad qualities that same sex or different sex couple share but they are not equal. I would disagree if you say they are equal. I think the challenge is to determine the significance of the difference. I think that most of the commenters here would say no the difference is not significant? I think it is a valid opinion to say hey wait maybe it does have some significance.

Posted 2 years ago #
KBear
Member Profile

Like nailing orange jello to an apple tree?

Posted 2 years ago #
Laconique
Member Profile

I'm not directing this at anyone, but the whole conversation just reminds me of that classic of cinematic grace, Billy Madison.

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Posted 2 years ago #
AlkiRagdoll
Member Profile

Can I return to my original question and ask for feedback that supports (so that I can understand it) the argument that gay marriage undermines "the santity of marriage"? So far I am only seeing opinions about lifestyles.

Posted 2 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

mpento..

Gay people are not going to stop meeting one another and forming relationships and making families just because it makes you uncomfortable.

Isn't denying them the same benefits and rights that other committed couples enjoy a form of punishing them for making you uncomfortable?

if you feel you have the right to decide that one group of people shouldn't have access to the benefits and rights assigned to couples just because you don't think they deserve it...

how do you feel about another group making similar decisions about You as a single person?

I am betting you make plenty of people uncomfortable...

i know i do:)

Posted 2 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

Alkiragdoll...therein lies the problem. There is NO reason why that argument holds water, so people against R-71 have to use diversion tactics and bring up "lifestyle", so they don't look like complete bigots. (although often they still do)

Posted 2 years ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

The problem with the analogies you've made so far, mpento, is that they don't illustrate your point. You haven't shown that the distinctions you claim in your analogies are also distinctions between straight and gay couples (or older and younger straight couples, lest we forget THAT dimension of the issue), and that renders your analogy false.

I suggest trying another line of argument, because your analogies are confusing people. If you want to persuade AlkiRagdoll (or anyone else), this doesn't strike me as a good way to go about it.

I think it is important for me to make the point that when I say a same sex couple is not equal to a different sex couple I am not implying or intending to imply that one group is "more equal" or "less equal"

What on Earth else could such a statement possibly imply?

Again, you're confusing equality with resemblance. Nobody is claiming that gay couples are exactly like straight couples. What supporters of Ref. 71 are saying is that both should be equal in the eyes of the law.

Equality is a LEGAL concept, here. If you were to say that right now, straight couples and gay couples aren't equal in the eyes of the law, well, that's true. Some of us think that's not right and support the state legislature's attempt to change it.

AlkiRagdoll: I've been sitting here trying to come up with an answer to your question--just to play devil's advocate, you know--and I haven't been able to come up with one that doesn't basically boil down to a religious exception.

Buddy: this debate's been pretty one-sided so far...I don't claim to be especially good at it, but I'm still waiting for mpento to supply ANY support for his/her point beyond "I don't like it", which is not a valid argument, and "you're trying to make different things the same", which is a straw man.

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^