- This topic is empty.
October 14, 2009 at 11:51 pm #679599
The website is real, as in the guy who set it up is actually pushing for this to go on the ballot. With the same idea you and others have expressed, if heterosexual ONLY marriage is so damn sacred, keep your vows and make divorce illegal. He’s taking a swipe at all those who voted Prop 8 into law.October 15, 2009 at 1:34 am #679600
KenParticipantOctober 15, 2009 at 3:29 am #679601
I can’t believe its still publically acceptable in any way in our society to discriminate against a group of people and not allow them equal rights. I literally have a hard time understanding how it makes logical sense to anyone.
Providing gay/lesbian individuals equal rights will not harm or even substantially affect heterosexuals. If a heterosexual believes in a certain definition of marriage, then seek out a ceremony that represents that definition of marriage. If a heterosexual person wants a traditional family, then marry the opposite sex and have a traditional family. Do you see how as individuals we get to make our own decisions for ourselves based on our beliefs and it doesn’t affect anyone else? Well, homosexual people should have the same rights.October 15, 2009 at 6:38 am #679602
JoB, I would hope my wacko commie, socialist, Marxist, Nazi, Zionist, left-wing, progressive Democratic, rock-n-roll, hoochie-coo proclivities would have been fairly apparent by now.
But, yes, this is a real initiative, and the genius behind it is apparently having NO problem raising the required signatures. Oh, how many times have I thought of an anti-Eyman initiative to run. How inspiring!October 15, 2009 at 1:45 pm #679603
Wasn’t there an attempt to file an initiative to keep Tim Eyman from filing any more initiatives a few years ago?
Man needs to get himself a real job.October 15, 2009 at 3:38 pm #679604
Yes.. your “wacko commie, socialist, Marxist, Nazi, Zionist, left-wing, progressive Democratic, rock-n-roll, hoochie-coo proclivities” are pretty apparant.. which is why i followed the link.
i like the idea behind the initiative.. but did a little digging in their forums and wasn’t sure if the gay basking was real or joking.
I am not humor impaired but i find there is a lot in popular humor that i just don’t get. Never have. I had an aunt like that.. she would fall over laughing a long time after someone told a story.. sometimes a day or two later.. because she finally figured out what the joke was. It’s genetic.
That’s my story and i am sticking to it.October 15, 2009 at 6:17 pm #679605October 15, 2009 at 7:02 pm #679606
Off-topic personal squabbling has been and will be deleted. Thanks to those who have flagged it. It is against WSB rules. Disagreement in discussion is one thing; barbed personality conflict is another. And by the way, like many online forums, we rely on members to help informally moderate by flagging suspected rule violations – that’s what the “report this post” feature is for. Doesn’t mean we will agree with you regarding every post you suggest doesn’t belong – but we very much appreciate members’ help in keeping this a place for reasonably civil discussion. Thanks again!October 15, 2009 at 7:17 pm #679607
I responded to your post because of the confusion over Referendum 71…
the initiative to put Referendum 71 on the ballot was designed to oppose all of the rights that Referendum 71 gave to gay couples (and their children) and to heterosexual couples over the age of 62…
the people gathering signatures did make statements about Referendum 71 destroying the sanctity of marriage and being harmful to children… but Referendum 71 does not.
Referendum 71 is not anti gay.. it is pro rights. Thus a vote for Referendum 71.. a vote to approve… is a vote to uphold the rights of all Washington families.
I personally believe that it is essential that people understand this exceedingly important Referendum and don’t end up mistakenly voting to oppose the referendum when what they oppose is the group that put it on the ballot.
You may think that explanation a lecture, but as a gay person with children i would think that you would be grateful for anyone making this subject clear.. even if you thought the poster a bit pendantic or lecturing…
I don’t have to be gay to understand the importance of this Referendum… the defeat of this referendum would impact many of my friends, both gay and straight… and it could very well affect me if i were to lose my husband. At 60, any legislation that affects those 62 and older has consequence for me.. and if i were to lose him, i would be unlikely to give up the security of his pension to remarry…
i would be one of those seniors living in sin.. without the legal protections of a committed partnership.
This Referendum is important to anyone who thinks that legal rights to partnership benefits.. things like access to loved ones when ill and pension benefits and paid sick leave shouldn’t be exclusive to married partners…October 15, 2009 at 7:35 pm #679608
I may be ignorant, but I’m voting no on it because they have totally bamboozeld and used others as hostage in trying to get their agendas passed. At least that’s what I only understand.October 15, 2009 at 8:36 pm #679609October 15, 2009 at 8:48 pm #679610October 15, 2009 at 9:41 pm #679611
you are so right.
The Christian right has “totally bamboozeld and used others as hostage in trying to get their agendas passed.”
But that’s why you should vote yes on referendum 71.October 15, 2009 at 10:04 pm #679612
forget it. I tried to simplify and clarify but it’s clearly unclear.
bottom line: you want old people and queer people to be able to write one another into their wills and visit one another in the hospital when they’re sick? Vote yes.
You think that old people and queer people should not have basic rights of survivorship? Vote no.October 15, 2009 at 10:29 pm #679613
That’s actually not true. A “YES” vote approves SB 5688, which was supposed to become law in July (but did not, because enough signatures were obtained to force a vote). The referendum is an attempt to stop the law from becoming enacted. No rights currently in effect will be taken away, no matter how you vote.
SB 5688 will grant additional domestic partnership rights, bringing it in line to what marriage provides automatically.October 16, 2009 at 12:42 am #679614October 16, 2009 at 12:52 am #679615
Really, it takes nothing away from anyone. It just gives rights to those that deserve them. Why fight it.
Vote APPROVED on Ref. 71October 16, 2009 at 6:08 am #679616
FWIW, my post was in response to one that has been deleted and re-written.
MrJT, exactly!October 16, 2009 at 6:23 am #679617
bluebird, there are quite a few definitions of the word “jiggers”, and I would bet you that this person using it as his ‘Nom de plume” on here has nothing to do with a racial slur. I have never met the man, but we have both been posting since early on on this forum, and I somehow get the feeling that it’s about the gentleman’s extracurricular activities, his social life, if you will. In other words, the man likes a good drink periodically. He can correct me if I’m wrong.
I may agree with you on the need to vote yes on Ref. 71, but don’t assume things about anyone on here, as you may be wrong.October 16, 2009 at 7:06 am #679618
JanS, duly noted. However, when something has a possible negative or offensive connotation, it’s best to not use at all, in my opinion. For example, fagot means a bundle of sticks bound together. Would it still be appropriate to use as a ‘Nom de plume’ when it has been used to hurt so many?
And is it really a stretch to think a person prejudiced against one class of people is not similarly prejudiced against another? When you hear arguments such as “I’m against this because they used others as hostage”, do you feel a reasonable mind is attached?
Your right, I don’t know anyone here, but I can evaluate the words I read. If I’ve heard the slur, I imagine there are others, don’t you?October 16, 2009 at 12:40 pm #679619
Bluebird, for some context, if you are interested.
Jiggers has been participating on WSB for at least two years. I honestly have never heard/seen anyone call his nom de screen into question till now. He has mentioned having worked as a bartender in the past and that’s the association I place with his name.
We have had spirited discussions here in the past regarding terms that may not be widely considered as offensive in this region but apparently gravely offend others elsewhere – I seem to recall “hillbilly” being one of them.
Anyway, not that anyone has asked me for a ruling, but if anyone did, it stays, as was my decision on “hillbilly” way back when.
The one *I* have trouble with, still, if I dare to threadjack a bit, is “ghetto.” It seems to be widely accepted as an adjective that no longer carries any particular racial/racist connotation, but it certainly did when I was a kid, so I always flinch a little when I see it come up.October 16, 2009 at 4:06 pm #679620
TR I cringe at the term “ghetto” as well. Seattle does NOT have a ghetto, regardless of what many natives seem to think.
Having been to a REAL ghetto, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with what people mean when they use the term. Generally the word is used to mean tacky when used in a slang sense. However, the ghettos I’ve been in are often full of 90-95% good, honest, hardworking people who are either recent immigrants or trying to claw their way out of poverty, or both. Like any other neighborhood, there are a small proportion of bad apples who tend to be highly visible and eff it up for everyone else.
I could write for days on the history of ghettos and how they came about and the institutionalized racism inherent in them, but it’s so far off topic it’s not even funny. Besides, I don’t think anyone needs to read my thesis on a forum. ;-)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.