Home › Forums › Open Discussion › R-71 negative ads on radio
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 20, 2009 at 6:55 pm #592729
HomerParticipantOMG, 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!
October 20, 2009 at 7:45 pm #680174
GenHillOneParticipantso bad. Those along with the jibjab knock-off against Dow make me seriously think we need some quality control!
October 20, 2009 at 8:05 pm #680175
KBearParticipantI don’t agree with the message, but I thought the anti-Dow cartoon ad was pretty funny.
October 20, 2009 at 8:07 pm #680176
flowerpetalMemberWell 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.
October 20, 2009 at 9:46 pm #680177
JoBParticipantOctober 21, 2009 at 1:59 am #680178
TrisketParticipantWell, I for one will be getting great pleasure lining my food waste bucket with my sunday Seattle Times!
October 21, 2009 at 2:52 pm #680179
rockergirlMemberAnnoying and wrong! I turn them off or change the station when they come on!
October 21, 2009 at 3:28 pm #680180
JoBParticipantThey 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
October 22, 2009 at 3:13 am #680181
AlkiRagdollParticipantThis 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.
October 22, 2009 at 4:57 pm #680182
mpentoParticipantBecause 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!
October 22, 2009 at 5:56 pm #680183
datamuseParticipantmpento, 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.
October 22, 2009 at 6:25 pm #680184
bluebirdMemberI 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.
October 22, 2009 at 6:32 pm #680185
GenHillOneParticipantmpento, 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.
October 22, 2009 at 6:42 pm #680186
dawsonctParticipantmpento, 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.
October 22, 2009 at 6:48 pm #680187
JoBParticipantmpento..
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.
October 22, 2009 at 8:25 pm #680188
mpentoParticipantI’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.
October 22, 2009 at 8:34 pm #680189
JanSParticipantmpento…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.
October 22, 2009 at 8:39 pm #680190
GenHillOneParticipantagain, mpento, you have a choice to eat fast food or not, it is not a part of your dna. apples meet oranges.
October 22, 2009 at 9:03 pm #680191
datamuseParticipantmpento, 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.)
October 22, 2009 at 9:25 pm #680192
bluebirdMemberData, 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.
October 22, 2009 at 9:58 pm #680193
datamuseParticipantBluebird: I lolled. :D
October 22, 2009 at 10:58 pm #680194
mpentoParticipantFirst 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.
October 22, 2009 at 11:07 pm #680195
datamuseParticipantBut 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.
October 23, 2009 at 12:38 am #680196
bluebirdMemberNone 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.
October 23, 2009 at 2:08 am #680197
AlkiRagdollParticipantI 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.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.