Home › Forums › Open Discussion › R-71 negative ads on radio
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 23, 2009 at 10:59 pm #680223
bluebirdMemberExactly, datamuse. Your points have been the most coherent. The stated analogies, are completely irrelevant and make no sense.
Car/motorcycle are not the exact same type of vehicle, but both have the right to legally travel on a public roadway.
Afro, buzzcut, still have the same access to a barber. They will still go in order of appointment and receive their requested service.
And I don’t have any idea where the apple tree, orange tree was going. I do know, two types of apples can and do grow in the same orchard under the same conditions.
You can make up any story you want, none of that addresses why a gay person shouldn’t get to choose who makes health and financial decisions on their behalf or inherits their property.
October 23, 2009 at 11:49 pm #680224
FlyonthewallMemberJust vote “approve” and it will shut all the bigots up for a while.
Hey – did anyone catch on the news last night that the R-71 backers are trying to change campaign financing laws in WA so they can infuse lots of last minute cash from large donors (probably from out of State)? That’s a scary proposition and one I hope the powers that be don’t even consider!
October 24, 2009 at 12:21 am #680225
EscondidoMemberMpento,I wish someone could hand you a list of all the people you have known well during your life time that you assumed were heterosexual and were actually gay or bisexual – you would be astounded – it would literally take your breath away. And to repeat what has been said before in this thread, one’s sexuality is not a choice. Did you “choose” to be heterosexual? Of course not, it is simply one aspect of who you are.
October 24, 2009 at 12:53 am #680226
mpentoParticipantIsn’t the legal concept the whole point of the ref. Is it sound law to define two items as equal when they are not? Isn’t it the case now because what the law is trying to say is equal and is all being bound togeather that people might loose the rights that they should be entitled to. Wouldn’t it be better to have 9 good laws that are sound and give people rights they deserve and continue to work on the other 3 or 4 issues rather than have all rights being messed up because they were all bundled togeather?
By the way it is nice to have some people wanting to nail me :) Yes that is a joke not a snide comment. I realize I can be analytical in how I view things and as some of you already mentioned this can be an emotional issue for many. I certainly did not intend to provoke in a bad way. I’m not trying to close discussion. If you want to continue to comment please do. I might chip in again if I think it would be constructive. Now I’ll try and jiggle quietly into the background. I wish you all happiness and a good life.
October 24, 2009 at 3:34 am #680227
JoBParticipantmpento..
no heterosexual couple will lose a single right or benefit if Referendum 71 is approved. Not one.
In fact, a class of heterosexual couples will gain rights and benefits.. those over the age of 62 and unmarried.
What will change is that other people will gain rights and benefits they didn’t have before if they pay the fees and register their domestic partnerships.
This referendum does not take anything away from married couples… not even the title married.
When the referendum says that domestic partnerships can be substituted for the word married, that substitution only applies to the right and/or benefit mentioned.
All emotions aside, you have been sold a song and dance that has little to do with reality..
October 24, 2009 at 3:50 am #680228
ws4everMemberIt’s true some actually do consider themselves superior to others for what seem to me to be arbitrary reasons: different race, sexuality, you name it. To them, it’s “fair” that they win in any transaction. It’s not enough that everyone has fair treatment. They must make sure they get a better deal than others, in order to “preserve” their rights. Sigh.
October 24, 2009 at 6:02 pm #680229
dawsonctParticipantMpento, I would like to suggest you look up the definition of ‘analytical’ and ‘analysis’. None of your arguments contain the slightest bit of logic.
–
Please take a moment to think about the implications of one group of Americans voting to decide if another group of Americans should receive the same legal benefits that they do. Spend some time thinking deeply about it, too. There is something seriously wrong with that.
October 24, 2009 at 6:11 pm #680230
mpentoParticipantHi all, after you have stopped punching your keyboard and saying OMG not again!!! I thought of a law that I would like you to consider to approve or not approve. The law is Everyone living in the United States of America is equivalent to an American citizen.
October 24, 2009 at 6:49 pm #680231
dawsonctParticipantZOOM!! Logic flies out the window!
October 24, 2009 at 7:04 pm #680232
JanSParticipantOctober 24, 2009 at 8:15 pm #680233
KenParticipantWhen did you know you were a conservative? Were you born that way or was it a conscious lifestyle choice. Did it make you uncomfortable in kindergarten when you were requested to share your toys?
If you are unsure what the law says, look at the FAQ on the SECSTATE web site.
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps/domesticpartnerships/faq.aspx
Trying to express bigoted or religious based objections to this legislation without admitting that you have bigoted or religious objections to the law, has got to be a tough job. I don’t envy your task.
Do you have some straightforward objection to the legislatures attempt to interpret the phrase “equal protection under the law” as applied to the secular state contract labled marriage, versus the domestic partnership law ESSSB 5688?
If so, your options are clear. Vote as you choose.
If you want to point out the ways in which two adults entering into a contract supervised by the state, is going to damage a similar contract in which two other adults enter into a contract supervised by the state, in which the main difference is an endorsement of an invisible entity, please do so clearly and coherently.
If you can’t, then by all means continue to ramble incoherently and we will continue to poke fun at you.
And no, for your information residency, citizenship and visiting citizens of other countries are not the same thing. But the constitution in many places does not make a distinction. Even citizens of other countries are protected by the US constitution while visiting this country the same way US citizen visiting any other country on the planet are subject to and protected by the laws of that country.
Next question?
An explanation of what you are watching for those of you following along at home, can be found here.
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2008/09/corrections-res.html
October 27, 2009 at 7:22 pm #680234
datamuseParticipantOctober 27, 2009 at 9:33 pm #680235
JoBParticipantken.. thanks for adding perspective ;)))
October 27, 2009 at 11:42 pm #680236
dawsonctParticipantColbert skewers the hypocrites with the best of them!
–
VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE!!!!
One week to go. Don’t forget 1033, in the lower left-hand corner of your ballot. Think of how nice public services are too, before you vote on it. Sounds fairly straight-forward, but I think it would be another fiasco creating more hoops for our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES to jump through.
–
I don’t like the initiative process, we elect people to make these big community/state/nationwide decisions for us. Direct democracy doesn’t work on these scales. I hope someday we abolish them, or at least create very stringent standards so running initiatives doesn’t just become a form of employment for lazy and greedy frat-boy types.
October 28, 2009 at 1:02 am #680237
CaitParticipantI just want to publicly declare my love for Steven Colbert. Nobody says it (or wears a bow tie) better.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.