Washington Voters please Reject R-71 - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Washington Voters please Reject R-71 (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:12:40 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

I just feel that "marriage" should remain a sacred union between husband and wife.

Then get government out of it.

Once the government touches it it goes from being sacred to profane...

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:15:01 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I just feel that "marriage" should remain a sacred union between husband and wife.

Then get government out of it.

I honestly agree with this the most, btw.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:15:49 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.

No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!

We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU

TM may be libertarian but that doesnt make him a liberal.

No but his beliefs make him a Progressive liberal the fact that he is confused about his beliefs doesnt change a thing.

Your avatar pic sure means nothing to you

you are right, because our founders who originally flew that flag supported gay marriage. thats why its in the constitution....

in my opinion the fact that they didnt think they had to list gay marriage and abortion is clear to their feelings on it

Forget the 9th Amendment?

I'm not saying the Founders were in support of gay marriage or abortion, but your claim that the omission of those acts defined as rights constitutes evidence that the Founders were opposed is grounded on a misreading of the Constitution. The Constitution is a list of enumerated powers of the federal government, not enumerated rights of the people. If anything, the fact that the Founders did not grant the federal government the power to restrict gay marriage or abortion is more evidence to their feelings on the role of the federal government regarding these types of issues.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:16:32 AM EDT

[#4]

The referendum also promotes the secular education where children will be taught "family values". This has already happened in some states where children are taught about all of the "different" families and how they are all ok and normal.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:17:53 AM EDT

[#5]

This thread is full of fail starting right at the OP. OP you keep saying you are all for domestic partnerships yet are asking us to vote against a domestic partnership bill. This is the everything "but" marriage bill incase you forgot. Furthermore you then argue that you "think" this domestic partnership bill would lead to gay marriage, a horrible slippery slope argument if I ever heard one.

So lets straighten it this out(pardon the pun). You are all for domestic partnerships and support gays rights to not be persecuted against except if granting these rights would allow for a slippery slope of gays being allowed to marry eventually?

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:18:39 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
everyone has the same rights, and they all have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I agree with you that they want special rights not equal rights.

Why should anybody (you, me, the gubbermint, anybody) have a say in who someone marries?

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would suggest that it's not only acceptable, but preferable that somebody else should be able to decide who someone can marry.

I simply cannot support restricting people's freedoms to do things that have no impact on me whatsoever. It's shameful.

truthfully, i am inclined to agree with you.

one part of me wants complete freedom. if a person wants to have but sechs, who cares? if they want to smoke week or snort coke, or inject whatever? who cares, they only hurt themselves.
but then, never in my life would i want to live in San Fran. and if they start prancing down my street there will be a problem. i have seen what those areas turn into when people are sexually promiscuous, do drugs, and "live free"

the progressives seek to turn this country into something our founders would never recognize and they have been going at it for the last 100 years gaining ground.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:18:39 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
The referendum also promotes the secular education where children will be taught "family values". This has already happened in some states where children are taught about all of the "different" families and how they are all ok and normal.

That could change things. Do you have the direct text? I've done a quick google search and have only come up with references to R-71.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:19:58 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
The referendum also promotes the secular education where children will be taught "family values". This has already happened in some states where children are taught about all of the "different" families and how they are all ok and normal.

Thats bullshit for sure. Some of the militant gays are trying to push their extreme agenda down peoples throats no question, but we shouldnt hold that against the rank and file gays that dont march in parades in assless chaps and shit. Let them get married, who gives a shit.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:20:37 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.

No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom! But forcing your morals on others is not freedom

That is where you are WRONG! This referendum will give gays the legal right to sue churches and others if they feel their special privileges are being denied.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:21:09 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.

No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!

We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU

TM may be libertarian but that doesnt make him a liberal.

No but his beliefs make him a Progressive liberal the fact that he is confused about his beliefs doesnt change a thing.

Your avatar pic sure means nothing to you

you are right, because our founders who originally flew that flag supported gay marriage. thats why its in the constitution....

in my opinion the fact that they didnt think they had to list gay marriage and abortion is clear to their feelings on it

Forget the 9th Amendment?

I'm not saying the Founders were in support of gay marriage or abortion, but your claim that the omission of those acts defined as rights constitutes evidence that the Founders were opposed is grounded on a misreading of the Constitution. The Constitution is a list of enumerated powers of the federal government, not enumerated rights of the people. If anything, the fact that the Founders did not grant the federal government the power to restrict gay marriage or abortion is more evidence to their feelings on the role of the federal government regarding these types of issues.

not at all, the ninth was clearly added to account for unforeseen circumstances in the future, but it is ignorant to suggest that they were unaware that it existed in the present or past yet they chose not to protect these "rights" as they had done numerous others.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:22:45 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
everyone has the same rights, and they all have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I agree with you that they want special rights not equal rights.

Why should anybody (you, me, the gubbermint, anybody) have a say in who someone marries?

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would suggest that it's not only acceptable, but preferable that somebody else should be able to decide who someone can marry.

I simply cannot support restricting people's freedoms to do things that have no impact on me whatsoever. It's shameful.

If you don't see the decline of values and morals impacting you then I can't reason with you.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:23:42 AM EDT

[#12]

The government should have no involvement with marriages at all, and that includes gay ones. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:24:30 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The referendum also promotes the secular education where children will be taught "family values". This has already happened in some states where children are taught about all of the "different" families and how they are all ok and normal.

Thats bullshit for sure. Some of the militant gays are trying to push their extreme agenda down peoples throats no question, but we shouldnt hold that against the rank and file gays that dont march in parades in assless chaps and shit. Let them get married, who gives a shit.

Read the referendum. It will allow gays to sue the church etc and pave the way for gay marriage.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:24:36 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I just feel that "marriage" should remain a sacred union between husband and wife.

Then get government out of it.

Once the government touches it it goes from being sacred to profane...

i think we can all agree on this. this is the reason why our founders put forth the separation of church and state. they sought freedom of religion not freedom from religion, yet today if you mention Christmas in a public school or wish to pray (which students can certainly opt out of) it becomes a national controversy.

if i remember corectly it was jefferson himself who allocated funds for christian missionaries to go west and even start a school

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:26:47 AM EDT

[#15]

I didn't know we had so many homosexual sympathisers here. You really want to live in a country that recognizes homosexuality as just another lifestyle instead of what it really is? Human beings consist of male and female. Anything inbetween is a birth defect.

When a person is born with the sexual organs of both a man and a woman, its a birth defect. When a man is born and grows up wanting another man to fuck him in the ass, well, there's something wrong with that guys brain. It's called a birth defect.

Government should be working for a cure not an accomodation. I can't controll and don't really care what two men or two women in privacy but don't bring it out in public, or in the schools or make special laws.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:26:59 AM EDT

[#16]

There are people more eloquent and more intelligent than I. There are people who could make the point better. I'm just trying to do what I can to support an issue that I believe in. Everyone here can certainly research this on their own and decide how they feel. I certainly don't have all the answers.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:27:50 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
everyone has the same rights, and they all have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I agree with you that they want special rights not equal rights.

Why should anybody (you, me, the gubbermint, anybody) have a say in who someone marries?

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would suggest that it's not only acceptable, but preferable that somebody else should be able to decide who someone can marry.

I simply cannot support restricting people's freedoms to do things that have no impact on me whatsoever. It's shameful.

If you don't see the decline of values and morals impacting you then I can't reason with you.

Explain to me exactly how it is that someone marrying the person of their choice impacts me.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:30:00 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The referendum also promotes the secular education where children will be taught "family values". This has already happened in some states where children are taught about all of the "different" families and how they are all ok and normal.

Thats bullshit for sure. Some of the militant gays are trying to push their extreme agenda down peoples throats no question, but we shouldnt hold that against the rank and file gays that dont march in parades in assless chaps and shit. Let them get married, who gives a shit.

Read the referendum. It will allow gays to sue the church etc and pave the way for gay marriage.

This would change how I vote, and I will read the text of the referendum when I get home tonight.

I do support the right of people to choose who they marry, but I do not support legally forcing a church to do it. That should be up to the congregation.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:30:03 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I just feel that "marriage" should remain a sacred union between husband and wife.

Then get government out of it.

Once the government touches it it goes from being sacred to profane...

i think we can all agree on this. this is the reason why our founders put forth the separation of church and state. they sought freedom of religion not freedom from religion, yet today if you mention Christmas in a public school or wish to pray (which students can certainly opt out of) it becomes a national controversy.

if i remember corectly it was jefferson himself who allocated funds for christian missionaries to go west and even start a school

Yes, it was never meant to keep religion out of government, it was to prevent there being a government directed religion. Newt Gingrich's book "Rediscovering God in America" is very enlightening.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:32:10 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The referendum also promotes the secular education where children will be taught "family values". This has already happened in some states where children are taught about all of the "different" families and how they are all ok and normal.

Thats bullshit for sure. Some of the militant gays are trying to push their extreme agenda down peoples throats no question, but we shouldnt hold that against the rank and file gays that dont march in parades in assless chaps and shit. Let them get married, who gives a shit.

Read the referendum. It will allow gays to sue the church etc and pave the way for gay marriage.

This would change how I vote, and I will read the text of the referendum when I get home tonight.

I do support the right of people to choose who they marry, but I do not support legally forcing a church to do it. That should be up to the congregation.

+1 I searched for the text of it, and couldn't find it.

If it allows chuches to be sued, then please vote it down.

As a gay person, I don't want my legally recognized gay "marriage" to come at the expense of the religious institutions' rights to practice their religion.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:34:03 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
everyone has the same rights, and they all have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I agree with you that they want special rights not equal rights.

Why should anybody (you, me, the gubbermint, anybody) have a say in who someone marries?

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would suggest that it's not only acceptable, but preferable that somebody else should be able to decide who someone can marry.

I simply cannot support restricting people's freedoms to do things that have no impact on me whatsoever. It's shameful.

If you don't see the decline of values and morals impacting you then I can't reason with you.

Explain to me exactly how it is that someone marrying the person of their choice impacts me.

It contributes to moral decay, same sex marriage will lead to inter species marriage etc. Laugh but it has come up. The whole "it doesn't affect me directly" attitude is what allows so much pervesion in our society. If you don't accept deviant behavior then you're labeled "intolerant". There is nothing wrong with pointing out sin or perversion. Turning your cheek to sin or crime is disgraceful. That's what it amounts to, most people know what's right or wrong, ignoring it because it's next door is no excuse.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:34:27 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The referendum also promotes the secular education where children will be taught "family values". This has already happened in some states where children are taught about all of the "different" families and how they are all ok and normal.

That could change things. Do you have the direct text? I've done a quick google search and have only come up with references to R-71.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Referendum_71_%282009%29

And I am staying OUT of this discussion - not worth the involvment, as regardless of one's position on it, it affects absolutely NOTHING else.....

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:36:28 AM EDT

[#23]

When the high and mighty finally admit that there is more than one god, then I will listen to their complaints. And before you say that there isn't, does not the 10 commandments state that ' Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me?' Sounds as if the christian god is admitting to the existence of other gods to me.

Until then, I will take my leave of their babbling.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:36:33 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The referendum also promotes the secular education where children will be taught "family values". This has already happened in some states where children are taught about all of the "different" families and how they are all ok and normal.

Thats bullshit for sure. Some of the militant gays are trying to push their extreme agenda down peoples throats no question, but we shouldnt hold that against the rank and file gays that dont march in parades in assless chaps and shit. Let them get married, who gives a shit.

Read the referendum. It will allow gays to sue the church etc and pave the way for gay marriage.

This would change how I vote, and I will read the text of the referendum when I get home tonight.

I do support the right of people to choose who they marry, but I do not support legally forcing a church to do it. That should be up to the congregation.

+1 I searched for the text of it, and couldn't find it.

If it allows chuches to be sued, then please vote it down.

Please don't take my word for it, research it and come to your own informed decision. This will pave the way for legal recourse. They will be able to sue churches for not allowing them to marry.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:38:13 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
When the high and mighty finally admit that there is more than one god, then I will listen to their complaints. And before you say that there isn't, does not the 10 commandments state that ' Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me?' Sounds as if the christian god is admitting to the existence of other gods to me.

Until then, I will take my leave of their babbling.

the gods that refers to are "false idols", the golden calf, etc.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:38:23 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

truthfully, i am inclined to agree with you.

one part of me wants complete freedom. if a person wants to have but sechs, who cares? if they want to smoke week or snort coke, or inject whatever? who cares, they only hurt themselves.
but then, never in my life would i want to live in San Fran. and if they start prancing down my street there will be a problem. i have seen what those areas turn into when people are sexually promiscuous, do drugs, and "live free"

the progressives seek to turn this country into something our founders would never recognize and they have been going at it for the last 100 years gaining ground.

If you really don't think people can be trusted with their own freedom, stop dancing around the issue and own up to it. It's perfectly natural to want to control other people, you don't have to pretend to care about liberty.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:38:53 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
everyone has the same rights, and they all have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I agree with you that they want special rights not equal rights.

Why should anybody (you, me, the gubbermint, anybody) have a say in who someone marries?

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would suggest that it's not only acceptable, but preferable that somebody else should be able to decide who someone can marry.

I simply cannot support restricting people's freedoms to do things that have no impact on me whatsoever. It's shameful.

If you don't see the decline of values and morals impacting you then I can't reason with you.

Explain to me exactly how it is that someone marrying the person of their choice impacts me.

It contributes to moral decay, same sex marriage will lead to inter species marriage etc. Laugh but it has come up. The whole "it doesn't affect me directly" attitude is what allows so much pervesion in our society. If you don't accept deviant behavior then you're labeled "intolerant". There is nothing wrong with pointing out sin or perversion. Turning your cheek to sin or crime is disgraceful. That's what it amounts to, most people know what's right or wrong, ignoring it because it's next door is no excuse.

cite your source please.

I have literally NEVER heard a supporter of gay marriage advocate inter-species anything. An animal cannot consent, two people can. The whole animals/children/martians thing is a red-herring used by people who cannot back up their argument rationally and instead choose to resort to fear.

You still haven't said how it impacts me.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:40:45 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Please don't take my word for it, research it and come to your own informed decision. This will pave the way for legal recourse. They will be able to sue churches for not allowing them to marry.

I see what you're saying. Any gay marriage referenda that gets introduced it seems like is going to have that loophole. They're not going to get it until you specifically point it out to them and show them examples where it's happened.

That's why I was saying, turn around and sue to protect churches. It's stupid, and no one should have to do it, but they won't get it until you underline the passages in the Constitution for them. I had to do the same thing with gay voter friends in my old State, when they started to whine about the DP law getting held up in committee. I even had to show them news stories and the 1st Amendment before they went, "oh, well that's fine. I don't want that to happen, either."

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:41:48 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

When the high and mighty finally admit that there is more than one god, then I will listen to their complaints. And before you say that there isn't, does not the 10 commandments state that ' Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me?' Sounds as if the christian god is admitting to the existence of other gods to me.

Until then, I will take my leave of their babbling.

the gods that refers to are "false idols", the golden calf, etc.

I don't believe so. The commandments are believed to be the direct word of God. They make no mention of false idols. It clearly states 'gods', as in more than one.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:41:50 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
everyone has the same rights, and they all have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I agree with you that they want special rights not equal rights.

Why should anybody (you, me, the gubbermint, anybody) have a say in who someone marries?

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would suggest that it's not only acceptable, but preferable that somebody else should be able to decide who someone can marry.

I simply cannot support restricting people's freedoms to do things that have no impact on me whatsoever. It's shameful.

If you don't see the decline of values and morals impacting you then I can't reason with you.

Explain to me exactly how it is that someone marrying the person of their choice impacts me.

It contributes to moral decay, same sex marriage will lead to inter species marriage etc. Laugh but it has come up. The whole "it doesn't affect me directly" attitude is what allows so much pervesion in our society. If you don't accept deviant behavior then you're labeled "intolerant". There is nothing wrong with pointing out sin or perversion. Turning your cheek to sin or crime is disgraceful. That's what it amounts to, most people know what's right or wrong, ignoring it because it's next door is no excuse.

cite your source please.

I have literally NEVER heard a supporter of gay marriage advocate inter-species anything. An animal cannot consent, two people can. The whole animals/children/martians thing is a red-herring used by people who cannot back up their argument rationally and instead choose to resort to fear.

You still haven't said how it impacts me.

Moral Decay! Do you not seriously see the dilution of values this presents? Are you not a member of society? The inter-species thing was in England...it is not mentioned in the referendum obviously and is kind of off topic. I shouldn't have brought that into this topic.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:45:05 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
everyone has the same rights, and they all have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I agree with you that they want special rights not equal rights.

Why should anybody (you, me, the gubbermint, anybody) have a say in who someone marries?

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would suggest that it's not only acceptable, but preferable that somebody else should be able to decide who someone can marry.

I simply cannot support restricting people's freedoms to do things that have no impact on me whatsoever. It's shameful.

If you don't see the decline of values and morals impacting you then I can't reason with you.

Explain to me exactly how it is that someone marrying the person of their choice impacts me.

It contributes to moral decay, same sex marriage will lead to inter species marriage etc. Laugh but it has come up. The whole "it doesn't affect me directly" attitude is what allows so much pervesion in our society. If you don't accept deviant behavior then you're labeled "intolerant". There is nothing wrong with pointing out sin or perversion. Turning your cheek to sin or crime is disgraceful. That's what it amounts to, most people know what's right or wrong, ignoring it because it's next door is no excuse.

cite your source please.

I have literally NEVER heard a supporter of gay marriage advocate inter-species anything. An animal cannot consent, two people can. The whole animals/children/martians thing is a red-herring used by people who cannot back up their argument rationally and instead choose to resort to fear.

You still haven't said how it impacts me.

Also after the CA thing there was a thread on here of a guy wanting a marriage license for him and his goat. Or was it a dog. Either way it was full of

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:46:09 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Moral Decay! Do you not seriously see the dilution of values this presents?

PSA: Not everybody subscribes to your personal moral code.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:47:25 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Moral Decay! Do you not seriously see the dilution of values this presents? Are you not a member of society? The inter-species thing was in England...it is not mentioned in the referendum obviously and is kind of off topic. I shouldn't have brought that into this topic.

There is nothing immoral about anything that happens between consenting adults. Animals? Fuck it, they're not people. If fucking a dolphin makes you happy I really don't give a shit. I'm not going to rob a liquor store because Tom & Lou got hitched.

I reserve my self-righteous fury and moral outrage for shit that deserves it.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:50:19 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Sorry bud.

Freedom is for everybody.

True American.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:53:56 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The referendum also promotes the secular education where children will be taught "family values". This has already happened in some states where children are taught about all of the "different" families and how they are all ok and normal.

That could change things. Do you have the direct text? I've done a quick google search and have only come up with references to R-71.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Referendum_71_%282009%29

Thank you.

According to the above link, I don't see where approving R-71 would allow for teaching "family values" in schools or forcing churches to marry gays. Did I miss something?

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:54:01 AM EDT

[#36]

I agree with the OP.

Marriage means something. It means a union between a man and a woman.

A civil union is something different that I'm ok with letting gays have. It provides all the same benefits and disadvantages as marriage.

The only reason the gays want marriage is so they can claim that being gay is somehow normal and natural, which it isn't.

Posted: 11/2/2009 11:59:52 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The referendum also promotes the secular education where children will be taught "family values". This has already happened in some states where children are taught about all of the "different" families and how they are all ok and normal.

That could change things. Do you have the direct text? I've done a quick google search and have only come up with references to R-71.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Referendum_71_%282009%29

Thank you.

According to the above link, I don't see where approving R-71 would allow for teaching "family values" in schools or forcing churches to marry gays. Did I miss something?

I don't think so, but again, I'm not getting into this one... It's not one of 'my' issues...

WA does already have 'civil union', this is a move to expand it to 'everything marriage, but don't call it that'...

The majority 'issue' raised by the opposition, is that approving this bill would force the WA courts to overturn a prior decision denying full 'gay marriage', on the merits that the existing (non-R-71) domestic partnership law was different enough from 'marriage' to justify the court keeping the two separate...

Supposedly, if this bill were passed, the pro-gay-marriage side could go to court and get the 'can't call it that' removed, once the privisions of the two unions were 'equalized'....

Obviously, the supporters want to put 'domestic partnership' on an equal footing with 'marriage'...

And that concludes my neutral, not getting anywhere near posting an opinion on the subject, response....

Posted: 11/2/2009 12:00:25 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
I agree with the OP.

Marriage means something. It means a union between a man and a woman.

A civil union is something different that I'm ok with letting gays have. It provides all the same benefits and disadvantages as marriage.

The only reason the gays want marriage is so they can claim that being gay is somehow normal and natural, which it isn't.

Thanks for your support, even though you're not voting it's nice to know there are like minded people on AR15

Posted: 11/2/2009 12:01:15 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Don't Tread on Me unless I don't agree

Posted: 11/2/2009 12:03:57 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.

No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!

We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU

TM may be libertarian but that doesnt make him a liberal.

No but his beliefs make him a Progressive liberal the fact that he is confused about his beliefs doesnt change a thing.

You need to change your avatar right fucking now, hypocrite.

Posted: 11/2/2009 12:05:19 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
So if some gay guy you don't know shacks up with another man and calls himself married, it somehow affects you and your marriage?

Yet you're ok with "Civil Unions."

I see. You're ok with guys butt fucking, but you just don't what them to be able to call each other sugar pie or honey bunch while they do it. Because, you know, that somehow hurts your marriage.

In other news, the government made a big push to make you and your children a permanent fucking slave of the government. No biggie. Let's be sure to drop everything and make sure gay dudes can't use a term for marital status that you use. You know, because it's not like it's just a word or anything.

Spot on, my hobbit friend.

TXL

Posted: 11/2/2009 12:07:43 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The referendum also promotes the secular education where children will be taught "family values". This has already happened in some states where children are taught about all of the "different" families and how they are all ok and normal.

Thats bullshit for sure. Some of the militant gays are trying to push their extreme agenda down peoples throats no question, but we shouldnt hold that against the rank and file gays that dont march in parades in assless chaps and shit. Let them get married, who gives a shit.

Read the referendum. It will allow gays to sue the church etc and pave the way for gay marriage.

Oh what's wrong, afraid it could possibly go to that point and possibly be thrown out buy the Supreme Court citing separation of Church and State? That would be another slippery slope for you, huh?

ETA - Or it could work against you by saying there is no separation and you get what you want but at the expense of having to tolerate other peoples' beliefs. Man, what a lose/lose situation for you collectivists.

Posted: 11/2/2009 12:08:30 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Forget the 9th Amendment?

I'm not saying the Founders were in support of gay marriage or abortion, but your claim that the omission of those acts defined as rights constitutes evidence that the Founders were opposed is grounded on a misreading of the Constitution. The Constitution is a list of enumerated powers of the federal government, not enumerated rights of the people. If anything, the fact that the Founders did not grant the federal government the power to restrict gay marriage or abortion is more evidence to their feelings on the role of the federal government regarding these types of issues.

not at all, the ninth was clearly added to account for unforeseen circumstances in the future, but it is ignorant to suggest that they were unaware that it existed in the present or past yet they chose not to protect these "rights" as they had done numerous others.

While the 9th Amendment does take into account unforeseen circumstances in the future, the intent is not for it to serve as a "catchall 'Living Document'" bin. In layman's terms, the 9th Amendment essentially says, "Hey Dumbasses, in case you haven't gotten it yet, if the Constitution doesn't say the federal government can do something, then the federal government can't do it, and the Bill of Rights is not the extent of the rights of the people."

I'm not suggesting the Founders were unaware of gay marriage, abortion, or related issues. I am saying that the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to legislate regarding either of those issues (or marriage in general), so the federal government cannot constitutionally make a law regarding those issues.

Posted: 11/2/2009 12:12:25 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
I didn't know we had so many homosexual sympathisers here. You really want to live in a country that recognizes homosexuality as just another lifestyle instead of what it really is? .

Homosexual sympathizers?

Maybe it's just a lot of libertarians here who, regardless about their personal feelings about homosexuality, realize that if you start using the power of the state to dictate how people live over one particular matter, the next time it comes up may be something near and dear to your heart...

Also, WI lost shall-issue CCW for at least four years over our 2006 anti-gay marriage amendment. It turned out socialy conservative Democrats in droves, blue collar union workers, Depression/FDR/WWII generation voters etc. who helped push WI's amendment to passage at way over 60%, but then all pulled the lever for democrats giving us worse taxes, and all sorts of BS...

Frankly, I question the state's interest in marriage to begin with. It's the same government(s) that used to ban interracial marriages, and other states who still allow first cousins to marry. Maybe everyone ought to be more concerned that the state is being given more power over "marriage" hetero or homo...

Posted: 11/2/2009 12:13:29 PM EDT

[#45]

I'm not particularly fond of gay people, as I just don't get them/their lifestyle, but based on my understanding, isn't R-71 a "everything but marriage" bill, where civil unions are given the same rights as marriage?

I don't see why people are against this bill. It gives gay couples the same rights are marriage pretty much, while staying away from the institution of "marriage". It should be able to placate both sides. This bill seems to be a pragmatic equalization of rights, and I'm all for that.

Posted: 11/2/2009 12:17:13 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I didn't know we had so many homosexual sympathisers here. You really want to live in a country that recognizes homosexuality as just another lifestyle instead of what it really is? .

Homosexual sympathizers?

Maybe it's just a lot of libertarians here who, regardless about their personal feelings about homosexuality, realize that if you start using the power of the state to dictate how people live over one particular matter, the next time it comes up may be something near and dear to your heart...

Also, WI lost shall-issue CCW for at least four years over our 2006 anti-gay marriage amendment. It turned out socialy conservative Democrats in droves, blue collar union workers, Depression/FDR/WWII generation voters etc. who helped push WI's amendment to passage at way over 60%, but then all pulled the lever for democrats giving us worse taxes, and all sorts of BS...

Frankly, I question the state's interest in marriage to begin with. It's the same government(s) that used to ban interracial marriages, and other states who still allow first cousins to marry. Maybe everyone ought to be more concerned that the state is being given more power over "marriage" hetero or homo...

Why didn't you quote my entire statement?

Posted: 11/2/2009 12:17:29 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.

No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!

We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU

TM may be libertarian but that doesnt make him a liberal.

No but his beliefs make him a Progressive liberal the fact that he is confused about his beliefs doesnt change a thing.

You need to change your avatar right fucking now, hypocrite.

When did it become the gay flag.

Posted: 11/2/2009 12:20:11 PM EDT

[#48]

This thread is full of funny.

Posted: 11/2/2009 12:21:04 PM EDT

[#49]

Why do you care what gay people do? Marriage is a function of religion. If you hate gays and don't want them to marry, don't marry them in your church.

Posted: 11/2/2009 12:26:15 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't Tread on Me unless I don't agree

Exactly

Don't tread on me.... but it's fine to tread the gheys....

Thanks guys, my view is that the term marriage is sacred and applies to the union of husband and wife. It should be preserved. Same sex couples should be entitled to civil unions and the same legal rights and protections but I don't believe they should call it marriage. Different values and beliefs. Feel free to vote as you see fit.

So do you want to go bash some Jews later?

And thanks for letting vote the way I would like...

Edited so i dont sound like and asshole...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Washington Voters please Reject R-71 (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us