Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

[mattttt25]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

very stupid. and it's supposed to be. because it's as dumb as not allowing gay couples the same rights as married.

 

[xtraham]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

I'm kinky..............

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Of course it is about the Adoptor....

Mr. Kopec,

You just proved my point . . . Those who make it about the Adoptor are absolutely selfish individuals. It is about their needs, not the child's . . . Bleeeccchhhh!!

Actually it should be about what is beneficial for both.....
The impetus for adoption is as stated above....
If ya don't want kids, don't have 'em......
If you can't have kids & you want them, you can adopt....
It is filling a void.....
I'm sure that at the root of every adoption is the hope of a symbiotic relationship........
To give & receive love......
You can't force someone to adopt.....
I don't see how I have proven your point....
NO SALE!........JK

 

[JasonJ]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

So what I am hearing here is that adoption should only occur between a married heterosexual couple? Am I not hearing this from the same people who are against abortion? Are you telling me that, as abhorent as aborion is, that abortion is a better option than being adopted by a motivated single parent or a same-sex union? Help me out here, because all I am hearing when you say this is "Social Engineering". You know, kinda like what those gosh-darned Commie/libs want, just your version of it. I am hearing that it is good as long as it is going your way.

Guess what, you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You want abortion gone? Well, then the babies will be adopted by people who are willing and able to provide a home for these babies, and guess what, not all of these people will share your idealistic belief system. Make up you mind, which do you want, because you don't get to have both. We should just be happy people want to adopt at all. I am here to tell you, people who are willing to go through hell to adopt almost always make superior parents to the trailer trash that forgot that having sex could cause babies....

What do I believe? I believe that the childhood environment that is the most likely to create a succesful adult is one that has a mother and a father, sharing the responsibility equally of raising that child and preparing him/her for adulthood. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes there is only the mother, sometimes there is only the father. Sometimes there is the mother and father that both fail to be suitable parents. The ability to breed does not alone guarantee successful child raising.

Sometimes the gay couple has forgotten more about child raising than the husband/wife trailer park trash that is drunk all the time will ever know. Lets get real here people, you are asking for a Leave It To Beaver society that will not exist any more, regardless how much you cry about it. Maybe, just maybe you could, since you are all so morally correct, go out and adopt up some of these babies so the bad gay people won't be able to get their evil hands on them.

Put up or shut up, because I havn't been reading on here too much about all those crack babies you all have been giving good homes to...

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

I'm not a homophobe, nor am I anti gay.
Yes you are.....'Fess up.....

I can't marry my dog, Sister, Brother, Dad or Mom,
There are biological reasons for that.....]

So please step right up and tell me where the rights of gays are not protected in our great country JB?
They can't get married.....
& it is because this country clings to out dated religious beliefs.......

Hey JB! Please read my words not my mind! Sound familiar? Hope so. BTW there is no CORNSTATUTIONAL RIGHT to marry! jus' in case ya didn't know that!

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

OMinionR, don't look now, but you're proving his point.......:$

Still waitin Bro Haut, Wasn't it you that accused me of bein' all over the 'map' in my posts? WHAT POINT DID I "PROVE" BRO HAUT?

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

very stupid. and it's supposed to be. because it's as dumb as not allowing gay couples the same rights as married.

Hey mattttt25, SAME QUESTION: WHAT RIGHTS DO I HAVE AS A STRAIGHT MALE that a gay guy does not have. Please think a little before you answer. Thanks in advance. JR

 

[QC]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Actually it should be about what is beneficial for both.....

I submit if you are adopting to fill a void, instead of to provide the best home possible, you should not adopt. This is a pretty simple concept . . . Still selling

 

[QC]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

JasonJ,

You're obviously not referring to me as I have never made a single comment on abortion on this site. Frankly, I believe you have made the only point I have been trying to. When it comes to children we should pursue the ideal for them . . . Period. Does that mean it is the only option? No. Does it mean that if I hold that belief that I must behave perfectly? No. Does it mean that I am a hypocrite if I believe that and ignore my kids sometimes? Probably.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

I'm not a homophobe, nor am I anti gay.
Yes you are.....'Fess up.....

I can't marry my dog, Sister, Brother, Dad or Mom,
There are biological reasons for that.....]

Oh Really Bro Haut Medoc? Just what are those li'l reasons? Why would that not apply to two guys or gals?

So please step right up and tell me where the rights of gays are not protected in our great country JB?
They can't get married.....

Can you show me where marrage is a RIGHT Bro?

& it is because this country clings to out dated religious beliefs.......

R U a religious BIGOT Bro?

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

JasonJ,

You're obviously not referring to me as I have never made a single comment on abortion on this site. Frankly, I believe you have made the only point I have been trying to. When it comes to children we should pursue the ideal for them . . . Period. Does that mean it is the only option? No. Does it mean that if I hold that belief that I must behave perfectly? No. Does it mean that I am a hypocrite if I believe that and ignore my kids sometimes? Probably.

Hey QC you are spot on here. Some people get all wound up and "project" their own "feelings", of resentment or inadequacy upon others. Great reply. JR

 

[JasonJ]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

JasonJ,

You're obviously not referring to me as I have never made a single comment on abortion on this site. Frankly, I believe you have made the only point I have been trying to. When it comes to children we should pursue the ideal for them . . . Period. Does that mean it is the only option? No. Does it mean that if I hold that belief that I must behave perfectly? No. Does it mean that I am a hypocrite if I believe that and ignore my kids sometimes? Probably.

I'm not reffering to any one person, I am just trying to gently remind all of us, myself included, that sometimes it is easy to tell everyone else how to live without looking at ourselves and seeing what we can do to try to practice some of what we preach. I know we all can't be perfect all the time, but we can be a little less arrogant when we are deciding other people are wrong because they don't think/live/act exactly like we do...

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

I like being ARROGANT! JR, (but I keep my undies loose and comfy)

 

[JasonJ]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

JasonJ,

You're obviously not referring to me as I have never made a single comment on abortion on this site. Frankly, I believe you have made the only point I have been trying to. When it comes to children we should pursue the ideal for them . . . Period. Does that mean it is the only option? No. Does it mean that if I hold that belief that I must behave perfectly? No. Does it mean that I am a hypocrite if I believe that and ignore my kids sometimes? Probably.

Hey QC you are spot on here. Some people get all wound up and "project" their own "feelings", of resentment or inadequacy upon others. Great reply. JR

Which would be true if I was actually dibilitated with the feelings you describe. Not only do I not feel inadequate, I definately do not feel resentment. It is funny you say that, because all I usually see from your posts is resentment towards an entire demographic of our country. Just as a refresher on JasonJ and his personal life: My wife is a Republican. My inlaws are so far right it would make you look like Jimmy Carter. All of my friends are Republican, and some of them could be the love child of Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter.

See, I do not share all of their beliefs, but I share some of them, and I respect the rest of their beliefs. You don't really truely try to understand my message, or maybe I am not saying it in a way that is understood by you, but I have no problem with the message from the right. I only have problem with the arrogant pseudo-superior way that message is stated by some. That is all I am saying.

It has nothing to do with some weakness you are trying to project on me. I have served 11 years in the military, I have been through 2 law enforcement academys, and I spent some time on the street enforcing law until I realized I am suppost to do something else. I can assure you, weakness is not something I possess, so please try not to "mind read" and assume you know me based on Iboats message forums. I know for a fact that the only thing I know about you is that you are a dedicated republican with strong convictions and great taste in vintage outboards of the dark variety, I just wish you could try to exibit that same respect towards me. The saddest thing of all is if you lived next door to me we would probably be good buds...Take care neighbor....

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

R U a religious BIGOT Bro?
Yep, I think that all religion should be banned immediately.......
It is the bane of humanity & whose useful purpose is long past.......
But I digress........

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

R U a religious BIGOT Bro?
Yep, I think that all religion should be banned immediately.......
It is the bane of humanity & whose useful purpose is long past.......
But I digress........

Now about that matter of Proof Bro. You thought I had made PW2's case about something? Then you tried to be JB an went all over the place to escape, remember? JR

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.


Rolmops says....
It wasn't that long ago mixed race marriages were also banned, also, for no apparent reason other than it offended some white folks


You Know PW2, I really luv the way you Libs morally equate pirates and Blacks, jus' as much as I luv it when your side was equatin' the USA to the USSR. NEVER works PW2! That is if ya have any critical thinkin' ability, (which does seem to be lackin' on your side o' the fence on this forum). If someone is Black ya can see it ALL THE TIME 24 X 7. If ya like ta get naughty with your own gender, I wouldn't have a clue unless I saw ya out prancin' 'round in a leotard in a gay pride parade or worse talkin' 'bout humpin' your buds n' kissin' in public n' all, (that I and most others would not like to know about or see: PERIOD). So please think a li'l before ya pull out the 'all things are relative' card, 'cause there NOT.

I was referring to that load of carp

It is still discrimination......
The point proven is that discrimination is still discrimation........
No matter how it is served up......
But, I'll give you this....
It sounds like you are an 'equal opportunity' dicriminator
The right?
How about life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness......

 

[PW2]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

R U a religious BIGOT Bro?
Yep, I think that all religion should be banned immediately.......
It is the bane of humanity & whose useful purpose is long past.......
But I digress........

Now about that matter of Proof Bro. You thought I had made PW2's case about something? Then you tried to be JB an went all over the place to escape, remember? JR

If you don't see how you made my point, my guess is that you are the only one that doen't see it.

The bottom line is that when all the stuff settles, the only reason to ban gay unions of some sort is that you, and presumably many others a bit less vocal perhaps, are uncomfortable with the practice.

In a free country, you just don't get to choose the lifestyle choices of others.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Thank you, PW....
The words were escaping me....
Well put!.......d........JK

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Rolmops says....
It wasn't that long ago mixed race marriages were also banned, also, for no apparent reason other than it offended some white folks


You Know PW2, I really luv the way you Libs morally equate pirates and Blacks, jus' as much as I luv it when your side was equatin' the USA to the USSR. NEVER works PW2! That is if ya have any critical thinkin' ability, (which does seem to be lackin' on your side o' the fence on this forum). If someone is Black ya can see it ALL THE TIME 24 X 7. If ya like ta get naughty with your own gender, I wouldn't have a clue unless I saw ya out prancin' 'round in a leotard in a gay pride parade or worse talkin' 'bout humpin' your buds n' kissin' in public n' all, (that I and most others would not like to know about or see: PERIOD). So please think a li'l before ya pull out the 'all things are relative' card, 'cause there NOT.

I was referring to that load of carp

It is still discrimination......

Where is it Discrimination Bro Haut? You use the word but I'm so slow I just don't see it. Guess I have to have 0 brain cells to see your point right?

The point proven is that discrimination is still discrimation........
No matter how it is served up......

You know Bro I guess you have a very very Small point here. Cornservatives do discriminate, SO DO SNARKY LIBERALS, (you DO like fine RED FRENCH wine), eh: my Bro? That is why I have trouble with Liberal fuzzy thinking, THEY DON'T want to discriminate between the USA and the USSR just gays so they get SUPER RIGHTS!(those are rights none of the rest of us have)

But, I'll give you this....
It sounds like you are an 'equal opportunity' dicriminator
The right?

I am NOT A BIGOT BRO, (as you have admitted in this thread).

How about life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness......

ALL FOR THE CONCEPT MYSELF, how 'bout you Bro?