Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

[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

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,
PLEASE READ MY ACTUAL WORDS HERE PW2, (not your projections, or your mind reads) and presumably many others a bit less vocal perhaps, are uncomfortable with the practice. Not if it's done in PRIVATE PW2
In a free country, you just don't get to choose the lifestyle choices of others.

Dont plan to PW2

Me thinks you are better off letin' Bro Haut answer his own posts. JR

 

[OldMercsRule]

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

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

Wanna borrow my only Brain cell Bro? That would make you a Cornservative and then I could understand ya, (as I would become a Lib). ONLY IF I GET IT BACK! JR Rubber! Hold your fire! You could kill the cell then Bro would be a Commie and I would be a Lib, AHHHHHHHHH!

 

[Haut Medoc]

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

There you go again!...*shakeshead*

 

[OldMercsRule]

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

There you go again!...*shakeshead*[/quote]

Yah Sure Ya Betchya!

 

[OldMercsRule]

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

Hey Ray, Help me Please. Could you spank some of these guys for me PLEASE? PRETTY PLEASE? :'%:$

 

[JB]

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

This topic always gets a lot of heated commentary.

* I am not aware that I tried to read OMR's mind or that I even commented on anything he said. I am also unaware that I "run around trying to hide". I disavow both.

* One right do you have that a gay person doesn't? How about the right to be legal next of kin of your life partner, with all of the attached rights that go with it. . .there are plenty.

* There is no real parallel between the treatment of gay persons today and the treatment of AAAs (Americans of African Ancestry) and other racial/religious/ethnic minorities in the past. Of course gay AAAs get/got a double dose of bigotry.

* No, I cannot point to a specific article of our Constitution that guarantees the right to marry. The DOI claimed that everyone is created equal, and has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not law, but important principle upon which our republic was founded. For 230 years we have been discovering, preventing and correcting evil laws that limit that right except to the American of primarily European Ancestry, adult, straight, male "everyone". There is more to be done.

 

[Boomyal]

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

....For 230 years we have been discovering, preventing and correcting evil laws that limit that right except to the American of primarily European Ancestry, adult, straight, male "everyone". There is more to be done.

[colour=purple]You betcha JB. There are dogs and horses and sheep, polygamy, and oh, lest I forget, chirdren. Lets just all go for the big pursuit of happiness gig. Whatever floats your boat. No standards, no limits. Just don't hem me in![/colour]

 

[Haut Medoc]

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

HMMMMM, & I was just about to tell you to reign your minion in.......:^

 

[crunch]

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

JB, I guess I could take this as a personal attack, but I'm not PW2 or CJY.

What are you suggesting, Crunchy?

Have them all wear a yellow badge that says, "***" or "Lesbo"? That would make them pink monkeys.

What about having straight people wear badges that say "kinky", "S&M" or a reference to some of their more perverted private bedroom practices?

Our history has shown that, "you aren't like me, so I reject you" prejudices are baseless and evil.

Same gender partnerships do no harm to you, take nothing away from you (except maybe a little self righteousness) and exercise no right that you don't have. They are denied rights guaranteed by our Constitution. If the Constitution did not guarantee those rights there would be no reason to try to amend it.


---
Red sky at night. . .
JB

I would like to know what your response is to my rebuttal of your non-attack is....

JB, personally I don't care what they do, I was speaking about the effects on adopted children... and if you don't think the kids will go through hell from other kids, you've forgotten what kids are like.

Just curious you know.... think 20 or 30 "tecknostingrays" that know about your "parents".... have you forgotten what kids are like?

 

[Haut Medoc]

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

Then it is up to the parents of those children to teach them ......
Do you remember the stage in your life where you didn't like girls, 'cuz they were icky?
They will only be mean because they are taught that having two mommies or daddys is bad...
From their parents.....
Kids are much morelikely to pick on physical differences than intellectual ones....
Don't you think?

 

[crunch]

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

Then it is up to the parents of those children to teach them ......

What kind of dream world do you live in?.... sorry, I forgot.

Do you remember the stage in your life where you didn't like girls, 'cuz they were icky?

Yup...

They will only be mean because they are taught that having two mommies or daddys is bad...
From their parents.....

No, they will be mean because there is a difference... that "pink monkey" thing.


Kids are much morelikely to pick on physical differences than intellectual ones....
Don't you think?

You mean those physical differences like..."your dad is a fag", "your mom is queer"?

Haut, I hate it just like you do, but I don't close my eyes because it's convenient.... not much into wishful thinking either.

 

[OldMercsRule]

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

This topic always gets a lot of heated commentary.

* I am not aware that I tried to read OMR's mind or that I even commented on anything he said. I am also unaware that I "run around trying to hide". I disavow both.

* One right do you have that a gay person doesn't? How about the right to be legal next of kin of your life partner, with all of the attached rights that go with it. . .there are plenty.

* There is no real parallel between the treatment of gay persons today and the treatment of AAAs (Americans of African Ancestry) and other racial/religious/ethnic minorities in the past. Of course gay AAAs get/got a double dose of bigotry.

* No, I cannot point to a specific article of our Constitution that guarantees the right to marry. The DOI claimed that everyone is created equal, and has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not law, but important principle upon which our republic was founded. For 230 years we have been discovering, preventing and correcting evil laws that limit that right except to the American of primarily European Ancestry, adult, straight, male "everyone". There is more to be done.

Hey JB, I never accused you of readin' my mind, Bro Haut was tryin' to pretend he was you so he could respond to my direct challenge in his sometimes snarky and sometimes indirect way, but trying to cornfuse the post I directed at you, and reply on your behalf. I addressed him (as you tonge in cheek). That response on Bro Hauts' part is still in process in the next post: I believe. You or anyone can take legal steps to make anyone your "next of kin" or "life partner", and by all means that should be done. Tax deductions and other matters of public policy are also open to all citizens to effect those outcomes. I can marry any consenting non related female adult, but not my best male friend. I like it that way, and I don't want the congress creating special rights for others so I resist that in the public forum, (as is MY RIGHT TO DO: JB). I do think 'civil unions' make sense, and I would support those, but they should include brothers, sisters, non sexual partners et al NOT just special prevlidges based on what people do in their bedrooms. Respectfully JR

 

[OldMercsRule]

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

HMMMMM, & I was just about to tell you to reign your minion in.......:^

Boom would not want to reign me in Bro: HE WOULD ENCOURAGE me to keep up the good work!JR

 

[Haut Medoc]

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

No, I think he would be embarrassed....
You did show a glimmer of lucidity though...d

 

[Haut Medoc]

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



Kids are much morelikely to pick on physical differences than intellectual ones....
Don't you think?

You mean those physical differences like..."your dad is a ***", "your mom is queer"?

Exactly, as a 'grownup", I would expect a larger mind....
I am sorely dissappointed.....:'(
*Rolleyes*
*Geico commercial here*
:$

 

[OldMercsRule]

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

OK Bro Haut if you say so, (after all; you have been here much longer then me), and I know I really p*** O** some on this board. Hey Boom do I embarrass Ya? JR

 

[crunch]

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

Exactly, as a 'grownup", I would expect a larger mind....
I am sorely dissappointed.....
*Rolleyes*
*Geico commercial here*

Exactly like a child..... children don't react the same as you and I..... try to remember that, then roll your eyes in that Geico commercial, and then get out the bandage for that split lip.... remember them?


Why am I wasting my breath on you?... you are what you are, and I am just me.

 

[roscoe]

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

Dang JB, you are 71? It seem like just last year you were only 70. d
I guess we missed your birthday. Happy Birthday.

And I kind of like this idea JB, "What about having straight people wear badges that say "kinky", "S&M" or a reference to some of their more perverted private bedroom practices?"

It would make my quest for a wife a bit easier. :^ 8)
It also would have saved me from chasing the wrong filly back in high school. :/

And this makes perfect sense to me also:

"The lovely notion that two people can only have a happy partnership in life if:

*They are married.
*They are of opposite genders
*They raise children

.. .lovely and romantic as it is, is ancient history."


Most of our states have decided that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman.
So let homosexual couples for another type of partnership, under a different name, so as not to redefine what a marriage is.

Call it a civil union, call it a partnership, call it anything you want, just not marriage. Marriage already has a definition.

Give it the same legal status as a marriage if you want.
But also give it the same legal responsibility and liability.

And marriage is not a right, its a privilege. Thats why you need a license to get married.

No one is banning people that wish to form a committed relationship from doing so, just don't call it marriage, that word already has a definition.


OH yeah, one more thing.
Follow the money.
This is all about money.
Money for the activists.
Money for the lobbyists.
Money for the lawyers.
Money for more bureaucracy.
And Social Security benefits.

Good day.

 

[JB]

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

I don't have any problem with an alternative status that gives them legal next of kin status, Roscoe.

OMR: Sorry about that. With all the shouting going on I lost track of who said what. Apology.

 

[rwise]

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

communists! Thats about the stupidust thing I have hear aaaaa read!