Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

[OldMercsRule]

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.

Thanks JB, Bro Haut is a very smart and tricky guy. In fact I've learned some things 'bout ol' Bro Haut that are starting ta make some sense in my one remainin' brain cell, (according to Bro Haut: Cornservatives have only one brain cell, [BTW if ya loose the single brain cell ya become Liberal, loose two of 'em: Commie]). #1 He is a religious bigot, (by his own admission). That makes him fit right in with the Seattle Liberals that he has now become since leavin' New Jersey. The State of Washington is trying real hard to catch up to the level of Democrat political corruption that exists and has existed for many years in New Jersey: that's why we have a Democrat Governor here. Most Seattle Libs are religious bigots jus' like my Bro: Haut. #2 He just seems to love to persue his liberal "good works" through his particular religion: Big Nany State Government. He used to claim he was a Libertarian until we clashed over spanking children in public, and he seemed to want to grow the Government; (you know the drill: more Cops, Judges, prisons, social workers, retraining camps. et al). That is very much like his Seattle Liberal neighbors. Bigger government means more good li'l unionized Government workers that very predictably vote: YOU GUESSED IT: Democrat! That in turn creates a whole new set of Victims that vote: YOU GUESSED IT: Democrat. After all; if the Government throws ya in jail for publically spankin' your child, ya got to hire: You guessed it: A LAWYER, (most lawyers are Democrats in these parts). When ya loose your job, and kids, (now there foster kids of some other Liberal; [Jus' hope those particular Libs aren't child molesters]), and ya go bankrupt 'cause ya can't pay your attorney bills: then your now a: Victim, so ya might as well start votin' for: YOU GUESSED IT: Democrats. That's how it works here in the Seattle area folks. I know I'm speculatin' at Bro Haut's expense here. and I'm probably not correct about many of the speculations. It's all in good fun Bro. Sorry, (that usually works for Liberals). JR 8)8) Hey Boom sorry for embarrassin' ya!

 

[QC]

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.

I agree with this approach. What I have a problem with, is attempting to blur any distinctions, between any models of anything to prevent any discrimination. I don't like discrimination as we collectively define it in society, but I don't believe we have to throw logic out the window to achieve it. We don't have to deny obvious differences between certain unions, parenting models etc.

A good example is the extreme Women's rights movement that denies any difference between men and women. There is no doubt that historically women have been discriminated against when it comes to the right to vote etc. (yes, there are many more examples). However, you do not have to proclaim that there are no differences, physical or mental, between the sexes to achieve equality. Anybody with a rational bone in their body knows that men and women are vastly different, not un-equal, different.

 

[roscoe]

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.

I agree with this approach. What I have a problem with, is attempting to blur any distinctions, between any models of anything to prevent any discrimination. I don't like discrimination as we collectively define it in society, but I don't believe we have to throw logic out the window to achieve it. We don't have to deny obvious differences between certain unions, parenting models etc.

A good example is the extreme Women's rights movement that denies any difference between men and women. There is no doubt that historically women have been discriminated against when it comes to the right to vote etc. (yes, there are many more examples). However, you do not have to proclaim that there are no differences, physical or mental, between the sexes to achieve equality. Anybody with a rational bone in their body knows that men and women are vastly different, not un-equal, different.

The goal is not, and should not be to achieve equality, but to have equality of opportunity. Well, unless you are a leftist. Then the lazy should receive what the hard working have achieved.

 

[Haut Medoc]

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.

Thanks JB, Bro Haut is a very smart and tricky guy. In fact I've learned some things 'bout ol' Bro Haut that are starting ta make some sense in my one remainin' brain cell, (according to Bro Haut: Cornservatives have only one brain cell, [BTW if ya loose the single brain cell ya become Liberal, loose two of 'em: Commie]). #1 He is a religious bigot, (by his own admission). That makes him fit right in with the Seattle Liberals that he has now become since leavin' New Jersey. The State of Washington is trying real hard to catch up to the level of Democrat political corruption that exists and has existed for many years in New Jersey: that's why we have a Democrat Governor here. Most Seattle Libs are religious bigots jus' like my Bro: Haut. #2 He just seems to love to persue his liberal "good works" through his particular religion: Big Nany State Government. He used to claim he was a Libertarian until we clashed over spanking children in public, and he seemed to want to grow the Government; (you know the drill: more Cops, Judges, prisons, social workers, retraining camps. et al). That is very much like his Seattle Liberal neighbors. Bigger government means more good li'l unionized Government workers that very predictably vote: YOU GUESSED IT: Democrat! That in turn creates a whole new set of Victims that vote: YOU GUESSED IT: Democrat. After all; if the Government throws ya in jail for publically spankin' your child, ya got to hire: You guessed it: A LAWYER, (most lawyers are Democrats in these parts). When ya loose your job, and kids, (now there foster kids of some other Liberal; [Jus' hope those particular Libs aren't child molesters]), and ya go bankrupt 'cause ya can't pay your attorney bills: then your now a: Victim, so ya might as well start votin' for: YOU GUESSED IT: Democrats. That's how it works here in the Seattle area folks. I know I'm speculatin' at Bro Haut's expense here. and I'm probably not correct about many of the speculations. It's all in good fun Bro. Sorry, (that usually works for Liberals). JR 8)8) Hey Boom sorry for embarrassin' ya!

I just had to make sure this post is saved for posterity....
Old Murky, this is exactly what I mean when I say, 'You are all over the map".....
Your ....uh....statement shares absoloutely no connection to the subject at hand....
But you have figgered out the 'vast Seattle left wing conspiracy', much to my chagrin....:%dd
Now we'll have to cook up something new & even more devious.......
Bwahahaha!.......:devil:

 

[OldMercsRule]

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

Yah Bro Haut, You're right on this one. I was all over the map; don't think it was Murky, as it should be fairly clear to people who employ critical thinking. (Wana borrow my brain cell Bro?). 'Murky' is funny, (hope it doesn't stick), JR8)

 

[QC]

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

The goal is not, and should not be to achieve equality, but to have equality of opportunity.

I totally agree. Your wording is better, but we meant the same thing. The fact is that the words themselves have lost meaning too. I was reluctant to use the word discrimination. I believe we are all discriminating beings, that's what makes me different than an earthworm . . .

 

[CJY]

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

QC, adoption is great... good for all involved... unless it runs contrary to accepted societal standards.... then it becomes abuse, from political uses or just from the way society is...

Ever seen what happens to a monkey that is painted Pink, and tossed into the "monkey society" that is all brown?

Homosexuality is not the accepted norm today... expect “the monkeys” to react accordantly.

Crunch I just love the way you try to convince us that your conservatism is representative of a monkey society

ddd ddd ddd The best line in years!

 

[CJY]

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

What are you suggesting, Crunchy?

Have them all wear a yellow badge that says, "FAG" 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.

Very well said, JB