Legislature Announces Enough Votes to Okay Homosexual Marriage

by lewwaters

Seattle Times reporting, “Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, said she supports gay marriage legislation in the Senate — giving proponents the 25 votes needed for passage.”

Four Republican legislators are being reported as signing on to the bill as well. They are Sen. Steve Litzow, Sen. Cheryl Pflug as well as King County councilman Reagan Dunn (who thinks Republicans will elect him as Attorney General), and two House Republicans, Rep. Glenn Anderson and Rep. Maureen Walsh who co-sponsored the house bill.

In the meantime, a $1.5 Billion budget gap, high unemployment and struggling taxpayers take a back seat to legalizing homosexuals to marry.

This blog will not support any Republican who supports this homosexual marriage bill.

Some so called conservatives are expressing it is time that we conservatives “let go” and allow this to pass. What kind of values do you have if you aren’t willing to stand for them?

I am left wondering, where is Kirby Wilbur and the WSRP as these 5 RINO’s abandon the GOP platform in support of this? Is this why the Republican party is falling apart today, values, principals and platforms mean nothing?

60 Comments to “Legislature Announces Enough Votes to Okay Homosexual Marriage”

  1. I must confess that I’m confused with this issue. Though I believe that homosexuality is absolutely wrong from a biblical perspective, I also believe that everyone has a right to make their own choices as long as it does not harm another. Freedom of choice is the greatest gift that humanity has. How can we abridge that?
    On the other hand, homosexuality is ‘anti-human’ in the sense that it produces death rather than life.

    I really can’t fault anyone who in good conscience votes in the affirmative because it’s such a perplexing issue.

    I do fault those, who, like Representative Moeller serve in the Legislature to advance their own narrow agenda. I make a distinction between legislators like Moeller and those who serve with good conscience, the will of the people. I name former Rep Wallace, and current Reps Probst and Harris as examples of the latter.

    Like

  2. Why won’t those pushing this “EQUALITY” in marriage doing away with nearly a page of restrictions beyond legal age?

    Why do they cast aside their very arguments when they also apply to Polygamists, first cousins and others?

    And, what is the next step they seek?

    Like

  3. I haven’t read the proposed bill lately, but the one I saw on the access.wa website a while back had this confusing language:

    (2) It is unlawful for any man to marry his father’s sister,
    mother’s sister, daughter, sister, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter or sister’s daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father’s brother, mother’s brother, son, brother, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son or sister’s son.

    This was in the proposed REVISED bill. Nothing mentioned about it being unlawful for a man to marry his father’s son, mother’s son, etc.

    They should have that language in there or throw the whole section out.

    Like

  4. I see that they did change it: everything between the double quotes has been crossed out.

    (2) It is unlawful for any ((man to marry his father’s sister,
    mother’s sister, daughter, sister, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter or sister’s daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father’s brother, mother’s brother, son, brother, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son or sister’s son)) person to marry his or her sibling, child, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.

    Like

  5. It still denies others of legal age their basic human rights, as they claim they are standing for in regards to homosexuals.

    Like

  6. I’m troubled by Section 5 though…apparently if a priest, minister, rabbi, imam, etc marries a couple without the blessing of the church hierarchy, that marriage is not voided as long as the couple getting married believe that it was a valid marriage.

    In most Christian religions, matrimony is considered to be holy state or “other” – a state that’s beyond mere convention, a ‘mystical union’. For the state to decree that a church in effect cannot control it’s own clergy, is precedent setting. That’s getting very close to the state interfering with religion.

    Like

  7. Thank God for voter initiatives that can slap the stupid Legislators in the face. May there be many, many of them.

    Like

  8. Craig, I firmly believe that lawsuits against religious organizations will eventually follow when they refuse to acknowledge homosexuals as married.

    This is just the beginning

    Like

  9. I suspect that you’re right Lew. Once homosexual marriage is accepted by the public as the “norm”, then anyone who deviates from that acceptance will be considered “abnormal” and eventually susceptible to censure – lawsuits against them being the first order of discrimination. Having said that, I still question whether my possible future restriction of freedom gives me the right to deny them their freedom of expression/association now.

    Like

  10. This is great news! And thanks again for posting your repetitive non-argument over on the Columbian yet another time, Lew. That garners more additional support for gay marriage than anything I could ever write.

    “She said she took her time making up her mind to “to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy. This is the right vote and it is the vote I will cast when this measure comes to the floor.” Thank goodness we don’t live in a theocracy!

    And, since 55% (and growing) of Washington State residents support gay marriage, there is no worry of the 19th century mindset trying reverse it with an unconstitutional initiative that will do nothing but cost the taxpayers more money.

    And, no, I’m not going to re-hash all the nonsense from the last posting on your blog, Lew. And hillbilly won’t ever get my time of day again…what a waste….

    So, this is all I’m going to write on this issue for now. I just wanted to gloat for a post….seeing people do the right thing is always so uplifting….you all should try it sometime….

    Like

  11. Hey Greg, why claim “55% support” homosexual marriage, then deny us a vote to support that?

    Oh, and just because you can’t handle or recognize your own bigotry does not make it a “non-argument.”

    Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who it is against

    Like

  12. Greg just can’t resist being a taunting smartass, Lew. Then he doesn’t understand why people call him what he is. But Greg CAN’T address or refute the points that you and I have raised and that’s O-B-V-I-O-U-S to everybody who reads his crap.

    So Greg, you just go on bing a taunting smartass and you’ll never win any arguments. You certainly haven’t won any here.

    Like

  13. Both Pflug and Dunn are whizzing on GOP principles for political gain… since Pflug wants Dunn’s King County Council seat after he loses for AG.

    Like

  14. The question now is what will Kirby Wilbur and the WSRP do in regards to these “fine Republicans” who have taken a public stance against the GOP Platform?

    Not one of the 5 listed or any others who I find out vote Yay will receive any support from me.

    Like

  15. Greg Owen. The current poll right now on KPTV’s website….67% against same sex marriage.

    Like

  16. You guys crack me up. John Jenkins. Really? KPTV. Channel 12. FOX NEWS. Go figure. I wasn’t going to post again on this issue, but, REALLY? This has got to be the Clark County Conservative’s LOL post of the decade. Heh. Ha. Ha ha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Now that’s funny…I don’t care who you are, right there. Scientific AND unbiased. Ha he ha hahahahahahahahahahaha. I just can’t stop laughing. HA ho heh he hahahahahahahahahahahaha. John, c’mon…that has to be a level right…you couldn’t really post that seriously, right? Ha he ho he hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You have quite the sense of humor. That’s the best laugh I’ve had in a long, long time. Ha heh he ho hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I need to catch my breath……………HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

    Like

  17. First cousins can marry.

    Is there still a Citizen’s Initiative in the works? If one doesn’t show up on the ballot then this issue is done.

    Like

  18. First cousins cannot marry in Washington, Martin. But if first cousins were married in a state where that is permitted, Washington recognizes such marriages. Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?

    Like

  19. Still unable to actually refute points, Greg?

    Last I saw, the Columbians poll was 57% against too.

    I don’t believe anybody said they were “scientific.” But, where is that massive majority support?

    Do you know the demographics of the one claiming 55% support for homosexual marriage? If it relied heavily on King County, I can see why it would say 55%

    Like

  20. What will Kirby Wilbur and the WSRP do?

    ‘Washington State Republican Party Chairman Kirby Wilbur said Dunn’s stance has sparked an emotional reaction from many. But he said Dunn has 10 months to convince Republicans he’s on their side on most other issues.

    ‘”Reagan is an experienced politician. Can he handle it? We’ll see. I think he can,” Wilbur said.’

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017289069_dunn20m.html

    Any further questions about Wilbur?

    Like

  21. Gee Greg, you call me a “hillbilly” but you’re the stubborn back-woods smartass that can’t win an argument with us city folk. Maybe you ought to come out of your hut on a hill in the jungle somewhere and perhaps go to school and learn something. Acting like a cross between a Hyena and an Ape doesn’t do a thing for your Neanderthal “image”.

    Like

  22. I think you’lll see a number of initiatives, Martin. Be patient.

    Like

  23. I was very supportive of Kirby becoming the chair of the WSRP.

    But, saying Dunn has 10 months to convince us that he on is our side on other issues is unacceptable.

    What good is a platform if it is not adhered to?

    SECTION 7: We believe the FAMILY is the first and most important institution which preserves a free society.

    The family unit is the cornerstone of a free and moral society. It is the responsibility of parents, not the state, to guide their children to be good citizens. Government’s responsibility is to uphold and respect traditional institutions, such as marriage between one man and one woman, protect the elderly and children from the harmful elements of society, and defend the unalienable right of human life from conception to natural death.

    Is it now we believe in it when convenient and if we don’t adhere to our principals, just give it time to show we support the other principals?

    Unacceptable. When will Republicans learn that acting like Democrats loses elections for them? Why vote for Dunn when you can have a real Democrat instead of a Democrat light?

    One more strike against this new liberal Republican party.

    Like

  24. You know Lew. I’ve watched the state party since Booth Gardner’s last election in ’88? And that was the last time I every remember a decent republican minority or majority in the state houses.

    Now my newest question, what is it going to take??? to get things changed around. Or are they going to play the same stupid playbook from king county that was borrowed from the state democrats. I sure would love to hear a response and get the state republican headquarters OUT of King County and some where else out of Puget Sound.

    Now my only response to this whole thread and maybe I stated it earlier. I won’t go dumb and play the games Greg is choosing.

    I may not agree with others here. I do believe in people’s right as long as they’re Human to marry or be with whomever they so choose. I don’t hold any gender pretence or exclusivity. I do believe every one has the right to the free assemblage, right-of religious viewpoint and be who they are.

    My only preface to that privilege as I suggest is that no should be able to impose their choice and will on others.

    So if these people want to get married, let them have all hell, bells and problems that a relationship entails!

    Like

  25. The “thing” is Jeremy, this “push” by the Looney Left really doesn’t have anything to do with “marriage” as it does have to do with gaining monetary benefits and gaining a piece of “paper” that they hope will force society to “ACCEPT” Homosexuality as “NORMAL”.

    Fact is, that Homosexuality will always be looked upon as “Deviant” by most Americans and nothing is ever going to change that.

    Not only that, but this will NOT make anything more “Equal” and Discrimination as to who is allowed to “marry” will still
    exist in spades, which makes the people pushing this silly law absolute HYPOCRITES.

    The whole thing is a complete SHAM.

    Like

  26. Btw, an interesting FACT: “no state has ever approved gay marriage at the ballot”. It’s all been done by activist judges, political idiots, or outright dirty tricks. America would never vote for it.

    Like

  27. Jeremy, thank you for your last post. Doing the right thing and treating all people with respect and equality is the foundation of a mature society.

    Like

  28. Lew, I think you’re right on in your belief that lawsuits against religious organizations will follow. The only part of your statement I disagree with is the “eventually” part. The statute promises religious freedom in its title but its *content* is specifically designed to take it away, and to open both pastors and churches to legal action.

    Abortion proponents have been introducing a bill for at least the last couple of sessions that, if passed, would give them a platform from which to sue pro-life pregnancy resource centers into bankruptcy. I think this is a similar attack on churches and pastors.

    Here is my analysis of the language of the bill as it pertains to religious freedom:

    http://crybelovedcountry.com/2012/01/washingtons-gay-marriage-bill-a-frontal-attack-on-religious-freedom/

    Like

  29. The state should stop sanctioning relgious organizations by way of tax allowances and exemptions. There should be a complete separation. If religious organizations paid their share of taxes just like everyone else it would solve a great deal of our deficit issues.

    And, if a religious organization acts as a business, it should have to abide by all of the responsibilities of doing business.

    Purely straightforward there. Why should a religious organization operate as a business under different rules than any other business?

    If they truly are a religious organization and purely behave that way, then there isn’t an issue. It is those that do business under the pretense of relgion that are being addressed here, as they should be.

    Like

  30. Greg, churches paying taxes is a whole different subject, and one on which I see pros and cons both ways. –But if separation of church and state is what you’re going for, then continuing to exempt them from taxation is what you should be arguing for. Exemption is a symbolic recognition that the church is not under the thumb of the government: that they are, in fact, separate.

    But, as I said, the issue here is not one of taxation. It’s one of punitive fines and judicial monetary judgments. Most churches in America have fewer than 100 people in the pews on Sunday morning, according to a Duke University study (http://www.soc.duke.edu/natcong/), and most of those aren’t putting a whole lot in the plate. So it’s not going to take too much in the way of fines and lawsuits to bankrupt most churches in this state.

    And if *that* isn’t important, we need to build a big bonfire and burn all our copies of the First Amendment.

    Like

  31. I understand your comment; however, again, if a religious organization is behaving like a business, it should be treated like one, and have all the same responsibilities applied to it as any other business would.

    If they don’t want the possibility action taken against them, then they should limit their activity religious only. And, if they can’t afford to support their operations with the funds of their members, they should take the appropriate action.

    Heck, where I live in Camas, you can stand in downtown, face any direction, throw a stone and hit a church. First, how much property is being taken off the tax rolls, and second, why don’t they all work together and pool their resources?

    I disagree that this doesn’t include taxation issues. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to do without the taxes on the property and other activity; that is indirectly supporting religions. Churches are also becoming quite political. There is a church in downtown Portland that is housing the campaign headquarters for the Occupy Portland mayoral candidate.

    So, again, if religious organizations want to behave as businesses or political organizations, then they should be treated the exact same as other businesses and political organizations, by following the same rules and tax structures.

    The language in this bill is quite clear, and says basically that.

    Like

  32. Thanks Greg, for showing everybody that you’re just a hillbilly that hasn’t won an argument here yet and that you run like a sissy from any discussion you can’t “win”.

    Maybe someday you’ll realize that being a Neanderthal doesn’t get you anywhere.

    Like

  33. Greg, I agree: Why *don’t* they all work together and pool their resources? Church buildings that sit empty or almost so five or six days a week represent a very poor use of resources. I’m always happy when I notice multiple congregations time-sharing the same facilities.

    I personally don’t have a problem with churches losing their tax-exempt status. I think that day is certainly coming, and I suspect it will in many ways have a salutary effect on the spiritual life of the churches when it does.

    And my understanding is that churches may not endorse candidates. You might want to bring that church in P’town to the attention of the IRS!

    But your test of “behaving like a business” is so broad that it’s meaningless. Churches are often contacted by people who aren’t part of their congregation asking to have weddings there. And I gather there’s often a fair amount of work involved for the church–having the buildings ready and in the correct configuration, cleaning up and locking up afterward, and so on. I think you could more reasonably characterize the activity as providing a service to the community for a nominal fee. If that’s how a “church” is getting most of its income, then, sure, sounds like a business.

    Butt the occasional wedding or bingo game does not a business make. If you disagree, just put all your assets in an untouchable trust, advertise your home as a wedding venue (but don’t take more than one gig every couple of months), host one bingo game a quarter, and let me know your net profit at the end of December.

    Like

  34. I can see your point. It definitely makes me want to have this discussion with my legislator. The language does appear to contain some vague wording. I also understand the fear factor; personally, though, I believe it to be unwarranted.

    Thanks for your input. I am lucky to live in a district with responsive representatives and will take this up with them. My personal opinion is that the points you make are valid, and, regardless of tax position, no one should go after any church for not using their facilities in a way that compromises their doctrine.

    Like

  35. How would you know what a “valid point” is, Greg? You’ve outright ignored so many of them.

    Like

  36. Gee. Greg Owens is still “hiding” from the discussion. Imagine that.

    You still haven’t addressed the “valid points” raised by Lew and myself, Greg. They aren’t going to “go away”, you know.

    Like

  37. Agreement is hard to reach when the two sides have such different starting points. I believe being gay is not a choice but is part of who someone “is”. From that standpoint, I don’t wish to deny others the same kind of lifelong companionship and love – let alone the legal rights – that I enjoy with my wife. It costs me nothing to give them my support….and it does no harm to my marriage or the lives of my children.

    However, if my starting point is that gays are ‘choosing’ a lifestyle that contradicts God’s divine order – which by definition would be sin – then it would be hard for me to support for gay marriage – or to comprehend why anyone else would do so.

    It’s a hard to bridge a gap like this when the starting points are so distant. I choose to believe God designed us to seek companionship and love – which He did – and that much of the biblical commentary on homosexuality is based more on cultural norms than divine condemnation. God designed all species to produce wide-ranging genetic variations, so like height and hair color, it’s not surprising to find a wide spectrum of sexual orientation.

    Like

  38. That is about as liberal feel good view as i have ever heard, Keith, but you are more than welcome to have it.

    I try to avoid discussing Biblical admonitions against homosexuality as too many don’t believe in the Bible and I have no desire to impose religion upon others.

    But, as far as I am concerned, if the long held traditional and in some places, legal definition of one to one woman is no longer valid, and homosexuals are permitted to marry who they desire, why deny all other alternate lifestyles the same basic rights?

    Should not the Biblical admonition of two marry be replaced also? Is that not also just another “cultural norm than divine condemnation?”

    Yet no one wants to remove all of the stated restrictions contained in the bill. Restrictions that also would have no effect or cause any harm to any other marriage.

    But as far as the Bible itself goes, nowhere does it excuse or grant any same sex unions. You have to either ignore portions of it or twist what was written in it.

    When a law is written that grants individuals to right to sue someone should they decline to assist in a homosexual wedding due to their own personal religious views, that is denying someone their constitutional right to practice their religion freely, as granted in our first amendment.

    Now, how you arrive at God created a wide variety of sexual orientation escapes me as Jesus stated at Matthew 19:4, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female” While he did create a wide variety of genetic variations, he created them all with only two sexual orientations, unless you get to microscopic or plant where you will find some asexuals. So, I don’t see how you arrive at that.

    Like

  39. Lewwatters, respectfully, the argument that allowing homosexuality is a slippery slope to beastiality, polygamy and pedophilia, etc. ignores two significant distinctions. First, these kind of “lifestyles” involve the likely victimization of animals, women and children, respectively. Conversely, gay marriage is between two consenting adults.

    Second, no person or group with any credibility is putting forward a serious argument for legalizing or promoting these other types of activities. So the point is currently a moot one. Should those movements gain any real momentum, I will stand with you to oppose them for the victimization reason stated above.

    As for the Matthew 19:4 quote, I don’t disagree with Jesus that we were made male or female. How could I? I am merely saying that sexual orientation for males and females varies from person to person and it has for a very, very long time, and the Bible isn’t a science book. Besides, judging by behavior observed in a number of animal species, humans may not be alone in this variability. (Check out this link as a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)

    I grant you that nothing in the bible can be reasonably interpreted as supportive of homosexuality. But the concept of monogomous, lifelong homosexual relationships is never considered in the bible. Most of the references are to gang rapes and other obviously deviant behaviors that should, indeed, be condemned.

    The Bible also condones slavery in several passages, and condemns eating pork, but we choose to dismiss those as cultural norms of the time.

    Like

  40. I agree with you on Bestiality and Pedophilia, that is why I did not mention them. But, Polygamy is consensual.

    Consensual relations between homosexual siblings is also banned, why?

    As far as pushing by others for their lifestyle, I beg to disagree.

    http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/04/04/if-canadas-polygamy-law-is-struck-the-next-step-up-to-parliament/

    The courts upheld the ban, but how many of our courts upheld bans on homosexual marriage just to have other courts over rule them or legislatures to give it the go ahead?

    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111123/polygamy-law-bountiful-111123/

    I don’t approve of it, but there has also been efforts already to declare Pedophiles “born that way.” http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2011-09/CWA_FamilyVoiceInsight_Sept2011.pdf

    http://www.narth.com/docs/arguecase.html

    I love it when people bolster their argument for homosexual marriage by claiming homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom. Why?

    Because so is incest: http://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html

    You can’t just use part of something for support of your argument and ignore the rest.

    A little off topic, but along the same lines concerning that slippery slope, almost as soon as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed, Transexuals began demanding they too be allowed to openly serve: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/28/after-demise-of-dont-ask-activists-call-for-end-to/?page=all#pagebreak

    http://www.military.com/news/article/transgender-vets-want-military-access.html?ESRC=eb.nl

    I grant you that the Bible does not mention “the concept of monogomous, lifelong homosexual relationships is never considered in the bible.” I’d imagine in Large part because everywhere it is mention, it is condemned and called detestable to God. But, even if you were correct, nowhere will you find any concept of homosexuals marrying.

    As for eating Pork, many people do not still, Christians, not just Jews and Muslims. As for slavery, http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/slavery.html

    Like

  41. Keith, the whole “push” by the governor and the Gays is predicated on “Equality” and “fairness” and “human rights”.

    To deny “Equality” to consenting adults who wish to marry multiple partners, or to relatives who wish to marry such as two Gay sisters or two Gay brothers is definitely not “Equality”.

    The idea is that if we’re going to open up the definition of “marriage”, then it should be made equal and fair for everybody, not just for a small vocal minority. Other citizens should not have to seperately petition for “Equality” or “fairness” – that should be the American standard.

    Btw, there are no “victims” in polygamous marriages, or in two cousin – marriages, or in Gay brother or sister marriages.

    Like

  42. Btw Lew, as long as you’re on the subject of the military, “sexuality” has absolutely no place in the military. “Sexuality” destroys discipline and without discipline a military is useless. America needs to field the best fighting force we can, and needs to keep the goofiness of civilian life out of the military. Period.

    Like

  43. The full effect of allowing homosexuals, and eventually others to serve openly in the Military will not be seen for a few more years.

    When it is seen, it won’t be very pretty.

    Like

  44. Jack. I think the victims in incestuous marriages would be the children or grandchildren who are born deformed. And many cases I’ve seen involving polygamous marriages involve communities whose treatment of women may well be abusive. These are good reasons to oppose these relationships. You can find anecdotal instances of people or judges advocating just about anything, but anecdotes don’t prove there is a credible or serious movement.

    Lines need to be drawn somewhere. You say that line is one man, one woman. As for me, I know gay couples who make better companions than some of my heterosexual married friends, and I think the line should be moved to include them. It harms no one, but helps them. When you show me thousands of sister/sister couples, for example, who want to get married, then I’ll consider that issue (and probably reject it). But there is nothing to realistically indicate that sister/sister marriages, or the like, are being advocated by credible groups. It is therefore not something to be feared.

    Like

  45. Keith, do you realize you are now using that “slippery slope” argument?

    Are you for banning people who may pass along a genetic disorder to children from having children?

    Are you aware that New Zealand, Romania and Switzerland have looked into legalizing incest?

    Even America such discussions have occurred: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/

    And again, since you advocate homosexual marriage based upon it being “rampant in the animal kingdom,” how is you can oppose incest when it too is “rampant in the animal kingdom?”

    You say a line must be drawn somewhere. Why? We had a line drawn for centuries and now that line is no longer valid. So how do you continue discriminating based upon your personal beliefs?

    Others who may wish to consensual incest, Polygamy or other legal age consensual relationships also hurt nobody. There is absolutely no way any could hurt you. But, you oppose them and then say Homosexual marriage doesn’t hurt anybody.

    You mention, “You can find anecdotal instances of people or judges advocating just about anything, but anecdotes don’t prove there is a credible or serious movement.”

    Then you come right back with, “I know gay couples who make better companions than some of my heterosexual married friends.”

    That is “anecdotal.”

    Are people restricted from basic human rights due to you not seeing the appropriate numbers to suit your thoughts?

    Just because you disagree with something, does that make it not credible to you? Is that not was said about those advocating homosexual marriage over the years?

    Like

  46. A point I neglected to mention, Keith. You mention “monogomous, lifelong homosexual relationships” and I find that sort of ironic.

    Marriage does not stop promiscuity in heterosexuals, so why would it in homosexuals?

    Odd too that monogamy comes into such discussions as these as for years, we have already been told homosexuals are not promiscuous.

    But then it is claimed marriage would encourage monogamy in homosexuals.

    One thing for certain, though. Monogamy will not be encouraged in Polygamous relationships, will it? 😉

    Like

  47. I don’t think Gay brothers, Gay sisters, or Gays with multiple Gay partners are going to create any kids, Keith.

    Like

  48. Boy, did I throw you some red meat there. 🙂 I apologize for the length, but here are thoughts on two of your challenges:

    ANECDOTES: You caught me using a personal anecdote after criticizing your use of anecdotes. Good one. You get a point for that. 🙂 However, there is a distinction to be made…. We come to our opinions in a couple of ways: (1) through personal experiences (which are necessarily anecdotal), and (2) through the collective wisdom/knowledge/history of our culture, which we learn about through books and other media. When I write that I have observed gay couples who make better companions than some straight couples, what I am doing is using my anecdotal experiences as a way of verifying first-hand what I have come to understand as a larger truth expressed by many others. That type of anecdotal usage can be helpful when illuminating and confirming the existence of a larger trend or truth….but only when that larger trend or truth actually exists. Taken in isolation, my personal experiences prove very little.

    What I am NOT doing is saying that just because I saw a fly land on someone’s nose, that the world has become full of flies landing on noses. Similarly, I am not using an anecdotal story of someone promoting legalized incest in New Zealand and then suggesting that such an isolated incident is a trend we should take seriously. When you can tell me that you are hearing lots of folks in your community promoting incest AND you can point to dozens of American communities passing such laws, then that’s a different story. That kind of anecdote is not illustrative of a larger truth, and is therefore a distraction from the issue at hand. So there is a difference in how anecdotes can be used.

    VICTIMHOOD: As for brother/brother marriages, and the like, where you point out that children aren’t deformed so there is no apparent “victim”, you got me there too…..except that I would simply say this: When a serious, credible movement gets started to legalize brother/brother marriages, let’s take on that issue at that time. Otherwise it is simply a red herring. Unlike incest, beastiality, and pedophilia, which are all red herrings, the real issue we have before us is the reality of hundreds of thousands of homosexuals who teach our kids, or serve our military, or own businesses, or sell us our groceries, or worship with us in church, etc. and who are asking for the same basic rights the rest of us have to share their work benefits, inherit property, and care for each other in the hospital.

    Until hundreds of thousands of brother/brother couples or human/goat couples ask for similar rights, let’s just leave them out of the discussion.

    Like

  49. No Keith, if we’re going to be re-defining “marriage”, then let’s make it EQUAL and FAIR and NON-DISCRIMINATORY for EVERYBODY to begin with, or let’s just leave it alone. Just “modifying it” half-assed to accomodate a few whiners-of-the moment is just plain Bullsheet.

    The “American Way” is to fix inequality and discrimination all at once, not to play little “incremental games” like a bunch of Leftist morons.

    Like

  50. Btw, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this has absolutely nothing to do with “basic rights”. It has to do with getting a piece of paper to wave in everybody’s face and proclaim “Homosexuality is normal!” and “you have to accept my lifestyle!”. It also has everything to do with monetary benefits.

    I can tell you right now that America will never accept Homosexuals as “normal” no matter how many pieces of paper they wave. America also has never and will never vote for Gay “marriage”. Such things will always be looked at as: “deviant” and “queer”.

    End of story.

    Like

  51. Funny how these “Gay marriage” supporters “fade” when faced with a few facts, isn’t it?

    Like

  52. No Jack. I think the discussion has fizzled out and no one wants to continue the back and forth froth. And to some of the posters (not you or Lew) that seem to want to take into places I feel are just way the line of decency of proclaiming homosexuality as some thing akin to a deviant behavior or worse.

    To your previous post on the mcD paper hat idea. You don’t have to accept Anyone or Anything. People have the right to as they see fit as long as they don’t impose their views on others. My basic thought is those people don’t have their right to throw their marriage certificate on to you and you don’t have the right to impose on them?

    We do have state laws against discrimination if someone wants to throw things like this?

    Jack, you have some valid points in your arguments. And you have your right to remain to keep them your thoughts.

    I think I’ll just move on, this subject has gotten so way out of hand and useless, like a lot of what is going on IN washington dc and olympia.

    Like

  53. As long as people are going to try to justify something that facts are against, it won’t ever get settled, Jeremy. You can’t negotiate with people who live in a fantasty world.

    Like

  54. Jack. It is a fantasy world to believe that Americans will never accept homosexuality. In fact, in some states a majority of people already do and that number is growing. Once this older generation passes, it won’t even be an issue any longer.

    As for “facts”, the fact is that lots of decent Americans are gay and they aren’t going away. They will teach our kids, serve in our military, pay their taxes, and continue to gain acceptance as the regular, normal people that they are. I come from communities where this is no longer an issue. I’ve taught with gays, worshipped with gays, socialized with gays, and they’re just people. It’s not fantasy. It really exists NOW and is widespread. It may take folks in small Eastern WA towns another generation or two, but they’ll come too. Those are the facts.

    Like

  55. Keith, no state that allows “Gay marriage” has ever done so by a vote of the people. It’s all been done by dirty Legislative tricks and activist judges.

    “Polls” mean absolutely nothing. The only “poll” that counts is vote of the people, and it’s never been brought to a vote of the people because it will get shot down and the Liberals damned well know it.

    Funny that you should talk about “the older generation” as though the kids of today don’t think that Homosexuality is “queer” also. When you mention “San Francisco” to young people, they know exactly what you mean. Be aware that young people today also frequently refer to someone or something as “Gay” as a term of derision. “That’s so Gay” or “He’s so Gay” is quite common. “Lezzies” and “faggots” are still common terms in conversation.

    I think you’re just fooling yourself that today’s kids “accept” Homosexuality. I think the truth is that a lot of kids ‘tolerate’ Homosexuality but still roll their eyes in the background. They sure as hell don’t try it themselves.

    Yes, there are a lot of Americans these days that are pretty “mixed up”. Thanks to Liberals, all of the cultural norms have gotten “blurred”. Now they’re trying to “blur” the basic family relationship between men & women with their nonsense.

    Homosexuality is a “condition” of the mind of a very mixed-up person. They don’t know what they are and they don’t want to “conform” to their nature-given “equipment”. It sure as hell isn’t “genetic”. I frankly think it’s a form of mental illness.

    Like

  56. You know, there are lots of people out there who aren’t “happy” with themselves or their life. Even more so in today’s spoiled generations. There’s always someone trying to be something that they will never be.

    The ability to accept oneself for who you are seems to be very elusive to today’s spoiled Americans.

    A word of advice: You are who and what you are and this isn’t a “comic book” fulll of “superheroes”, nobody has “fairy dust” and you can hardly find a phone booth any more to act out your “fantasies” in.

    Get over it.

    Like

  57. The first step has been completed. The State Senate voted in favour today! Basic human rights always have, and always eventually will win out over prejudice, bigotry, and fear.

    Good job Senators! An historic day for our state, and for ALL the people of our state!

    Like

  58. Yes, bigotry upheld in the name of equal rights for all.

    You and your fellow bigots are to be congratulated on screwing the state up even more.

    Oh, and screw that $1.5 Billion budget gap. It is not as important as homosexuals getting their way.

    I can hardly wait for the next step.

    Like

  59. The second step will be of course, the voters of the state slapping the arrogant Liberal bastards in the Legislature down like the scum that they are.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: