Author Topic: Referendum 71  (Read 4415 times)

the other andrea

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,683
  • Karma: +159/-25
  • laughing in Mongolia
Referendum 71
« on: October 21, 2009, 04:03:42 PM »
For those of you who aren't in WA state, Ref. 71 was put on the ballot by "Protect Marriage Washington" as a means to overturn the state's domestic partnership laws. PMA was started by a guy that lives in my town.

I just saw this on FB and nearly choked... Sen. Val Stevens is one of "my" legislators.

Are the homosexuals finally going to take control of our culture and push their depraved lifestyle on our children and families?

So let me just apologize for the nuts that live up in my neck of the woods -- we're not all like that. Really.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2009, 04:05:38 PM by the other andrea »
"I'm only going to ask you once more. Sit down or I will kick you in the vagina, and you know I will."

feffer

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,893
  • Karma: +125/-19
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2009, 04:07:05 PM »
 :eyeroll:
Cause you're so beautiful
Like a tree
Or a high-class prostitute
You're so beautiful
Mmm, you could be a part-time model
But you'd probably have to keep your normal job

stormneedle

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,779
  • Karma: +118/-42
  • Nonsense Stuffer
    • Your page here!
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2009, 04:11:43 PM »
Good luck. I hope you do better than we have down here.
I'm generalizing from one example here, but everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do.

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,941
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2009, 04:14:57 PM »
These people are always idiots.  I don't understand why they think heterosexual marriage is such a fragile institution that gay marriages would destroy it.  I realize most hetero marriages don't work or last, but even so.  Don't these people have any faith in straights?

It's just like with their protests about gay teachers.  I mean:

- There are far more straight teachers than gay teachers.

- There are far more incidents of straight teachers preying sexually on students than of gay teachers doing so.

- Yet these people are always afraid that gay teachers will turn students gay.

- So . . . what, these people must think homosexuality is a whole lot more appealing than heterosexuality.  I mean, otherwise, all those straight teachers would've turned all those gay kids straight.

These are the exact same people who were against giving women the vote, you know.

mo

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,811
  • Karma: +136/-55
    • x
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2009, 04:38:50 PM »
I just watched a movie yesterday called The Children's Hour, which features Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine as teachers at a private girls' school. One of the students accuses them of being lesbians, and their lives are ruined. They were never accused of molesting the children, just of being lesbians, like it was some godawful disease. The movie was made in 1961, and as I was watching it, I found it hard to believe that society's views were so twisted at the time. And then I hear stuff like this and am forced to remember that some people still think like that.
It's symbolic of our struggle against reality.

NexR

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,785
  • Karma: +76/-44
  • Jammin'
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2009, 06:35:39 PM »
I saw that on!  I was tempted to watch it even though I was coming 45mins in.
Shake your groove thing.

the other andrea

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,683
  • Karma: +159/-25
  • laughing in Mongolia
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2009, 06:53:57 PM »
The crazy thing about The Children's Hour? It was originally a stage play by Lillian Hellman, written in 1934.

Hellman based it on an incident that took place in 1810 in Scotland.

And, if this isn't even more odd, the 1961 version you saw was directed by William Wyler, who also directed the first version in 1936 (called These Three) -- however, because of the Hays Code, Hellman had to make the story about heterosexuals.

/movie nerd  :geek:

"I'm only going to ask you once more. Sit down or I will kick you in the vagina, and you know I will."

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,941
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2009, 07:13:40 PM »
Man!  I've always wanted to see that movie!

Audrey Hepburn + young Shirley MacLaine = one of the cutest potential lesbian couples ever.  (Regardless of what actually happens in the movie.)  I would totally be their butler / chauffeur for free.

I think that one's in my Netflix queue, in fact.

mo

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,811
  • Karma: +136/-55
    • x
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2009, 04:43:43 PM »
Yeah, I think it's pretty much impossible to watch that movie without fantasizing a bit even though you feel a little guilty doing it. There's one part in it where this delivery guy comes to the house, and he just stands there gawking at them with this silly grin on his face. Not supposed to be funny, but I lol'd.

The crazy thing about The Children's Hour? It was originally a stage play by Lillian Hellman, written in 1934.

Hellman based it on an incident that took place in 1810 in Scotland.

And, if this isn't even more odd, the 1961 version you saw was directed by William Wyler, who also directed the first version in 1936 (called These Three) -- however, because of the Hays Code, Hellman had to make the story about heterosexuals.

/movie nerd  :geek:

Huh. Didn't know that. Here's the original story.

Quote
...one of the judges hearing the case, Lord Meadowbank, [said] "Sex between women was equally imaginary with witchcraft, sorcery or carnal copulation with the devil."
It's symbolic of our struggle against reality.

stormneedle

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,779
  • Karma: +118/-42
  • Nonsense Stuffer
    • Your page here!
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2009, 04:46:03 PM »
Boy does he have a lot to learn!
I'm generalizing from one example here, but everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do.

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,941
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2009, 04:49:57 PM »
Quote
fantasizing a bit even though you feel a little guilty doing it

Bah!  No guilt in fantasizing.


Quote
"Sex between women was equally imaginary with witchcraft, sorcery or carnal copulation with the devil."

I think he meant, 'I certainly hear a lot about it, but I'VE never seen any.  Alas.'

the other andrea

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,683
  • Karma: +159/-25
  • laughing in Mongolia
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2009, 01:00:57 PM »
"I'm only going to ask you once more. Sit down or I will kick you in the vagina, and you know I will."

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,941
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2010, 06:15:53 AM »
I've been alternately amused and revolted by the bizarre arguments still coming out of this debate, albeit now mostly from California.

The currently prominent Anti camp has argued that a law banning gay marriage keeps Satan out of California.  Wut, seriously?  If it's that easy, why not just get a restraining order against him?

They also hoist out the old chestnut about how if you legalize gay marriage, then you're endorsing every possible sort of perversion / socially awkward relationship.  I haven't heard anyone get quite so florid as Bill O'Reilly's repeated complaint that it will inevitably lead to people marrying turtles, but, yes, bestiality, incest, and polygamy are used to try to scare people. 

Polygamy, frankly, may not be legally recognized in the US -- you can't use it to get tax breaks or extra welfare money, which is about 75% of what most of the GOP is really concerned about -- but it's easy to get away with so long as none of the wives involved are underage or close relatives or unwilling.

And you've got to wonder at the logic that says that homosexuality, bestiality, and incest would be far more popular if they were just legal.  Especially considering who's arguing this.  This essentially means that these people believe that the natural human state includes all these behaviors, and it's only external laws (of the state, at that!) which limit natural human perversion.  And these are the Natural Law buffs.

Incidentally, I agree that the natural human state includes these behaviors . . . I mean, it's empirically obvious, although of course most people aren't even tempted to run out and sodomize a turtle (that's mostly just O'Reilly's personal fixation, let's face it).  But this is just stupid logic for the people who are using it. 

I do agree that when things become seen as socially acceptable, they tend to become more prevalent, but there's no reason that letting gays get married means we have to abandon every social standard we have.  I mean, if gay marriage is firmly legalized, are these churchy people going to say, OK, to hell with it, we're not going to complain if you marry a turtle?  Somehow I doubt it.

If they want to defend marriage, let them make it harder for people to get married and harder for them to get divorced.  They've wanted for a very very long time to make marriage easy, whether it was a good idea or not, and attractive and beneficial for reasons that have nothing to do with marriage itself.  So their plan succeeded, and now people want to get married.  Let 'em get married.

Hell, if nothing else, you'd think they'd want to cut down on gay promiscuity.  :shrug:  They really don't think clearly about this stuff.

feffer

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,893
  • Karma: +125/-19
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2010, 10:18:03 AM »
And you've got to wonder at the logic that says that homosexuality, bestiality, and incest would be far more popular if they were just legal.  Especially considering who's arguing this.  This essentially means that these people believe that the natural human state includes all these behaviors, and it's only external laws (of the state, at that!) which limit natural human perversion.  And these are the Natural Law buffs.

These are the same people who claim that if they didn't believe in God they would be out raping and murdering random people.
Cause you're so beautiful
Like a tree
Or a high-class prostitute
You're so beautiful
Mmm, you could be a part-time model
But you'd probably have to keep your normal job

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,941
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Referendum 71
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2010, 11:25:01 AM »
Yeah, and that's basically what they're saying here.  We'd all be raping turtles non-stop if not for specific adherence to Biblical law.

These people are seriously, seriously deranged.  I think a lot of them just haven't thought much about what they're saying, but still.