Are gay marriage and gay rights abominations unto the Lord or inevitable steps in the march of human liberation?
Are gays just hedonists who want public and civic validation to fuck in their unnatural way?
Or is a homosexual population always present in humanity, and just a segment of normal human behavior in the broad spectrum of human behaviors?
Do gays want too much? get too much? Will they shut up once they get what they want?
Do heterosexuals react violently or hysterically or nervously to gay issues because they're afraid of their normal homosexual feelings?
How will you and your family be harmed if gays are allowed full marriage and other civil rights?
Will you sign Tim Eyman's initiative to reverse the gay rights bill passed by the legislature?
Is Tim Eyman gay?
You are persistent. Good night.
Posted by: joanie | February 04, 2006 at 12:04 AM
Why do we have to have our noses in everyone's life? Why is this still an issue? Can't we just leave everyone to live their lives and mind our own business? Does Tim Eyeman really CARE about this issue or is it just another opportunity to have his name in the paper so he gets attention.
I dont care if he is gay. What I care about is what is in his heart and so far Im not impressed.
Posted by: sparky | February 04, 2006 at 08:52 AM
I'd ask the same question about Goldstein and his drinking liberally crowd as was posed about Tim Eyman.
Posted by: KS | February 04, 2006 at 10:18 AM
I could care less whether gays get married or not. Doesn't affect me one way or the other. None of my business.
Do I support their way of life? No. But that's neither here nor there because they don't need my approval.
The way I look at it, I can't expect everyone to like dill pickle and peanut butter sandwiches just because I enjoy them, nor do I seek their approval.
Tim "I"man is just a publicity hound in my opinion. But then, he doesn't need my approval, either.
Posted by: Critter | February 04, 2006 at 11:06 AM
Correction...
That should have read: I "couldn't" care less.
Posted by: Critter | February 04, 2006 at 11:09 AM
i spent so much emotion on the homeless thread, this could be a repeat and I'm not up to it!
Yes, I think hets do respond negatively to gays because we've been taught/enculturated into thinking it is perverted, not normal, a no-no. Okay. So, now those of us who have become more enlightened, educated, studied our science, looked at the evidence, do know that gay behavior happens naturally - even in the animal (those other than us) kingdom.
I'm so over it all. If any two people want to get married, I wish them all the best.
Finally, I think a good-intentioned guy who become a minor celebrity and media darling became hooked on himself.
It will be interesting to follow this campaign. Hopefully Dave Ross will give it the same attention he gave the gas tax issue. I do agree it is a civil rights issue and deserves attention.
Posted by: joanie | February 04, 2006 at 11:47 AM
Like every other one of these narcissistic bullies who gets their pampered little panties knotted up about what consenting same-sex adults do in their bedrooms (I'm lookin' at you, Fred Phelps), Eyman should just blow a dude and get it out of his sytem already. Honestly, these oppressive wing nuts spend more time thinking about gay sex than the actual participants.
Gay couples just want to feel safe and be treated like regular folks. What sane person begrudges them that? It doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect you either, Timmy. By the way, did you ever give back the money you stole? Perhaps that would be a better outlet for your energy.
Posted by: bunyip | February 04, 2006 at 12:01 PM
I think the the whole gay rights issue is pretty complicated, but I'll put in my quick two cents worth.
Gay couples should be guaranteed the same legal rights as straight couples, regarding employment, health insurance, housing, etc. regarding government agencies and federally funded projects.
I do not think it is right to require small businesses to employ people that do not meet their model or private organizations to enroll people that do not live up to their standards.
Posted by: Joe | February 04, 2006 at 01:00 PM
Eyman is doing this for the $100,000-plus salary that will paid to him by the ignorant suckers who support his initiatives.
Posted by: christopher lowell | February 04, 2006 at 02:03 PM
Gay rights already exist as a law. Seems like this legislation is above and beyond in some ways. The voters should get to decide this - which was not allowed by the State Legislature. However they will by referendum if Eyman gets his signatures. It can be argued that the activist gay community doesn't want equal rights, they want special rights and their actions bear this out. This kind of law would adversely impact smaller businesses. Why was the legislation that passed rejected 29 previous times ? must be a reason... My $.02 worth.
Posted by: KS | February 04, 2006 at 02:39 PM
My thoughts are on the same line as Joe's. I don't know why the state is in the business of marriage anyway. If a couple want to be married in the church, fine. However, the state should ensure all rights are equal regardless of marriage status, yet allow people to excerise their freedom of association.
Posted by: MacBoar | February 04, 2006 at 03:09 PM
Bunyip is dead on. And if Tim wants to blow a dude, I'll be glad to provide the necessary male equipment. I have a place,too,Tim.These closet cases cause us gay folks more trouble than anal fissures. We should get together and provide a group to service these people locally so they'll quit acting globally.
Posted by: singingscallop | February 04, 2006 at 04:15 PM
singing scallop-- would you consider letting me in on that Eyeman blowjob deal? I was a college Republican and I voted for the first George Bush.
Posted by: saggy&white | February 04, 2006 at 04:20 PM
What special rights do gays want?
Posted by: sparky | February 04, 2006 at 05:45 PM
Homophobes gay? I don't think so. I read that linked study showing that homophobes are more aroused by gay content but there was an alternate valid explanation in the last paragraph, saying that the extra arousal might be caused by anxiety, and I think that is more likely.
Danger is sexy. People who are fine with homosexuality don't perceive gays as dangerous, but if a homophobe sees it they must feel as though they are sinning as they watch male on male action. Sinning is dangerous and danger is sexy.
If the straight homophobe had just been aroused by straight porn and then were suddenly flashed with sinful, dangerous imagery then it might enhance the arousal caused by the straight porn. This wouldn't require that the element of danger (the gay porn) be arousing by itself.
If I was gay and afraid of my gayness I would sooner ignore the subject entirely than fight it because fighting it would require acknowledging it.
Posted by: Andrew | February 04, 2006 at 07:16 PM
I'm curious as well, KS. What special rights?
Posted by: joanie | February 04, 2006 at 07:49 PM
One of the things that bother me about this bill is WHAT IS NEXT. What will the next special class of individuals be. 30 years ago, gays started coming out of the closet, they were harassed and shunned by relatives and friends. They were told they were sick and what they did was immoral, hell, sodomy was still illegal, but with persistence, they overcame and now are concidered a class of individual.
So what, which type of induvidual will be the next to want to be considered a special class, with rights to do freely in their bedroom what is now considered immoral, sick, or just plain illegal. 30 years from now will it be the pedophiles, those who like sex with animals, maybe those who like sex with children, as John Kerry said, "if we don't fight now, when?"
Posted by: Steve | February 04, 2006 at 08:12 PM
Being gay is a beautifull expression of personal freedom. If you are willing to compare homosexuality to pedophelia then you must realy realy hate children. Stay away from our children you sick son of a bitch.
Posted by: Andrew | February 04, 2006 at 08:55 PM
Andrew sez, "If I was gay and afraid of my gayness"
You're not?????
Posted by: Lump | February 04, 2006 at 08:59 PM
Time for a new thread, Michael
Posted by: sparky | February 04, 2006 at 09:15 PM
Gays want to be able to sue whoever for perceived discrimination or harassment and to have a leg up in court cases over the other party because they would be regarded as a protected class. For a further explanation of special rights -read the legal briefs (pro and con) and the context of that Senate bill.
Gay cirriculum should not be taught in public schools without equal amounts of opposing views being taught - that's called fairness, by the way.
I have heard all of this labelling of people as homophobes - which is not being disputed, but by the same token also believe there are heterophobes out there, who are afraid of losing someone gay to the "other team" (i.e. Anne Heche). Pedophilia and being gay have no proven correlation.
Posted by: KS | February 04, 2006 at 09:20 PM
"sick son of a bitch"
"beautifull expression of personal freedom"
Why do I deserve this backlash.
I simply stated that the future is very scary if another class of individuals who see's beauty in lewd acts of sodomy on another individual are granted the same rights as are now giving to gays in this fine state.
Posted by: Steve | February 04, 2006 at 10:15 PM
I have been a teacher in two states for 29 years and have never ever seen a gay curriculum.
Please check out the OSPI website http://www.k12.wa.us and please find for me the Gay Curriculum.
Posted by: sparky | February 04, 2006 at 10:45 PM
sparky sez, "I have been a teacher in two states for 29 years and have never ever seen a gay curriculum."
Well then, have you ever seen a happy one?
Posted by: Lump | February 05, 2006 at 08:26 AM
The APA study of 1996 had a small sample of 64 MEN ONLY, which made it an insignificant indicator of homophobia. That said, what in hell, to paraphrase Sparky, is a "Gay Curriculum?" To add the voice of a cynic to this fascinating discussion, I don't believe in marriage itself, but do believe the state should be in the business of establishing equal rights in the comingling and ensuing separation of property and parenting. This provides hefty incomes for starving attorneys and is good for our economy. Affluent gays should not be excluded from supporting lawyers....marriage is grounds for divorce, and gay money is good money.
Posted by: Fremont | February 05, 2006 at 09:35 AM
FYI - An example of gay (not happy) cirriculum is "Heather has two mommies" - a reader for primary grades in Public Schools. That has been around for almost 10 years. I'm sure there are others currently being used today. Have a nice day.
Posted by: KS | February 05, 2006 at 09:48 AM
Lucky Heather....two mommies. Emily has two mommies, too...one of them is a step-mom. Those tots get twice the number of birthday and "holiday" gifts...sounds like a winner to me!
Posted by: Fremont | February 05, 2006 at 10:08 AM
Steve, consensual sex between same sex adults is not and never will be comparable with sexual exploitation of children you sick creep.
Posted by: Andrew | February 05, 2006 at 10:23 AM
Lump, quite clever, actually :-)
KS...if that book is the best you can do....it sort of proves my point. A curriculum is a planned unit of study that meets the Grade Level Expectations of the Washington State Standards. Again, I challenge you to find this so-called " Gay Curriculum" or any evidence of an organized effort to come up with one at the OSPI website. The days of teachers teaching what they feel like have been over with for years. I have taught with many gay and lesbian teachers and none of them promoted any agenda or viewpoint related to their sex lives, just as my heterosexual collegues did not. However, I have taught with two heterosexual males who went to jail for having affairs with young women at school. So, who do we really need to worry about?
Posted by: sparky | February 05, 2006 at 10:47 AM
Yay! Sparky's coming out! I definitely knew you were educated, but I didnt know you were an educator! Kudos!
Posted by: Fremont | February 05, 2006 at 10:57 AM
um...."coming out" may not be the best description on this thread..lol
Very heterosexual here, with many gay and lesbian friends. I find that the people who are most afraid of gay people have not had close friends who are gay. Easier to discriminate against a group on which you dont have to put an individual face.
One more note: Heather Has Two Mommies is a picture book, not a "reader" and nowhere is it required reading. I dont even know of a single school libary in my last three school districts that even carries it. It isnt a good enough book to be worth the controversy it would cause.
Posted by: sparky | February 05, 2006 at 11:40 AM
This "special class" of people that you don't want to see in the law. What makes them a special class? Is it what they do or is it our judgment and intolerance of what they do?
I personally think we create these special classes of people by denying them the same rights we give to people we like, respect and accept. They're not creating the problem; we are.
As I recall, there was a time when poor people, women, children and blacks made up these groups.
If we could accept, tolerate and even welcome all people who fall out of the norm of our expectations, wouldn't we be better people for it?
I do not accept nor tolerate illegal and harmful behavior like pedophilia. But, that's not what we are talking about..
We are talking about regular people who are identified by the rest of us as being unacceptable because of their sexual orientation (none of my business) or because of something they do in the bedroom (none of my business).
Because people are so judgmental and so righteous, it has been acceptable to deny these people the tolerance and fairness we give so-called normal people.
They got tired of pretending to be something their not. Wouldn't you?
Also, perhaps small businesses should be exempt, one could make a case for it.
But, I've always believed you get to understand and like people by getting to know them. While I can't force people to familiarize themselves with other groups of people be they immigrants, ugly people, people with disabilities, gays and lesbians, Jews, Christians, Muslims . . .
I can sure hope that they will because I think that is how we get over those feelings of intolerance and that need to judge everybody by our own ill-conceived standards
One more thing, On a more personal note because I have no proof for this other than my own observations, I've always noticed that people who are unaccepting, unkind, or mean spirited to others seem like they have an inferiority complex themselves. They've got to have a leg up on somebody else. They have to divide to conquer-to be somebody. It is a failure of kindness. I feel sorry, in a way, for these people. I say, "in a way" because they are responsible for so much discord and hate in our world.
Posted by: joanie | February 05, 2006 at 12:11 PM
Maybe he was thinking of "My Weekly Reader" or "Highlights" that doctors offices have for the kiddies.
I bet Dobson or Eyeman could find all kinds of gay porn in there.
Posted by: chris | February 05, 2006 at 12:12 PM
"Special rights" or "extra rights" for gays and lesbians?
How about just equal rights?
Posted by: Fluffycatt | February 05, 2006 at 12:24 PM
The South would still be a segregated, taxed without representation enclave if the feds didn't go in and spank their silly behinds with the 1964 civil rights act.
That said--Why does black eye Eyeman continue on these tantrums. He was caught on tv taking money from his previous campaign and will continue to do so even though he claims to be 'reforming' the system which he is now very much a part of as his own interest group. How pathetic and hypocritical of him to act like a crusader.
This looks like his last meal ticket as he goes to the suburbs and E. Washington for lunch money. GET A FUCKIN' REAL JOB, LOOOOOSER!
Posted by: chris | February 05, 2006 at 12:29 PM
I dunno, Joanie..I am not sure I can agree with you on the exemptions for busineses from this viewpoint: your comment about the other groups being former minority status. Substitute "black" or "women" for " gay" and most people would object to any business being allowed to discrimintate from hiring them. However, I am not naive and I realize that there are most likely plenty of businesses who deliberately do not hire certain people for things not related to being able to do the job.
Posted by: sparky | February 05, 2006 at 12:46 PM
Chris sez, "This looks like his last meal ticket as he goes to the suburbs and E. Washington for lunch money. GET A FUCKIN' REAL JOB, LOOOOOSER!"
Why are your knickers pinched up your butt? You don't give him any money. Maybe some day when you're old enough to drive a car you can pay the old tab fees because it will make you feel better.
Posted by: Lump | February 05, 2006 at 12:57 PM
I didn't say I agree with it, Sparky. I said a case might be made . . . I wouldn't make it, but I could. My whole post about getting to know people is my argument for why there should be no exemptions. But, sometimes change comes slowly and we have to compromise to get there.
I strongly considered not posting because I can't do it in sound bytes - when it is something so crucial to so many people. I'm hoping people will think rather than react.
Posted by: joanie | February 05, 2006 at 01:07 PM
Amen! :-)
Posted by: sparky | February 05, 2006 at 01:19 PM
As soon as gays like Webb respect my right to have a smoke with my margarita, I'll be for gay rights.
Until then, if one if us isn't free, none of us are. Indeed, if gays like Webb fight to take my rights away, like he has, he, and they, can expect the same treatment. That goes for all of you busybodies who insist on coming into places you'd never go, and try to enforce your protectionist bs.
How long before the smoke nazis tell Iraqis (free at last!) they can't have their hookah bars?
Posted by: charon | February 05, 2006 at 04:33 PM
So it's the gays who make us smoke twent five feet from entrances? Of course, it all makes sense now!
Posted by: Andrew | February 05, 2006 at 05:41 PM
I am now blogging, (thus turning my back on my civic imperative of watching THE GAME....but wait!) THE ROLLING STONES...swoon....more commentary after my smoke break....
Posted by: Fremont | February 05, 2006 at 05:58 PM
Andrew sez, "So it's the gays who make us smoke twent five feet from entrances? Of course, it all makes sense now!"
Andrew, go sit in the corner and put some more hair in the palm of your hand.
Posted by: Lump | February 05, 2006 at 06:47 PM
Andrew,
I'm not comparing the two and never had, you are and did. People were saying the same thing you just said 30 years ago about gay sex and hetero sex and there also was alot of name calling like your doing now. So I'm saying stop this crap now before it gets any further. We don't need sodomy loving perverts running in our streets of Washington.
Posted by: Steve | February 05, 2006 at 06:57 PM
Saying Gays are discriminated against is like saying Brits are discriminated against because they have to drive on the right side of the road.
Furthermore the PI article said that the only discrimination case in the last five years in which the complaintant won, was a case in which a gay employer discriminated against a heterosexual man. Go figure.
The legislation was just lip service in the name of diversity, however it's just another example of reverse discrimination. Liberals think it's ok to discriminate as long as it goes against the majority opinion. How 'equal' is that?!?!?
Posted by: scooby | February 05, 2006 at 08:26 PM
Hmm I have been standing at my window for a long time now and I have not seen a pervert run by...but I am a patient person.
Posted by: sparky | February 05, 2006 at 08:59 PM
Steve says "I'm not comparing the two and never had, you are and did"
Steve says "[gays] were told they were sick and what they did was immoral, hell, sodomy was still illegal, but with persistence, they overcame and now are concidered a class of individual. So what, which type of induvidual will be the next ... will it be the pedophiles, those who like sex with animals, maybe those who like sex with children"
Ouch!
Posted by: Andrew | February 05, 2006 at 10:11 PM
sparky sez, "Hmm I have been standing at my window for a long time now and I have not seen a pervert run by...but I am a patient person."
That's because I don't know the right street number. Be patient and I'll get there.
Posted by: Lump | February 05, 2006 at 10:22 PM
thank you Lump..I knew I could count on ya!
Posted by: sparky | February 06, 2006 at 06:03 AM
I think all human beings that aren't breaking laws are entitled to equal rights. There aren't any laws against someone prefering the company of the same sex or engaging in private sexual behavior with same sex people. So, the government shouldn't take anyone's rights away.
That being said, is there a "right" for someone to be employed by a private business? Is there a "right" to get insurance from a private company? Personally, I don't think these things fall into the realm of rights. But, I'm willing to live by what the state and courts decide in those areas.
But I don't feel there is any compelling reason why the government should have any interest in same sex marriage. I can understand the rational for providing some privileges to heterosexual marriages (e.g., lower tax rates, certain legal privileges about transfer of property, etc.). - nations have traditionally seen a benefit in encouraging its citizens to bear children and raise them in a stable home. Government has not seen a real benefit in having two college aged men sharing an apartment, or a same sex couple, or even an heterosexual couple living together. I don't want our government forcing employers to grant benefits to the non-married (meaning marriage license granted by the state) partners/friends/roommates of their employees. And I don't want the government bypassing revenue (taxes) from those same people either.
If an employer wants to give benefits to the live in lover (whether gay or heterosexual), then that's their decision. No one should prevent that. But, I don't want public employees having those kind of benefits and I don't want tax collections reduced for non-married folks. I just don't see tangible benefits to the government in those types of relationships, so why should the government reward or promote them?
Posted by: ExDem | February 06, 2006 at 07:00 AM