Truly Controversial Clickie (political)

[Deleted]

The majority of us are pretty liberal, but I was curious what our board's stats are. Clickie poll so that everyone can feel comfortable voting, especially the "No" votes as I'd just like to get an accurate feel.

[emyinpink]

Can't see the poll on my phone

[Deleted]

Oct 19, 2012 13:13:54 GMT -5 @emyinpink said:

Can't see the poll on my phone

Go to the site from a browser and you can vote that way.

[Deleted]

If you clicked no and you're comfortable with it, please explain your reasoning for clicking no. I'm genuinely curious.

[jennlin]

Oct 19, 2012 13:15:42 GMT -5 @uwhuskygirl said:

If you clicked no and you're comfortable with it, please explain your reasoning for clicking no. I'm genuinely curious.

this.

[madDawg228]

Oct 19, 2012 13:52:44 GMT -5 jennlin said:

Oct 19, 2012 13:15:42 GMT -5 @uwhuskygirl said:

If you clicked no and you're comfortable with it, please explain your reasoning for clicking no. I'm genuinely curious.

this.

Ditto.

Could one of the No voters create a AE or sign in as an anonymous guest, if you aren't comfortable explaining as yourself?

[georgeharrison]

I'm truly surprised at the amount of no votes. I thought it would be two at most.

[Deleted]

I, too, am surprised by the amount of no votes. I'm trying very hard not to make my comments here but with restraint, I still have to say: Separation of Church and State for a REASON. In terms of State, marriage is nothing but a legal contract.

[madDawg228]

The Reject R74, Preserve Marriage WA site, stated these are the reasons to vote No on R74 ^o) :

Why should I vote to "Reject" R-74?

Same-sex couples ALREADY enjoy all the same rights and benefits as married couples in Washington under the domestic partnerships, “Everything But Marriage,” law from 2009. R-74 is an attempt to redefine marriage and remove the interests of children from the purpose of our marriage laws. We believe that children deserve the best opportunity to be raised by a mom and a dad, and that marriage is our best (and only) institution to encourage that result. Our opponents believe that marriage exists only to satisfy the demands of adults and that children have nothing to do with it. Furthermore, when marriage is redefined there are profound legal consequences to anyone—licensed practitioners, parents, children, and clergy—if they disagree. With over 247,000 signatures of Washington voters asking to bring the issue before the people, it is clear that Washingtonians want to preserve marriage from these activists who seek to radically redefine the institution of marriage.

[jennlin]

i also am very shocked at the number of NO votes. this worries me. i thought we were generally a pretty socially liberal group with a few exceptions. and if even a generally liberal group can have so many no's, this worries me about how the results will actually come out.

No's, please, identify yourself (either as an AE, or you). i'm genuinely curious why you are voting no. we don't fight on this board, and won't attack you. we might argue a little bit, and i know you probably don't plan on changing your mind, as we don't plan on changing ours, but we are curious.

[InBetweenDays]

Has anyone seen any polling on how they're expecting this will do?

Also, I read somewhere that the No campaign (or people in favor of voting No - not sure if they know who exactly was behind it) was cold calling people and telling them that voting "no" was voting for gay marriage! So trying to confuse the voters.

[InBetweenDays]

I wonder if our thread will turn into a 9 pagers
pandce.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=76128

[jennlin]

Oct 19, 2012 15:10:14 GMT -5 InBetweenDays said:

Has anyone seen any polling on how they're expecting this will do?

Also, I read somewhere that the No campaign (or people in favor of voting No - not sure if they know who exactly was behind it) was cold calling people and telling them that voting "no" was voting for gay marriage! So trying to confuse the voters.

california's prop 8 was confusing, where voting no was "for" marriage quality and voting yes was "against". i heard a lot of people said they voted wrong afterward.

[Deleted]

I too am surprised by the amount of no votes.

[emyinpink]

I was so mad when prop 8 passed in Cali. It made me think very differently of people who voted for it.

[jennlin]

Oct 19, 2012 15:51:36 GMT -5 @jennuinne said:

Oct 19, 2012 15:15:23 GMT -5 InBetweenDays said:

I wonder if our thread will turn into a 9 pagers
pandce.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=76128

Oh, this is entertaining and distracting...

i just started page 8... she has no real argument.

[MrsH2010]

Oct 19, 2012 15:11:40 GMT -5 @jennuinne said:

I agree, I'm really surprised by so many no's.

The only thing I can understand as a reason to vote no is the argument that church and relgious organizations who refuse services to same-sex couples, if they can marry, may be subject to lawsuits. However, it appears that R-74 has exception for this and this hasn't happened in other states.

seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2017485806_truthneedle12m.html

In my personal opinion, if that were true, it is all the more reason to vote yes!

[Deleted]

Really? None of the no's want to speak up? Just create an ae and tell us what's up. No flames. I really am curious what your reasons are for voting no.

[tacocat]

Oct 19, 2012 18:15:15 GMT -5 @uwhuskygirl said:

Really? None of the no's want to speak up? Just create an ae and tell us what's up. No flames. I really am curious what your reasons are for voting no.

I really want to know why!

[madDawg228]

Since not a single one of the seven "No" voters are speaking up, I'm assuming you each are rejecting Ref 74 because you hate gay people. "No" voters, flame me if I'm wrong.

[Deleted]

Johlise came in and posted that it was against her religious beliefs.

[madDawg228]

Oct 19, 2012 22:50:55 GMT -5 @sounderschick said:

Johlise came in and posted that it was against her religious beliefs.

In what thread? I don't see it here

[Deleted]

Oct 19, 2012 22:53:01 GMT -5 madDawg228 said:

Oct 19, 2012 22:50:55 GMT -5 @sounderschick said:

Johlise came in and posted that it was against her religious beliefs.

In what thread? I don't see it here

She posted it and said she would delete it since it was on a public forum. She went into a little more detail than what I wrote.

[tacocat]

Oct 19, 2012 22:54:01 GMT -5 @sounderschick said:

Oct 19, 2012 22:53:01 GMT -5 madDawg228 said:

In what thread? I don't see it here

She posted it and said she would delete it since it was on a public forum. She went into a little more detail than what I wrote.

I don't get why this would be deletable. If they are strong enough beliefs that you would vote them, why not be proud of them and speak them?

[Deleted]

I don't hate gay people... we just Biblically believe that Christ didn't intend for marriage to be between members of the same sex. So for me it is against my religious beliefs.. I'm not embarrassed about what I believe, I just know that there are a lot of people out there who don't agree with what I believe and disagree strongly with my beliefs.

[Deleted]

Oct 19, 2012 23:26:59 GMT -5 tacocat said:

Oct 19, 2012 22:54:01 GMT -5 @sounderschick said:

She posted it and said she would delete it since it was on a public forum. She went into a little more detail than what I wrote.

I don't get why this would be deletable. If they are strong enough beliefs that you would vote them, why not be proud of them and speak them?

Sorry, I just want to get caught in some huge debate about it.. I posted the short of it again.

[Deleted]

Johlise, you are entitled to your opinion and I'm not going to flame you or judge you because it is different than mine.

[Deleted]

Thanks Sounders!

[InBetweenDays]

I can understand how someone could disapprove of gays and lesbians due to their religious beliefs. However, acting on these beliefs is another story. I honestly plead with these people to seriously consider whether their personal beliefs should negatively affect someone's civil liberties. As someone who would identify as an atheist (or possible agnostic) I would never try to impose my beliefs on you and limit your religious freedoms. Or in other words, “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.”

[BlackCanary]

Oct 19, 2012 14:38:25 GMT -5 madDawg228 said:

The Reject R74, Preserve Marriage WA site, stated these are the reasons to vote No on R74 :

Why should I vote to "Reject" R-74?

Same-sex couples ALREADY enjoy all the same rights and benefits as married couples in Washington under the domestic partnerships, “Everything But Marriage,” law from 2009. R-74 is an attempt to redefine marriage and remove the interests of children from the purpose of our marriage laws. We believe that children deserve the best opportunity to be raised by a mom and a dad, and that marriage is our best (and only) institution to encourage that result. Our opponents believe that marriage exists only to satisfy the demands of adults and that children have nothing to do with it. Furthermore, when marriage is redefined there are profound legal consequences to anyone—licensed practitioners, parents, children, and clergy—if they disagree. With over 247,000 signatures of Washington voters asking to bring the issue before the people, it is clear that Washingtonians want to preserve marriage from these activists who seek to radically redefine the institution of marriage.

I have a hard time with this. So does this mean that they are also against single moms or dads?

I love this video, it makes me feel all warm inside.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

it is clear that Washingtonians want to preserve marriage from these activists who seek to radically redefine the institution of marriage.

Some people said that about interracial marriage.