Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 05:05 PM
Gould 0738
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment

It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.


That logic is almost as flawed as "if you don't support sending our troops to
the war in Iraq, you're hoping they get killed".

Gay marriage is illegal in Florida, right?
According to your statement above, there must not be any homosexuals in the
entire state. If they can't marry, they'll simply disappear.

At least you are honest enough to say that your real agenda is to somehow
eliminate homosexuality. (You could give a rip about marriage.)

The other good one I hear from the right on this issue is the AIDS argument.
"Gays
spread AIDS and other diseases, and if we allow them to marry our health care
costs
will go through the roof." What a crock.

Since gays generally cannot marry at the current time, there must not be any
gay sex taking place, and therefore there must be few or no incidents of
sexually transmitted HIV. Sure.

By encouraging monogamous relationships, whether among the gay or straight
community, the amount of screwing around should decrease. The fewer partners
the average person has, the
lower the odds of contracting or spreading AIDS.

The last rib tickler is the argument that
"people will marry sheep! Grown men will marry 9-year olds! People will marry
their parents! Eleven men will move in with seventeen women and they'll call it
some kind of marriage!" Nonsense. A legal civil union should be allowed between
any *two* consenting *adults* who are *not closely related*.

Even George Bush rather recently said he was in favor of "civil unions". I
guess that was before he started nosediving in the polls and figured he could
rally some emotionally-charged homophobes to his side.

If marriage isn't a legal contract, one shouldn't have to go to the courthouse
to get divorced. If it is a legal contract, why should it be the sole legal
contract where a person's sexual orientation prohibits them from entering into
a legally binding commitment?

The solution is *not* to take marriage away from the churches. The BA
Evangelicals that are marching in the streets to declare that God hates
homosexuality (if not homosexuals themselves) should never be forced to perform
a marriage for a gay or lesbian couple, or even accept a homosexual as a member
of their church. Ever.

The solution is to take marriage out of the hands of the state. Let any two
consenting adults who are not close relatives formalize
a monogamous relationship for purposes of property ownership, inheritance,
paternity, etc as a "civil union." Gay or straight. That would be the end of
the state's involvement. Those couples who wanted the benefit of the religious
sacrament of marriage would go to the same place they would go for baptism,
communion, confession, or what not- a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.

Your synagogue, or church, would never be required to bless the union of people
your religion condemns. By the same token, an equally sincere church on the
other side of town that interprets the scriptures a bit differently should not
be prevented from marrying any couple it chooses to.

As far as the kids go: NOYB, you're a medical professional. So shame on you.
There are clinical studies that show children raised by homosexual parents are
typically as well adjusted as kids raised in
a hetero household. Why you would ignore the professional studies in your own
discipline to repeat the political sloganeering of the under-informed is
somewhat astonishing.

Those specific kids who are adopted by homosexual couples rather obviously all
started off in a hetero household, but in many cases were either abandoned by
the parents or removed by the state due to drug abuse, child abuse, or other
problems. In the case of older kids, there is often nobody willing to adopt
them. Would these kids be better off left in straight (but problem) homes where
they are beaten, whored out, and who knows what else rather than living with a
same-sex couple who would take proper care of them? I guess that consistent
with the logic that "Gay people will disappear, or at least not have sex if we
don't allow them to marry" would be a thought that "Straight people never raise
screwed up kids.".


  #12   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 05:12 PM
Gould 0738
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment

In one or two
Scandinavian countries (can't recall which, and don't have the data in front
of me) which have legalized and accepted homosexual marriage for 2 or 3
decades, the incidence of marriage in general has dropped precipitously.
Some 60% of first births are now to single women.


Has less to do with gay marriage ( a lot less) than the fact that women are no
longer economically dependent on men.

Women's liberation has done far more to change the "social fabric" of the
western world than has homosexuality. I doubt that most of those unwed women in
Scandinavia have decided to remain single
in order to protest gay marriage.

One thing does not always have to impact another. In the same 2-3 decades that
gay marriage has become accepted in Scandinavia, the use of microwave ovens has
quintupled. Maybe we should look at
microwaves. (just joking)
  #13   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 05:26 PM
Gould 0738
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment

Why discommode 97% of the population to the benefit of
3%?


The rights of the 87% (number closer to reality) are not diminished when those
rights are extended to the remaining 13%.
We can't recognize rights based on percentages. If only 10% of the population
is African American, why should the 15% of the remaining population that has
deep seated hatred for African Americans have to put up with them? Same sort of
argument, but nobody would ever suggest that other minority groups should have
fewer legal rights because they are outnumbered by the bigots.

Even George Bush said he was in favor of civil unions. ( he may have
flip-flopped since). That's all anybody should expect from the state. Let the
churches decide who is "married" (baptized, confessed, etc)
and leave the state out of it.


  #15   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 05:32 PM
NOYB
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'

Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a

move
to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in the
Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are
not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of
America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in
their efforts," Bush said in a statement.
------------------------------------------------

Awwwwwwwww....hopefully, Bush will have a really big disappointment in
November.

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage


It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.




Show me proof that same-sex marriage is a serious threat to the
well-being of children, or, better yet, *more serious* threat to the
well-being of children brought up in a traditional household where the
female is dominated by the male or abused by the male, or where one
partner drinks, takes drugs, or where the family doesn't have the
wherewithal for health care, food, shelter, whatever.


Funny that you would compare/equate a same-sex marriage household with the
other destructive, dysfunctional types of households out there.



Show me proof that our society is dominated by homosexuality.


Open a TV Guide and look at the programs that are on every night.
Statistics have shown that homosexuals make up about 10% of our population.
Programs about homosexuals, or programs that make reference to homosexuals
constitute a lot larger portion of the nightly TV program lineup than 10%.




Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby.


Yes...one of which can be the rampant spread of homosexuality. When a
civilization loses it's morals, it starts down the slippery slope to
extinction.

Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.


It's one of the reasons why morality is at an all-time low.




  #16   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 05:37 PM
Harry Krause
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'

Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a

move
to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in the
Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are
not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of
America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in
their efforts," Bush said in a statement.
------------------------------------------------

Awwwwwwwww....hopefully, Bush will have a really big disappointment in
November.

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage

It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.




Show me proof that same-sex marriage is a serious threat to the
well-being of children, or, better yet, *more serious* threat to the
well-being of children brought up in a traditional household where the
female is dominated by the male or abused by the male, or where one
partner drinks, takes drugs, or where the family doesn't have the
wherewithal for health care, food, shelter, whatever.


Funny that you would compare/equate a same-sex marriage household with the
other destructive, dysfunctional types of households out there.


Sorry, fella, but I'm just playhing off your illogic.





Show me proof that our society is dominated by homosexuality.


Open a TV Guide and look at the programs that are on every night.
Statistics have shown that homosexuals make up about 10% of our population.
Programs about homosexuals, or programs that make reference to homosexuals
constitute a lot larger portion of the nightly TV program lineup than 10%.


Well, that's surely scientific...





Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby.


Yes...one of which can be the rampant spread of homosexuality. When a
civilization loses it's morals, it starts down the slippery slope to
extinction.

Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.


It's one of the reasons why morality is at an all-time low.



I'm blame the decline in morality on right-wing bigortry.
  #17   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 05:50 PM
Dave Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:52:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'

Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a move
to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in the
Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are
not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of
America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in
their efforts," Bush said in a statement.
------------------------------------------------

Awwwwwwwww....hopefully, Bush will have a really big disappointment in
November.

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage


It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.




Show me proof that same-sex marriage is a serious threat to the
well-being of children, or, better yet, *more serious* threat to the
well-being of children brought up in a traditional household where the
female is dominated by the male or abused by the male, or where one
partner drinks, takes drugs, or where the family doesn't have the
wherewithal for health care, food, shelter, whatever.

Show me proof that our society is dominated by homosexuality.

Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby. Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.

If what you cite is all there there, then it is hogwash.



In the same vein as your accusations of Bush being a liar and a thug?

Dave
  #18   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 05:58 PM
NOYB
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.


That logic is almost as flawed as "if you don't support sending our troops

to
the war in Iraq, you're hoping they get killed".

Gay marriage is illegal in Florida, right?
According to your statement above, there must not be any homosexuals in

the
entire state. If they can't marry, they'll simply disappear.


Gay marriage won't determine whether homosexually exists or not. However,
it will only be one more thing thing that will help it to flourish. Homos
are happy accomplishing their goal in baby steps. They have already managed
to bring the issue front-and-center and get a large portion of the
population to "accept" it. They make movies, documentaries, sitcoms, etc.
that bombard us every day with the idea of "accepting" homosexuality.


At least you are honest enough to say that your real agenda is to somehow
eliminate homosexuality. (You could give a rip about marriage.)


I'd love to eliminate homosexuality. Personally, I think it's a lifestyle
*choice*, rather than something you're born with. It's a psychological
disease that should be listed among the personality disorders.


The other good one I hear from the right on this issue is the AIDS

argument.
"Gays
spread AIDS and other diseases, and if we allow them to marry our health

care
costs
will go through the roof." What a crock.


Gays *do* spread AIDs and other sexually transmitted diseases at a much
higher rate *proportionately* than heterosexuals. Letting them marry won't
raise the rate of AIDS...unless more kids grow up to be gay because their
"parents" were gay.


Since gays generally cannot marry at the current time, there must not be

any
gay sex taking place, and therefore there must be few or no incidents of
sexually transmitted HIV. Sure.


I'd be willing to bet that gay sex is more prevalent today than when the
issue of homosexuality was "in the closet".



By encouraging monogamous relationships, whether among the gay or straight
community, the amount of screwing around should decrease. The fewer

partners
the average person has, the
lower the odds of contracting or spreading AIDS.


Agreed. But, statistically, homosexuals are more likely to have multiple
partners than heterosexuals.


The last rib tickler is the argument that
"people will marry sheep! Grown men will marry 9-year olds! People will

marry
their parents! Eleven men will move in with seventeen women and they'll

call it
some kind of marriage!" Nonsense. A legal civil union should be allowed

between
any *two* consenting *adults* who are *not closely related*.


Why can't they be closely related? Does that not fit into *your* accepted
norm? A brother and sister marrying is no more and no less disgusting than
two guys marrying.


  #19   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 06:02 PM
NOYB
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

So? Are you saying the drop in marriage results from allowing gay
marriage?


Not specifically. I think (no data) it results from the perceived

general
devaluation of marriage as a solid, stable societal institution.


About 50% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, and I

suspect

The "whatever" attitude that results in a 50% divorce rate is, imo, part

of
the same cultural ambivalence. I wonder how many couples actually read

and
think about the marriage vows they speak.



I don't see it as redefinition as much as inclusion.


It's a redefinition to effect an inclusion, and the question is "Why?"

The
central nut of public policy management is to provide the greatest good

for
the greatest number. Why discommode 97% of the population to the

benefit of
3%?



It does no harm. The fact that marriage ain't what it used to be isn't
the result of homosexuality or gay marriage.


It's the result of moral decay in our society. It's the result of Americans
changing the social "norm" to suit their desires, rather than allowing their
desires to be guided by social norms.


  #20   Report Post  
Old July 15th 04, 06:11 PM
NOYB
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disappointment


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'

Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a

move
to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in

the
Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country

are
not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of
America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag

in
their efforts," Bush said in a statement.
------------------------------------------------

Awwwwwwwww....hopefully, Bush will have a really big disappointment

in
November.

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage

It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed

up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.




Show me proof that same-sex marriage is a serious threat to the
well-being of children, or, better yet, *more serious* threat to the
well-being of children brought up in a traditional household where the
female is dominated by the male or abused by the male, or where one
partner drinks, takes drugs, or where the family doesn't have the
wherewithal for health care, food, shelter, whatever.


Funny that you would compare/equate a same-sex marriage household with

the
other destructive, dysfunctional types of households out there.


Sorry, fella, but I'm just playhing off your illogic.





Show me proof that our society is dominated by homosexuality.


Open a TV Guide and look at the programs that are on every night.
Statistics have shown that homosexuals make up about 10% of our

population.
Programs about homosexuals, or programs that make reference to

homosexuals
constitute a lot larger portion of the nightly TV program lineup than

10%.

Well, that's surely scientific...





Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby.


Yes...one of which can be the rampant spread of homosexuality. When a
civilization loses it's morals, it starts down the slippery slope to
extinction.

Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.


It's one of the reasons why morality is at an all-time low.



I'm blame the decline in morality on right-wing bigortry.


Right wing "bigotry" is nothing more than conservatives trying to maintain
the moral principles that our country was built upon. Any decline in
morality is a result of liberals trying to change social customs that have
worked well for the last two centuries.






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017