"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%?

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.

"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.

NOYB wrote:

"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.




Social norms have been evolving ever since two people discovered each
other climbing out of the primordial "zoup."

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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.



Nonsense, tooth-boy. Assuming 97% of the population is straight, are their
desires going to change because of a new definition of "couple-ness" for
gays who are on the verge of spending their lives together as a household?
As far as I'm concerned, if the gay couple next door wants to make their
union legal, it has absolutely no effect on me.

In fact, I've just made an inaccurate statement. In reality, if the gay
couple wants to pay more taxes like other married people, that's their
business.

When my son has friends over, there's a rule here. If they're going to go
into deep television vegetable mode, I reserve the right to interject one
entire news program. When Bush's legislation was whacked last week, I asked
3 kids what they thought of it. Unanimous answer: A waste of time and effort
when there are more important things to do in Washington. Better watch out.
In three years, these intelligent kids will be ready to vote. My son: "The
dickhead's trying to distract us from the fact that he wants me to get shot
at when I'm 18".

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

My son: "The
dickhead's trying to distract us from the fact that he wants me to get
shot

So it's ok that your son has a foul mouth as long as he's anti-Republican?

If your son has drawn the conclusion that Bush is sending kids over to the
Middle East solely because he wants them to get shot at, then perhaps you
should have tuned him into the news programs 34 months ago. Oh yeah...and
turn off that damned NPR.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

My son: "The
dickhead's trying to distract us from the fact that he wants me to get
shot

So it's ok that your son has a foul mouth as long as he's anti-Republican?

If your son has drawn the conclusion that Bush is sending kids over to the
Middle East solely because he wants them to get shot at, then perhaps you
should have tuned him into the news programs 34 months ago. Oh yeah...and
turn off that damned NPR.

Foul mouth: He reserves it for special people.

His conclusion: There's no reason to believe otherwise.

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.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Why discommode 97% of the population to the benefit of
3%?

The rights of the 87% (number closer to reality)

Wow! It used to be 90%. I guess the homos are winning more converts with
the agenda they've been pushing.

Wow! It used to be 90%. I guess the homos are winning more converts with
the agenda they've been pushing.



My number may be high. Remember, my frame of reference is Seattle. :-)

Here's a chart breaking out US Demographics:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html

I'm not too sure I completely trust the methods of the compilers. (Almost half
the population claims to be "born again" Christians?).......

But, even so:
If these numbers are right-

There are more homosexuals than:

Jews
Assembly of God members
Native Americans
Episcopalians
people in prison
Mennonites
Unitarians
Seventh Day Adventists
Nazarenes
Members of the Libertarian Party

Should people who oppose the customs or beliefs of those groups even smaller
than homosexuals be able to prevent them from entering into civil contracts
simply because they're outnumbered?