Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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%? |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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". |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |