Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Disappointment
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|