"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.

How about the Whoopee Cushion Gig. Morality at it's worst.

"NOYB" wrote in message news:YkyJc.11133

Statistics have shown that homosexuals make up about 10% of our
population.

Not so. Old figures. Debunked.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:YkyJc.11133

Statistics have shown that homosexuals make up about 10% of our
population.

Not so. Old figures. Debunked.


I was being generous. Since the number is even lower, my point is even more
poignant.

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

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.".

"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.

In article . net,
says...

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.

My God you're dense. How the hell did you get through school? Homos
aren't interested in making the world homosexual, they simply want the
same freedoms the rest of the population is granted. Freedom from
institutionalized prejudice.

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.

"They've" is another fallacy. "They're" not all organized to get us to
accept their lifestyle. "They" want acceptance for what they are, just
like Arabs, Jews, Christians, Black, Red, White, Green.


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.

Perhaps Hitler could give you a few good ideas about how to eliminate
homosexuality. Mother Nature probably wouldn't support your ideas.

There's a boy in our neighborhood who came out that way. I've known him
since he was born. He didn't lick anything up off the floor or get
indoctrinated by the television or radio and share his environment with
a large and extended family that has no other gay people. He's 6 and so
obviously gay it's ridiculous.

That's Mother Nature at work, not "lifestyle *choice*."

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.

You silly dweeb. If you're in a legally committed relationship, you're
far less likely to stray and spread, no?

jps

I wonder if the fine citizens of 'Key West' or 'South Beach' know about
Dr. No and his phobias?

Don White wrote:
I wonder if the fine citizens of 'Key West' or 'South Beach' know about
Dr. No and his phobias?



Why do you think he's scared ****less of publishing any identifying
material?

In article ,
says...


I wonder if the fine citizens of 'Key West' or 'South Beach' know about
Dr. No and his phobias?

He's a mighty scary dude. I wouldn't want to be in his care if I were
anything but white and rich.

jps