"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.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

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

You can figure it out, Harry -- you just claim you can't. Perceived threat
to any individual heterosexual marriage is not the main issue. The issue
seems to be what you might call the fabric of society. 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.

The question is why a society of some 300 million people should redefine an
entire societal structure in order to accommodate the sensibilities of 3% of
that population. It's a thorny issue, and I vacillate myself.

John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

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

You can figure it out, Harry -- you just claim you can't. Perceived threat
to any individual heterosexual marriage is not the main issue. The issue
seems to be what you might call the fabric of society. 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.

So? Are you saying the drop in marriage results from allowing gay
marriage? If that is the case, perhaps gay marriage isn't deviant, eh?

About 50% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, and I suspect
a high percentages of those divorces result in single parent families.



The question is why a society of some 300 million people should redefine an
entire societal structure in order to accommodate the sensibilities of 3% of
that population. It's a thorny issue, and I vacillate myself.

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

"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.

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.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message

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

I've never heard an homosexual population figure as high as 13%. I presume
that includes some fringe members in order to swell the ranks, as it were.
The 10% figure bandied about for years and touted by the "gay rights"
industry is based predominantly on Kinsey's 1948 work, which has years ago
found to be deeply flawed. Current estimates range from 2% to 6%.

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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

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

You can figure it out, Harry -- you just claim you can't. Perceived
threat
to any individual heterosexual marriage is not the main issue. The
issue
seems to be what you might call the fabric of society. 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.

So? Are you saying the drop in marriage results from allowing gay
marriage? If that is the case, perhaps gay marriage isn't deviant, eh?

Homosexual marriage is deviant and abnormal.


About 50% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, and I suspect
a high percentages of those divorces result in single parent families.

The divorce rate reaching 50% is due to the preceeding idiotic idea of no
fault divorces.


The question is why a society of some 300 million people should redefine
an
entire societal structure in order to accommodate the sensibilities of
3% of
that population. It's a thorny issue, and I vacillate myself.

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

If they want to be included they can join in with the majority of society's
norms.