"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.

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.

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.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"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.

The problem is guvmint having a hand in marriage to begin with. If it had
not granted special rights (tax law, inheritence, etc) there would be no
debate about the validity of same sex marriages....it would be a non
issue.....Just another example of guvmint run amok

wrote in message

So, you're saying that you swing both ways?

Years ago I flew for a commuter line that started service from Key West to
both Miami and Tampa. For the inaugural festivities we printed up some 5000
t-shirts that said "We go either way" They were gone in just a couple of
hours. :-)

"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.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:52:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby. Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.

So their is no question about Bush's sexuality then?

bb

bb wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:52:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby. Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.

So their is no question about Bush's sexuality then?

bb



I heard the twins were the result of immaculate deception...