Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Happy Ninth Anniversary!
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Mitchell Holman
May 18, 2013, 9:16:27 AM5/18/13
to
Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
05/17/2013
Massachusetts became the first state to legalize
same-sex marriage nine years ago on Friday, after
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that
the state may not "deny the protections, benefits
and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two
individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." The
state Legislature was given 180 days to take action.
It didn't, and on May 17, 2004, Marcia Kadish and
Tanya McCloskey -- a couple who had been together
for 18 years -- tied the knot in the first gay
marriage ceremony in the United States.
The marriage equality movement has come a long way
in the nine years since. Below, a list of the 12 states -
- along with Washington D.C. -- that have legalized gay
marriage.
http://tinyurl.com/anrd2f5
--------------------------------
PATRICK
May 18, 2013, 11:11:19 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
by Eve Tushnet
The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what
marriage is. But perhaps it�s better to begin from a different angle:
Why does society give marriage special honor? Because it�s this honor
that activists are really seeking. If homosexual couples could cobble
together all the bureaucratic oddities and benefits (and penalties)
that attend marriage but the law still refused to call their unions
"marriages," no one can pretend the activists would be satisfied.
What they are seeking is not, or not primarily, the right to confer
Social Security benefits on their partners upon their death or medical
power of attorney. What homosexual activists seek is honor � a Good
Housekeeping Seal of Approval. So we should start with the fact that
our society exalts marriage over all other chosen relationships. Yet
marriage is hardly the only important kind of relationship.
Many women will admit their best friends are closer to them than
anyone else. (This fact has spawned a whole genre of "chick flicks,"
from beaches to Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood.) Many men will
acknowledge they are more open with their friends than with their
wives and that they are fiercely loyal to their friends. We rely on
friends in familial, romantic, financial and medical crises.
Then there are siblings; uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews; beloved
teachers; professional mentors; godparents; and models of faith. Most
of us are blessed with at least one of these people in our lives � the
person who was there for us, who believed in us, who guided us. We
incur great debts to these people, and we live in loyalty to them. But
we are not married to them, and no one is arguing that we should be.
So clearly there is something more about marriage that merits our
attention.
Marriage does more for society than the other kinds of loving,
dedicated relationships. These other relationships do less to nurture
children by giving each child a mother and a father; to corral the
often destructive forces of sexual desire into loving and productive
channels; to bring people from youth to adulthood; and to align the
interests of parents and children rather than forcing tragic choices
between the two. Marriage gets honor from society because it does all
these things more than any institution does or could.
Marriage developed over centuries to meet several specific,
fundamental needs: children�s need for a father, a couple�s need for a
promise of fidelity (and consequences for breaking that promise),
young people�s need for a transition to manhood or womanhood and men�s
(and women�s, but mostly men�s) need for a fruitful rather than
destructive channel for sexual desire � a way of uniting eros and
responsibility. In other words, marriage developed to meet the needs
of opposite sex couples.
At this point, the most common question that arises is, "So what?
Okay, maybe marriage didn�t develop in response to same-sex couples,
but c�mon � how can Bob and Jim getting married really affect your
marriage?" There are three basic reasons to think same-sex marriage
will damage, perhaps fatally, the institution of marriage � maybe not
in this generation, but in the one that grows up with same-sex
marriage as the norm.
The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on
the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial
and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could
write a history of American culture without noting how much of it
began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV
shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to subtler infusions of
"camp" humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority
culture.
The second reason is that homosexual activists are merely picking up
on a trend begun by and for opposite-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is
just the next step in the divorce culture. The belief that marriage is
merely the way that our culture expresses its approval of atomistic
adults� sexual and romantic partnerships isn�t new � it�s the same "me
generation" worldview that produced "fatherless America."
And finally, unlike easy divorce, same-sex marriage would change the
fundamental ideal of marriage. Even the most ardent defenders of
divorce today view it as a necessary evil, a response to the tragedy
of marriage failure. Same-sex marriage by contrast, would say that the
ideal marriage is gender neutral � not a way for boys to become men by
marrying and pledging to care for women. It would say that the ideal
marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned
and chosen � children would become optional extras rather than the
natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union. It would say that the
ideal family need not include a father � a message that is especially
pernicious in a country where one-third of births in 2000 were to
unwed mothers. And it would say (because who can imagine that most
homosexual couples would wed?) that marriage itself is optional, not
the norm � that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I aren�t
heroic, we must not be called to marry. Any one of these changes would
be destructive. Put together, they are a recipe for disaster, a recipe
for revisiting and surpassing the harm done to families by the "sexual
revolution."
Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we
remarry, we split our resources between several sets of children. But
we still have hope that we may recover the true meaning of marriage,
because we still know the ideal: the lifelong, fruitful union that
makes boys into husbands and fathers, and reconciles the "opposite
sexes" to one another. Same-sex marriage would mean losing that ideal
and losing our best hope for marriage renewal.
Copyright � 2003 Circle Media, Inc., National Catholic Register
>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>05/17/2013
What Homosexuals Want
>05/17/2013
by Eve Tushnet
The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what
marriage is. But perhaps it�s better to begin from a different angle:
Why does society give marriage special honor? Because it�s this honor
that activists are really seeking. If homosexual couples could cobble
together all the bureaucratic oddities and benefits (and penalties)
that attend marriage but the law still refused to call their unions
"marriages," no one can pretend the activists would be satisfied.
What they are seeking is not, or not primarily, the right to confer
Social Security benefits on their partners upon their death or medical
power of attorney. What homosexual activists seek is honor � a Good
Housekeeping Seal of Approval. So we should start with the fact that
our society exalts marriage over all other chosen relationships. Yet
marriage is hardly the only important kind of relationship.
Many women will admit their best friends are closer to them than
anyone else. (This fact has spawned a whole genre of "chick flicks,"
from beaches to Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood.) Many men will
acknowledge they are more open with their friends than with their
wives and that they are fiercely loyal to their friends. We rely on
friends in familial, romantic, financial and medical crises.
Then there are siblings; uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews; beloved
teachers; professional mentors; godparents; and models of faith. Most
of us are blessed with at least one of these people in our lives � the
person who was there for us, who believed in us, who guided us. We
incur great debts to these people, and we live in loyalty to them. But
we are not married to them, and no one is arguing that we should be.
So clearly there is something more about marriage that merits our
attention.
Marriage does more for society than the other kinds of loving,
dedicated relationships. These other relationships do less to nurture
children by giving each child a mother and a father; to corral the
often destructive forces of sexual desire into loving and productive
channels; to bring people from youth to adulthood; and to align the
interests of parents and children rather than forcing tragic choices
between the two. Marriage gets honor from society because it does all
these things more than any institution does or could.
Marriage developed over centuries to meet several specific,
fundamental needs: children�s need for a father, a couple�s need for a
promise of fidelity (and consequences for breaking that promise),
young people�s need for a transition to manhood or womanhood and men�s
(and women�s, but mostly men�s) need for a fruitful rather than
destructive channel for sexual desire � a way of uniting eros and
responsibility. In other words, marriage developed to meet the needs
of opposite sex couples.
At this point, the most common question that arises is, "So what?
Okay, maybe marriage didn�t develop in response to same-sex couples,
but c�mon � how can Bob and Jim getting married really affect your
marriage?" There are three basic reasons to think same-sex marriage
will damage, perhaps fatally, the institution of marriage � maybe not
in this generation, but in the one that grows up with same-sex
marriage as the norm.
The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on
the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial
and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could
write a history of American culture without noting how much of it
began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV
shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to subtler infusions of
"camp" humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority
culture.
The second reason is that homosexual activists are merely picking up
on a trend begun by and for opposite-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is
just the next step in the divorce culture. The belief that marriage is
merely the way that our culture expresses its approval of atomistic
adults� sexual and romantic partnerships isn�t new � it�s the same "me
generation" worldview that produced "fatherless America."
And finally, unlike easy divorce, same-sex marriage would change the
fundamental ideal of marriage. Even the most ardent defenders of
divorce today view it as a necessary evil, a response to the tragedy
of marriage failure. Same-sex marriage by contrast, would say that the
ideal marriage is gender neutral � not a way for boys to become men by
marrying and pledging to care for women. It would say that the ideal
marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned
and chosen � children would become optional extras rather than the
natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union. It would say that the
ideal family need not include a father � a message that is especially
pernicious in a country where one-third of births in 2000 were to
unwed mothers. And it would say (because who can imagine that most
homosexual couples would wed?) that marriage itself is optional, not
the norm � that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I aren�t
heroic, we must not be called to marry. Any one of these changes would
be destructive. Put together, they are a recipe for disaster, a recipe
for revisiting and surpassing the harm done to families by the "sexual
revolution."
Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we
remarry, we split our resources between several sets of children. But
we still have hope that we may recover the true meaning of marriage,
because we still know the ideal: the lifelong, fruitful union that
makes boys into husbands and fathers, and reconciles the "opposite
sexes" to one another. Same-sex marriage would mean losing that ideal
and losing our best hope for marriage renewal.
Copyright � 2003 Circle Media, Inc., National Catholic Register
Free Lunch
May 18, 2013, 11:48:24 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:11:19 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>>05/17/2013
>
>What Homosexuals Want
>by Eve Tushnet
Hard to believe that she grew up in an enlightened household, but she
did.
[RC propaganda deleted]
>Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we
>remarry, we split our resources between several sets of children. But
>we still have hope that we may recover the true meaning of marriage,
>because we still know the ideal: the lifelong, fruitful union that
>makes boys into husbands and fathers, and reconciles the "opposite
>sexes" to one another. Same-sex marriage would mean losing that ideal
>and losing our best hope for marriage renewal.
No, it would not. That assumption by the reactionaries shows that they
cannot think clearly.
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>>05/17/2013
>
>What Homosexuals Want
>by Eve Tushnet
did.
[RC propaganda deleted]
>Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we
>remarry, we split our resources between several sets of children. But
>we still have hope that we may recover the true meaning of marriage,
>because we still know the ideal: the lifelong, fruitful union that
>makes boys into husbands and fathers, and reconciles the "opposite
>sexes" to one another. Same-sex marriage would mean losing that ideal
>and losing our best hope for marriage renewal.
cannot think clearly.
Mitchell Holman
May 18, 2013, 1:04:18 PM5/18/13
to
PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:if6fp81b1l650ums2...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>>05/17/2013
>
> What Homosexuals Want
> by Eve Tushnet
>
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
Care to show us what harm has come to anyone from
letting gays marry?
news:if6fp81b1l650ums2...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>>05/17/2013
>
> What Homosexuals Want
> by Eve Tushnet
>
> The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on
> the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial
> and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could
> write a history of American culture without noting how much of it
> began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV
> shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to subtler infusions of
> "camp" humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority
> culture.
Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
> the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial
> and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could
> write a history of American culture without noting how much of it
> began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV
> shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to subtler infusions of
> "camp" humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority
> culture.
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
Care to show us what harm has come to anyone from
letting gays marry?
linuxgal
May 18, 2013, 6:28:29 PM5/18/13
to
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> PATRICK<pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> news:if6fp81b1l650ums2...@4ax.com:
>
> PATRICK<pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> news:if6fp81b1l650ums2...@4ax.com:
>
> Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
> marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
>
> Care to show us what harm has come to anyone from
> letting gays marry?
>
Last November Washington became, simultaneously with Maine and Maryland,
> marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
>
> Care to show us what harm has come to anyone from
> letting gays marry?
>
one the first three states to establish marriage equality by popular
referendum rather than through the legislature or via circumlocutions in
court. Since then my husband of nearly 24 years continues to keep me
warm with absolutely no sign that will ever change.
--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
Jeanne Douglas
May 18, 2013, 9:49:05 PM5/18/13
to
In article <if6fp81b1l650ums2...@4ax.com>,
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
> >05/17/2013
>
> What Homosexuals Want
> by Eve Tushnet
>
> The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what
> marriage is. But perhaps it’s better to begin from a different angle:
> Why does society give marriage special honor?
What special honor?
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
> >05/17/2013
>
> What Homosexuals Want
> by Eve Tushnet
>
> The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what
> marriage is. But perhaps it’s better to begin from a different angle:
> Why does society give marriage special honor?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Jeanne Douglas
May 18, 2013, 9:49:33 PM5/18/13
to
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
> >05/17/2013
>
> What Homosexuals Want
> by Eve Tushnet
>
> The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what
> marriage is. But perhaps it’s better to begin from a different angle:
> Why does society give marriage special honor? Because it’s this honor
> that activists are really seeking. If homosexual couples could cobble
> together all the bureaucratic oddities and benefits (and penalties)
> that attend marriage but the law still refused to call their unions
> "marriages," no one can pretend the activists would be satisfied.
Why should they be?
> >Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
> >05/17/2013
>
> What Homosexuals Want
> by Eve Tushnet
>
> The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what
> marriage is. But perhaps it’s better to begin from a different angle:
> Why does society give marriage special honor? Because it’s this honor
> that activists are really seeking. If homosexual couples could cobble
> together all the bureaucratic oddities and benefits (and penalties)
> that attend marriage but the law still refused to call their unions
> "marriages," no one can pretend the activists would be satisfied.
duke
May 19, 2013, 9:32:27 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>05/17/2013
Satan loves the new fresh meat coming his way.
>
>
>
>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>05/17/2013
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************
duke
May 19, 2013, 9:33:05 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:49:05 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <if6fp81b1l650ums2...@4ax.com>,
> PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> >Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>> >05/17/2013
>>
>> What Homosexuals Want
>> by Eve Tushnet
>>
>> The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what
>> marriage is. But perhaps it’s better to begin from a different angle:
>> Why does society give marriage special honor?
>What special honor?
Sinful act equality with decency.
wrote:
>In article <if6fp81b1l650ums2...@4ax.com>,
> PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> >Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>> >05/17/2013
>>
>> What Homosexuals Want
>> by Eve Tushnet
>>
>> The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what
>> marriage is. But perhaps it’s better to begin from a different angle:
>> Why does society give marriage special honor?
>What special honor?
duke
May 19, 2013, 9:34:03 AM5/19/13
to
duke
May 19, 2013, 1:02:09 PM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:11:19 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>>05/17/2013
>
>What Homosexuals Want
>by Eve Tushnet
What they want is one thing. What they get from God for their evil is another.
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>>05/17/2013
>
>What Homosexuals Want
>by Eve Tushnet
Dreamer In Colore
May 19, 2013, 1:37:47 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:34:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:04:18 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
>>PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>>news:if6fp81b1l650ums2...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>>>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>>>>05/17/2013
>>>
>>> What Homosexuals Want
>>> by Eve Tushnet
>>>
>>> The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on
>>> the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial
>>> and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could
>>> write a history of American culture without noting how much of it
>>> began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV
>>> shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to subtler infusions of
>>> "camp" humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority
>>> culture.
>>
>>
>> Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
>>marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
>
>Heavy Catholic state.
>
Highest in the U.S. in 2008, at 42%... and yet they didn't seem to
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:04:18 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
>>PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>>news:if6fp81b1l650ums2...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>>>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>>>>05/17/2013
>>>
>>> What Homosexuals Want
>>> by Eve Tushnet
>>>
>>> The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on
>>> the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial
>>> and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could
>>> write a history of American culture without noting how much of it
>>> began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV
>>> shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to subtler infusions of
>>> "camp" humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority
>>> culture.
>>
>>
>> Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
>>marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
>
>Heavy Catholic state.
>
have a problem with the gay marriage law. Guess not all Catholics are
as bigoted as you are, Dork. Maybe they take the loving part far more
seriously than you do.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
Kenny McCormack
May 19, 2013, 2:12:54 PM5/19/13
to
In article <ll2ip89csor0vbskr...@4ax.com>,
Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
the honor goes to Rhode Island, at 59.5%.
I had always heard that just about everyone in R.I. was Catholic.
--
> No, I haven't, that's why I'm asking questions. If you won't help me,
> why don't you just go find your lost manhood elsewhere.
CLC in a nutshell.
Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>Highest in the U.S. in 2008, at 42%... and yet they didn't seem to
>have a problem with the gay marriage law. Guess not all Catholics are
>as bigoted as you are, Dork. Maybe they take the loving part far more
>seriously than you do.
Quibble. According to: http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-160.shtml
>have a problem with the gay marriage law. Guess not all Catholics are
>as bigoted as you are, Dork. Maybe they take the loving part far more
>seriously than you do.
the honor goes to Rhode Island, at 59.5%.
I had always heard that just about everyone in R.I. was Catholic.
--
> No, I haven't, that's why I'm asking questions. If you won't help me,
> why don't you just go find your lost manhood elsewhere.
CLC in a nutshell.
PATRICK
May 19, 2013, 2:27:54 PM5/19/13
to
Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize
homosexual relationships.
If same-sex marriage were legalized, all employers, public and
private, large or small, would be required to offer spousal benefits
to homosexual couples. You, as a taxpayer, consumer, or small business
owner, would be forced to bear the expense of subsidizing homosexual
relationships-including their higher health care costs.
Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to
heterosexual ones.
A lesbian who teaches 8th grade sex education in Massachusetts told
NPR that she teaches her children how lesbians use "a sex toy" to have
intercourse. If anyone objects, she says, "Give me a break. It's legal
now." One father was jailed after protesting because his son-a
kindergarten student-was given a book about same-sex couples.
Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened.
Churches and non-profit organizations could be stripped of their tax
exemptions and religious psychologists, social workers, and marriage
counselors could be denied licensing if they "discriminate" against
homosexuals. Individual believers who disapprove of homosexual
relationships may face a choice at work between forfeiting their
freedom of speech and being fired.
Long-Term Effects
Fewer people would marry.
In Massachusetts, where same-sex "marriages" began in May 2004, only
52% of same-sex couples who live together had even bothered to "marry"
by the end of 2006. Among opposite-sex couples, the comparable figure
is 91%. In the Netherlands, the figures are even lower, with only 12%
of homosexual couples having entered legal civil "marriages." Giving
the option of same-sex "marriage" would tell society that marriage in
general is "optional," not normative, and fewer people would marry.
Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful.
Among homosexual men, sex with multiple partners is tolerated and
often expected. One study in the Netherlands showed that homosexual
men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per
year. If these behaviors are incorporated into what society affirms as
"marriage," then fidelity among heterosexuals would likely decline as
well.
Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime.
Even a homosexual psychologist has acknowledged that "gay and lesbian
couples dissolve their relationships more frequently than heterosexual
couples." The same Dutch study that showed the high rate of homosexual
promiscuity also showed that the average homosexual male "partnership"
lasts only 1.5 years. As the transience of homosexual relationships is
incorporated in society's image of "marriage," we can expect that
fewer heterosexuals would maintain a lifelong commitment.
Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.
Social science has clearly proven clearly that children do best when
raised by their own married biological mother and father. Yet
legalizing same-sex "marriage" would put an official stamp of approval
on the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless
families. As scholar Stanley Kurtz says, this "would likely speed us
on the way toward
. . . more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family
dissolution."
More children would grow up fatherless.
Most children who live with only one biological parent will live with
their mothers, and lesbian couples are more likely to be raising
children than homosexual male couples. Therefore, with same-sex
"marriage," more children would suffer the specific negative
consequences of fatherlessness, which include higher rates of youth
incarceration among males and adolescent pregnancy among females.
Research also shows negative outcomes for the children of sperm
donors, who are used by some lesbian couples.
Birth rates would fall.
Same-sex "marriage" would eliminate the incentive for procreation that
is implicit in defining marriage as a male-female union. There is
already evidence of at least a correlation between same-sex "marriage"
and low birth and fertility rates, both in the U.S. and abroad. While
some people still harbor outdated fears about "over-population,"
demographers now understand that declining birth rates harm society.
Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow.
If a person's choice of spouse cannot be limited based on the sex of
one's partner, it is hard to see how it could be limited based on the
number of spouses either. This argument is already being pressed in
the courts.
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/the-top-ten-harms-of-same-sex-marriage
Dreamer In Colore
May 19, 2013, 4:00:42 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:12:54 +0000 (UTC), gaz...@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>In article <ll2ip89csor0vbskr...@4ax.com>,
>Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>...
>>Highest in the U.S. in 2008, at 42%... and yet they didn't seem to
>>have a problem with the gay marriage law. Guess not all Catholics are
>>as bigoted as you are, Dork. Maybe they take the loving part far more
>>seriously than you do.
>
>Quibble. According to: http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-160.shtml
>the honor goes to Rhode Island, at 59.5%.
>
>I had always heard that just about everyone in R.I. was Catholic.
Dang. Gotta get my eyes checked. Thanks for the correction, Kenny.
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>In article <ll2ip89csor0vbskr...@4ax.com>,
>Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>...
>>Highest in the U.S. in 2008, at 42%... and yet they didn't seem to
>>have a problem with the gay marriage law. Guess not all Catholics are
>>as bigoted as you are, Dork. Maybe they take the loving part far more
>>seriously than you do.
>
>Quibble. According to: http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-160.shtml
>the honor goes to Rhode Island, at 59.5%.
>
>I had always heard that just about everyone in R.I. was Catholic.
Turns out gay marriage is legal there too.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
W.T.S.
May 19, 2013, 10:13:14 PM5/19/13
to
In article <fa6ip818904figqtg...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
@woh.rr.com says...
nonsense, lies, disinformation, propaganda, bigotry, hate and general
filth, why repost right wing religious nonsense and make everyone sick
to their stomachs, again???
>
> http://www.FamilyShitCrap.biz/Lies/Bigotry/Disinformation/Hate/
>
Summary: No state has ever had a problem of any sort with same sex
marriage. End of story, what else is new?
>
P.S. The "Family" Research Council is _not_ a reliable source of news
or information of any sort. The FRC is a _recognized_ hate group.
Regard and treat it as such!
>
Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
>
http://tinyurl.com/anghyfr
>
http://tinyurl.com/a887er9
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
http://tinyurl.com/ayk7czf
>
http://tinyurl.com/43hp62x
>
http://tinyurl.com/b29z62n
>
The methodology of the Religious and the Right has always been:
1. Lie.
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible.
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible.
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie.
5. The lie will then be made into some form of law.
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie.
-> Slow thinkers --> Stay Right
@woh.rr.com says...
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:04:18 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >news:if6fp81b1l650ums2...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >>>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
> >>>05/17/2013
> >>
> >> What Homosexuals Want
> >> by Eve Tushnet
> >>
> >> The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on
> >> the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial
> >> and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could
> >> write a history of American culture without noting how much of it
> >> began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV
> >> shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to subtler infusions of
> >> "camp" humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority
> >> culture.
> >
> > Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
> >marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
> >
> > Care to show us what harm has come to anyone from
> >letting gays marry?
>
<snip> Long spew of pure, lying bull shit of the worst sort, made up
> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >news:if6fp81b1l650ums2...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >>>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
> >>>05/17/2013
> >>
> >> What Homosexuals Want
> >> by Eve Tushnet
> >>
> >> The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on
> >> the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial
> >> and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could
> >> write a history of American culture without noting how much of it
> >> began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV
> >> shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to subtler infusions of
> >> "camp" humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority
> >> culture.
> >
> > Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
> >marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
> >
> > Care to show us what harm has come to anyone from
> >letting gays marry?
>
nonsense, lies, disinformation, propaganda, bigotry, hate and general
filth, why repost right wing religious nonsense and make everyone sick
to their stomachs, again???
>
> http://www.FamilyShitCrap.biz/Lies/Bigotry/Disinformation/Hate/
>
Summary: No state has ever had a problem of any sort with same sex
marriage. End of story, what else is new?
>
P.S. The "Family" Research Council is _not_ a reliable source of news
or information of any sort. The FRC is a _recognized_ hate group.
Regard and treat it as such!
>
Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
>
http://tinyurl.com/anghyfr
>
http://tinyurl.com/a887er9
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
http://tinyurl.com/ayk7czf
>
http://tinyurl.com/43hp62x
>
http://tinyurl.com/b29z62n
>
The methodology of the Religious and the Right has always been:
1. Lie.
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible.
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible.
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie.
5. The lie will then be made into some form of law.
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie.
-> Slow thinkers --> Stay Right
Mitchell Holman
May 19, 2013, 10:15:29 PM5/19/13
to
PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:fa6ip818904figqtg...@4ax.com:
Just like hetero marriages. Marriages are
marriages. Did you complain that interracial
marriages would "force taxypayers to subsidize
their relationships"?
>
> Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened.
What "religious liberty"? Marriages are a matter
of licenses issued by the government, hardly a church
affair.
>
> Fewer people would marry.
The state with the lowest rate of marriage
is.....Mississippi.
http://tinyurl.com/d4lxggg
Care to blame THAT on gays?
>
> Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful.
>
The states with the highest divorce rates
are Nevada, Arkansas and Wyoming. The state
with the lowest is....gay marrying Massachusetts.
>
> Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime.
Like divorce veterans Newt Gingrich,
Rudy Guiliani, Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole,
Mark Sanford and Clint Eastwood?
>
> Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.
Unwed mothers are the fault of gays?
Really?
> More children would grow up fatherless.
>
Like Bristol Palin's child?
That must be the fault of gays too.
>
> Birth rates would fall.
Good. Think about that while you are
stuck in traffic and waiting in line at
the DMV and looking for work.
news:fa6ip818904figqtg...@4ax.com:
marriages. Did you complain that interracial
marriages would "force taxypayers to subsidize
their relationships"?
>
> Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened.
of licenses issued by the government, hardly a church
affair.
>
> Fewer people would marry.
The state with the lowest rate of marriage
is.....Mississippi.
http://tinyurl.com/d4lxggg
Care to blame THAT on gays?
>
> Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful.
>
are Nevada, Arkansas and Wyoming. The state
with the lowest is....gay marrying Massachusetts.
>
> Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime.
Rudy Guiliani, Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole,
Mark Sanford and Clint Eastwood?
>
> Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.
Really?
> More children would grow up fatherless.
>
That must be the fault of gays too.
>
> Birth rates would fall.
Good. Think about that while you are
stuck in traffic and waiting in line at
the DMV and looking for work.
W.T.S.
May 19, 2013, 10:23:52 PM5/19/13
to
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:04:18 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >news:if6fp81b1l650ums2...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >>>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
> >>>05/17/2013
> >>
> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >news:if6fp81b1l650ums2...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >>>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
> >>>05/17/2013
> >>
> > Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
> >marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
> >
> > Care to show us what harm has come to anyone from
> >letting gays marry?
>
> >marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
> >
> > Care to show us what harm has come to anyone from
> >letting gays marry?
>
> Birth rates would fall.
>
> Same-sex "marriage" would eliminate the incentive for procreation that
> is implicit in defining marriage as a male-female union. There is
> already evidence of at least a correlation between same-sex "marriage"
> and low birth and fertility rates, both in the U.S. and abroad. While
> some people still harbor outdated fears about "over-population,"
> demographers now understand that declining birth rates harm society.
Try selling that to China or India. Someone has to has to be running
>
> Same-sex "marriage" would eliminate the incentive for procreation that
> is implicit in defining marriage as a male-female union. There is
> already evidence of at least a correlation between same-sex "marriage"
> and low birth and fertility rates, both in the U.S. and abroad. While
> some people still harbor outdated fears about "over-population,"
> demographers now understand that declining birth rates harm society.
about four quarts low to try to spread that sort of bull shit
disinformation! If continued at its present rate, civilization will
collapse, large reduction of population is the world's only hope. There
are no rabbits left for the scientists to pull out of their hat.
>
> http://www.DonkeyFamilyFuckers.biz/Hate/Lies/Disinformation/Bigotry/
>
Summary: The FRC seems Hell bent on destroying the future of humanity.
W.T.S.
May 19, 2013, 10:29:16 PM5/19/13
to
In article <va1ip8lit3r130b12...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
> >by Pope Asshole the LXIX
>
> What we want from God is one thing. What we're getting from God is
> jack shit!
>
> The pukester, CatholiKKK Stool.
> ********************************************
> Denounce Catholicism!
@cox.net says...
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:11:19 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >
> >What Catholics Want
>
> >On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >
> >by Pope Asshole the LXIX
>
> What we want from God is one thing. What we're getting from God is
> jack shit!
>
> The pukester, CatholiKKK Stool.
> ********************************************
> Denounce Catholicism!
> You simply can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************
> ********************************************
�RLMeasures
May 20, 2013, 4:57:16 AM5/20/13
to
In article <MPG.2c034185d...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
� California currently has a problem with Proposition 8. Apparently the
story isn't over and neither is Democracy. .
story isn't over and neither is Democracy. .
duke
May 20, 2013, 8:25:32 AM5/20/13
to
homos will not inherit the kingdom of God. That's says it's evil, and depraved.
Further, God said that **marriage** is a union of one man and one woman with his
blessings. A queer union violates both.
That some desire to commit spiritual suicide is not my issue. That's it's a
depravity in my neighborhood, city, state, country is. It falls in the same
deprave category as abortion.
>Cheers,
>Dreamer
>AA 2306
duke
May 20, 2013, 8:26:31 AM5/20/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:00:42 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:12:54 +0000 (UTC), gaz...@shell.xmission.com
>(Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
>>In article <ll2ip89csor0vbskr...@4ax.com>,
>>Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>...
>>>Highest in the U.S. in 2008, at 42%... and yet they didn't seem to
>>>have a problem with the gay marriage law. Guess not all Catholics are
>>>as bigoted as you are, Dork. Maybe they take the loving part far more
>>>seriously than you do.
>>
>>Quibble. According to: http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-160.shtml
>>the honor goes to Rhode Island, at 59.5%.
>>
>>I had always heard that just about everyone in R.I. was Catholic.
>
>Dang. Gotta get my eyes checked. Thanks for the correction, Kenny.
>Turns out gay marriage is legal there too.
As satan pronounces "more fresh meat coming my way".
>On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:12:54 +0000 (UTC), gaz...@shell.xmission.com
>(Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
>>In article <ll2ip89csor0vbskr...@4ax.com>,
>>Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>...
>>>Highest in the U.S. in 2008, at 42%... and yet they didn't seem to
>>>have a problem with the gay marriage law. Guess not all Catholics are
>>>as bigoted as you are, Dork. Maybe they take the loving part far more
>>>seriously than you do.
>>
>>Quibble. According to: http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-160.shtml
>>the honor goes to Rhode Island, at 59.5%.
>>
>>I had always heard that just about everyone in R.I. was Catholic.
>
>Dang. Gotta get my eyes checked. Thanks for the correction, Kenny.
>Turns out gay marriage is legal there too.
Dreamer In Colore
May 20, 2013, 9:01:06 AM5/20/13
to
one-liner to express your bigotry.
At the end of the day, you can fight all you like, but it seems that
gay marriage is slowly becoming legal. And that's the point. Here, on
this earth, in this lifetime, gay people have rights too. I know you
hate it, but you're going to have to suck that up. Their eternal
damnation is just speculation, but their living rights can be assured.
And how is that a bad thing? They're human beings.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
Jeanne Douglas
May 20, 2013, 5:07:21 PM5/20/13
to
In article <9a5kp8dmtcqrk9spa...@4ax.com>,
Who cares what your religion says outside of your churches? It is
completely irrelevant to the law.
Why do you think your religious views should be forced on people who
don't share them?
completely irrelevant to the law.
Why do you think your religious views should be forced on people who
don't share them?
PATRICK
May 20, 2013, 7:37:30 PM5/20/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 21:13:14 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
<yawn>
Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
wrote:
Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
PATRICK
May 20, 2013, 7:39:51 PM5/20/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 21:15:29 -0500, Mitchell Holman
That is not a problem in America.
None of the black women marry their men.
If they did, the men would be responsible for child support.
Instead the taxpayers support the black women and their babies.
And.... their boyfriends when they are not in prison.
None of the black women marry their men.
If they did, the men would be responsible for child support.
Instead the taxpayers support the black women and their babies.
And.... their boyfriends when they are not in prison.
Free Lunch
May 20, 2013, 7:41:30 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 19:39:51 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:
Patrick reminds us that he is an incredibly racist liar.
>If they did, the men would be responsible for child support.
If you weren't such a racist liar, you would know that the father is
already responsible whether married or not.
>Instead the taxpayers support the black women and their babies.
Apparently Patrick has no knowledge about anything related to America's
welfare system.
>And.... their boyfriends when they are not in prison.
Your racism reminds us that you are not a Roman Catholic.
wrote in alt.atheism:
>If they did, the men would be responsible for child support.
already responsible whether married or not.
>Instead the taxpayers support the black women and their babies.
welfare system.
>And.... their boyfriends when they are not in prison.
PATRICK
May 21, 2013, 6:37:53 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:41:30 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
You may wish to ignore facts, but....
The collapse of marriage among blacks is well documented, but not the
sexual, psychological, emotional and social toll this has taken on
black women. Seven out of ten are single. Of the others, many are
forced into �man-sharing�.
This crisis in the black �relationship market�, starts with a �man
shortage�. About one in ten black men in their early thirties are in
prison.Another two of them are somewhere in the criminal justice
system. As a group, black men have also fallen behind in education
and income, just as black women have surged ahead. Two black women
graduate from college for every black man. As these women rise into
the middle class, the men stay in the lower class, becoming less
compatible.
Many black women respond by �marrying down, but not out,� as Mr Banks
puts it. But that makes bad marriages. Two out of every three black
marriages fail, about twice the rate of white marriages.
The real problem is the behavior of those few black men who are
considered good catches. They often stay unmarried for the opposite
reason: they have too many options. As one man told Mr Banks: �If you
have four quality women you're dating and they're in a rotation, who's
going to rush into a marriage?� Even black men who nominally commit to
one woman are five times as likely as their white counterparts to have
others on the side.
http://www.economist.com/node/21532296?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
wrote:
The collapse of marriage among blacks is well documented, but not the
sexual, psychological, emotional and social toll this has taken on
black women. Seven out of ten are single. Of the others, many are
forced into �man-sharing�.
This crisis in the black �relationship market�, starts with a �man
shortage�. About one in ten black men in their early thirties are in
prison.Another two of them are somewhere in the criminal justice
system. As a group, black men have also fallen behind in education
and income, just as black women have surged ahead. Two black women
graduate from college for every black man. As these women rise into
the middle class, the men stay in the lower class, becoming less
compatible.
Many black women respond by �marrying down, but not out,� as Mr Banks
puts it. But that makes bad marriages. Two out of every three black
marriages fail, about twice the rate of white marriages.
The real problem is the behavior of those few black men who are
considered good catches. They often stay unmarried for the opposite
reason: they have too many options. As one man told Mr Banks: �If you
have four quality women you're dating and they're in a rotation, who's
going to rush into a marriage?� Even black men who nominally commit to
one woman are five times as likely as their white counterparts to have
others on the side.
http://www.economist.com/node/21532296?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
PATRICK
May 21, 2013, 6:39:12 AM5/21/13
to
Write Comment 1 Comment and 0 Reactions Printable Article
Email Article
Font:
The Ten Biggest Problems Facing African-Americans Today
By: Lee McGrath
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, September 03, 2002
The Ten Biggest Problems Facing African-Americans Today. Ranked in
order of Despair Caused.
1. Lack of opportunity and safety. There has been a loss of industrial
jobs and a failure to control crime in northern cities by liberal
mayors for most of the last 40 years. The policies of Coleman Young,
John Lindsey, Abe Beame, Ed Koch, David Dinkins, Dennis Kucinich,
Marion Barry and others hurt blacks now and forever.
2. Breakdown of the family. Until recently, welfare was a
constitutional right (Goldberg v. Kelly) that makes government
dependency more attractive than husbands. Illegitimacy increased from
23.6% in 1963 to nearly 70% of all black children today. This
persistent problem was predicted by the Moynihan and Glazier more than
30 years ago and by FDR�s Secretary of Labor Francis Perkins who
insisted that aid not go to unwed mothers. Policy makers and
politicians did not listen until 1996. Some still don�t see how
welfare reduces the value of black men.
3. Black anti-intellectualism. Accusations of �acting white� in the
classroom, as detailed by John McWhorter, undermine education as a
vehicle for advancement. Instead, black leaders expend enormous
resources to advance affirmative action at a small number of elite
universities, unmindful of the pernicious effects it has had on
talented young blacks.
4. Failure of urban K-12 schools. Teachers unions and the education
establishment have been more interested in pay-raises and grants than
student achievement, testing, and competition from Catholic schools.
Not to mention the costs of replacing the more effective Basic
Instruction with the Self-Esteem pedagogy.
The failure of urban schools is not attributable to a lack of funding.
There has been a 300% real increase in per pupil spending since 1970.
This increase has been only modestly offset by increases in special
need students from 8.3% to 11.8% of the student body � of which the
percentage of seriously challenged children actually declined. The
limits of throwing money at the problem were seen in Kansas City�s
$1.2 billion debacle.
5. High incarceration rate of black men. The Democratic Party is a
co-conspirator in the �War on Drugs� to garner suburban votes. Instead
it should fight to decriminalize drugs and reduce the jail time served
by family members of its most loyal voters.
6. Reduced respect for human life. Black women have nearly 30% of the
all abortions, resulting in the death of 350,000 fetuses a year or one
every 90 seconds. Beyond the tragic loss of life itself, this much
death reduces the civility with which people treat each other.
7. Licensing requirements. Government imposes barriers to
labor-intensive entrepreneurial opportunities. (Hair
braiding/cosmetology degrees and taxi medallions). Licenses are a
de-facto re-creation of Jim Crow laws. They are passed in the name of
health and safety but serve to protect, in reality, current cartel
providers and union jobs. Moreover, continual increases in the minimum
wage make it more attractive to invest in capital equipment than hire
unskilled black workers in entry level training positions.
8. Victimolgy. The speeches and ideologies of Jesse Jackson, Al
Sharpton and leaders in the reparation movement undermine the
initiative of many African Americans. Moreover, there is a lack of
honest debate among black leaders because of the fear of being called
an �Uncle Tom� for not supporting the grievance agenda.
9. Radical relativism. Black leaders and liberal academics do not
criticize even the most obscene behavior of people like Puff Daddy, OJ
Simpson, and Dennis Rodman. They fail to see the effects on youth of
Hip-Hop culture. Instead they applaud the legitimacy it receives from
people like Harvard University Professor Dr. Cornel West. (Larry
Summers was right).
10. Excessive race-consciousness. The Left is insincere in
acknowledging the advancement in race relations since the early
1960�s. 75% of blacks have joined the middle class. If they lived in
an independent country, they would be citizens of the 10th richest
nation in the world. Race matters but not very much.
Race-consciousness diminishes the importance of addressing the more
important issues listed above.
duke
May 21, 2013, 7:33:21 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:01:06 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
Your uninformed comments generally don't take more. Why would you expect any
difference? God specifically condemned homosexual activity, which is a complete
waste of the procreation design given by God. Those that elect to defy God and
go their own way will clearly find only temporary pleasure.
>At the end of the day, you can fight all you like, but it seems that
>gay marriage is slowly becoming legal.
Legal has nothing to do with it. That's what you people don't get. I don't
care if people butt ram each other in that respect. And uneducated people like
you that just don't get it are always the ones bringing it up.
> And that's the point. Here, on
>this earth, in this lifetime, gay people have rights too.
Of course they do. But God's court is the final one.
>I know you
>hate it, but you're going to have to suck that up.
You understand nothing of the kind.
>Their eternal
>damnation is just speculation, but their living rights can be assured.
>And how is that a bad thing? They're human beings.
Bound for the flames by their choice.
difference? God specifically condemned homosexual activity, which is a complete
waste of the procreation design given by God. Those that elect to defy God and
go their own way will clearly find only temporary pleasure.
>At the end of the day, you can fight all you like, but it seems that
>gay marriage is slowly becoming legal.
care if people butt ram each other in that respect. And uneducated people like
you that just don't get it are always the ones bringing it up.
> And that's the point. Here, on
>this earth, in this lifetime, gay people have rights too.
>I know you
>hate it, but you're going to have to suck that up.
>Their eternal
>damnation is just speculation, but their living rights can be assured.
>And how is that a bad thing? They're human beings.
duke
May 21, 2013, 7:35:10 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:07:21 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
The law is completely irrelevant to God.
>Why do you think your religious views should be forced on people who
>don't share them?
God is mankind's final judge. Like it or not.
wrote:
>Why do you think your religious views should be forced on people who
>don't share them?
Mitchell Holman
May 21, 2013, 9:01:53 AM5/21/13
to
PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:0mjmp89llaoijf9ie...@4ax.com:
"Today" being......11 years ago?
Sheesh................
news:0mjmp89llaoijf9ie...@4ax.com:
Sheesh................
Jeanne Douglas
May 21, 2013, 7:34:13 PM5/21/13
to
In article <asmmp8lhjiok28e83...@4ax.com>,
Irrelevant.
Why do you think you can force people to live by your religious beliefs
when they don't share them?
Why do you think you can force people to live by your religious beliefs
when they don't share them?
Jeanne Douglas
May 21, 2013, 7:35:44 PM5/21/13
to
In article <k5mmp8hulbjamr8s6...@4ax.com>,
Your god also condemned eating shellfish and pork.
So why do you give the condemnation of homosexuality more credence than
the condemnation of the eating of shellfish and pork?
So why do you give the condemnation of homosexuality more credence than
the condemnation of the eating of shellfish and pork?
PATRICK
May 22, 2013, 6:24:53 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:35:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>
>Your god also condemned eating shellfish and pork.
No, He did not.
>Your god also condemned eating shellfish and pork.
duke
May 22, 2013, 7:15:18 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:35:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
Actually he did NOT. I can't imagine why God would object to shellfish or pork
However, analysis of past history reveals that the Jewish nation, as it
developed, took the Levi laws and,over the centuries, imparted practical but
"not God given" health information. Hence we have shellfish (scavengers and
bottom feeders) classified as health risks and pork, as poorly prepared, loaded
down with trichinosis.
It's amazing what knowledge brings out then it comes time for understanding.
>So why do you give the condemnation of homosexuality more credence than
>the condemnation of the eating of shellfish and pork?
God specifically stated that homosexuality is a depravity that will not be
acceptable in heaven. Even if God had not said it, we know that there is no
value to butt ramming. It clearly can't procreate humankind, is an AIDS
generator, and is for purely fleshly desires without spiritual desires for those
so inclined.
wrote:
However, analysis of past history reveals that the Jewish nation, as it
developed, took the Levi laws and,over the centuries, imparted practical but
"not God given" health information. Hence we have shellfish (scavengers and
bottom feeders) classified as health risks and pork, as poorly prepared, loaded
down with trichinosis.
It's amazing what knowledge brings out then it comes time for understanding.
>So why do you give the condemnation of homosexuality more credence than
>the condemnation of the eating of shellfish and pork?
acceptable in heaven. Even if God had not said it, we know that there is no
value to butt ramming. It clearly can't procreate humankind, is an AIDS
generator, and is for purely fleshly desires without spiritual desires for those
so inclined.
duke
May 22, 2013, 7:18:02 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:34:13 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
>> >Who cares what your religion says outside of your churches? It is
>> >completely irrelevant to the law.
>> The law is completely irrelevant to God.
>> >Why do you think your religious views should be forced on people who
>> >don't share them?
>
>> God is mankind's final judge. Like it or not.
>Irrelevant.
I'm telling you that God is final judge of all mankind - Christian, Jew, Muslim,
atheist, Buddhist, etc, etc.
>Why do you think you can force people to live by your religious beliefs
>when they don't share them?
I'm not. I'm telling you that you can't escape judgment, believe or not..
wrote:
>> >Who cares what your religion says outside of your churches? It is
>> >completely irrelevant to the law.
>> The law is completely irrelevant to God.
>> >Why do you think your religious views should be forced on people who
>> >don't share them?
>
>> God is mankind's final judge. Like it or not.
>Irrelevant.
atheist, Buddhist, etc, etc.
>Why do you think you can force people to live by your religious beliefs
>when they don't share them?
Mitchell Holman
May 22, 2013, 8:20:16 AM5/22/13
to
PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:a67pp8lvkk2nk7bi8...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:35:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>
>>Your god also condemned eating shellfish and pork.
>
> No, He did not.
>
They are all "abominations".
Read your Bible before making
a fool of yourself.
news:a67pp8lvkk2nk7bi8...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:35:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>
>>Your god also condemned eating shellfish and pork.
>
> No, He did not.
>
Read your Bible before making
a fool of yourself.
PATRICK
May 22, 2013, 11:27:59 AM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:20:16 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>news:a67pp8lvkk2nk7bi8...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:35:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>
>>>Your god also condemned eating shellfish and pork.
>>
>> No, He did not.
>>
>
> They are all "abominations".
>
> Read your Bible before making
>a fool of yourself.
You made the silly claim.
<nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>news:a67pp8lvkk2nk7bi8...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:35:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>
>>>Your god also condemned eating shellfish and pork.
>>
>> No, He did not.
>>
>
> They are all "abominations".
>
> Read your Bible before making
>a fool of yourself.
You prove it.
With evidence.
Jeanne Douglas
May 22, 2013, 9:35:06 PM5/22/13
to
Jeanne Douglas
May 22, 2013, 9:41:59 PM5/22/13
to
In article <a67pp8lvkk2nk7bi8...@4ax.com>,
proven.
Leviticus 11:9-12
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins
and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye
eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers,
of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the
waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their
flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an
abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11:7 ?
"And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is
unclean for you."
And then there are the other abominations in Leviticus that nobody
follows:
Leviticus 19:19
19 "'Keep my decrees.
"'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
"'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
"'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
(This one's another reason I could never believe in gods; life without
spandex blends would be intolerable.)
> >So why do you give the condemnation of homosexuality more credence than
> >the condemnation of the eating of shellfish and pork?
So please answer this question.
PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:35:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >
> >Your god also condemned eating shellfish and pork.
>
> No, He did not.
I'll never understand why they lie about things that can be so easily
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:35:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >
> >Your god also condemned eating shellfish and pork.
>
> No, He did not.
proven.
Leviticus 11:9-12
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins
and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye
eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers,
of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the
waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their
flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an
abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11:7 ?
"And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is
unclean for you."
And then there are the other abominations in Leviticus that nobody
follows:
Leviticus 19:19
19 "'Keep my decrees.
"'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
"'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
"'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
(This one's another reason I could never believe in gods; life without
spandex blends would be intolerable.)
> >So why do you give the condemnation of homosexuality more credence than
> >the condemnation of the eating of shellfish and pork?
Jack
May 23, 2013, 12:05:16 AM5/23/13
to
On May 18, 11:11 am, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>
> >Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
> >05/17/2013
>
> What Homosexuals Want
> by Eve Tushnet
>
> The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>
> >Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
> >05/17/2013
>
> What Homosexuals Want
> by Eve Tushnet
>
> marriage is. But perhaps it’s better to begin from a different angle:
> Why does society give marriage special honor? Because it’s this honor
> that activists are really seeking. If homosexual couples could cobble
> together all the bureaucratic oddities and benefits (and penalties)
> that attend marriage but the law still refused to call their unions
> "marriages," no one can pretend the activists would be satisfied.
Because 'Separate but Equal' is never equal.
> What they are seeking is not, or not primarily, the right to confer
> Social Security benefits on their partners upon their death or medical
> power of attorney. What homosexual activists seek is honor – a Good
> Housekeeping Seal of Approval. So we should start with the fact that
> our society exalts marriage over all other chosen relationships. Yet
> marriage is hardly the only important kind of relationship.
What they seek is equality. I would prefer that government stop
using the term 'marriage' and called all such unions by a non-
religious
name such as 'domestic partnership' or 'civil union' however as long
as government uses the term 'marriage' is should apply to all.
> Many women will admit their best friends are closer to them than
> anyone else. (This fact has spawned a whole genre of "chick flicks,"
> from beaches to Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood.) Many men will
> acknowledge they are more open with their friends than with their
> wives and that they are fiercely loyal to their friends. We rely on
> friends in familial, romantic, financial and medical crises.
>
> Then there are siblings; uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews; beloved
> teachers; professional mentors; godparents; and models of faith. Most
> of us are blessed with at least one of these people in our lives – the
> person who was there for us, who believed in us, who guided us. We
> incur great debts to these people, and we live in loyalty to them. But
> we are not married to them, and no one is arguing that we should be.
> So clearly there is something more about marriage that merits our
> attention.
>
> Marriage does more for society than the other kinds of loving,
> dedicated relationships. These other relationships do less to nurture
> children by giving each child a mother and a father; to corral the
> often destructive forces of sexual desire into loving and productive
> channels; to bring people from youth to adulthood; and to align the
> interests of parents and children rather than forcing tragic choices
> between the two. Marriage gets honor from society because it does all
> these things more than any institution does or could.
All of which equally apply to gay marriage.
> Marriage developed over centuries to meet several specific,
> fundamental needs: children’s need for a father, a couple’s need for a
> promise of fidelity (and consequences for breaking that promise),
> young people’s need for a transition to manhood or womanhood and men’s
> (and women’s, but mostly men’s) need for a fruitful rather than
> destructive channel for sexual desire – a way of uniting eros and
> responsibility. In other words, marriage developed to meet the needs
> of opposite sex couples.
Even if true (and not all of it is) marriage has developed to be much
more. The only thing in your list above that does not apply to gay
marriage is the unsupported claim that 'children need a father'. (And
in some gay marriages they would have two.)
> At this point, the most common question that arises is, "So what?
> Okay, maybe marriage didn’t develop in response to same-sex couples,
> but c’mon – how can Bob and Jim getting married really affect your
> marriage?" There are three basic reasons to think same-sex marriage
> will damage, perhaps fatally, the institution of marriage – maybe not
> in this generation, but in the one that grows up with same-sex
> marriage as the norm.
>
> The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on
> the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial
> and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could
> write a history of American culture without noting how much of it
> began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV
> shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to subtler infusions of
> "camp" humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority
> culture.
This sounds like a reason to support gay marriage, not oppose it.
> The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on
> the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial
> and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could
> write a history of American culture without noting how much of it
> began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV
> shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to subtler infusions of
> "camp" humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority
> culture.
One of the strengths of America is it takes the best from a variety
of
cultures. Do you think America would be better off without
“black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture.” Are you racist in
addition to being anti-gay?
> The second reason is that homosexual activists are merely picking up
> on a trend begun by and for opposite-sex couples.
Yes, gay couples want the same things as opposite-sex couples.
> Same-sex marriage is
> just the next step in the divorce culture. The belief that marriage is
> merely the way that our culture expresses its approval of atomistic
> adults’ sexual and romantic partnerships isn’t new
Your beef isn't with gay marriage. It's simply that marriage is not
what
you want it to be. Forcing your view of marriage on everyone else
will not work. We've seen the light and do not want to go back to
the dark ages.
> – it’s the same "me
> generation" worldview that produced "fatherless America."
'Fatherless America” has nothing to do with gay marriage.
> And finally, unlike easy divorce, same-sex marriage would change the
> fundamental ideal of marriage.
Divorce was a much bigger change than same-sex marriage will ever be.
And it was a change in the right direction. Or do you think we should
go back to bad old days where the only way to get out of a bad
marriage was to kill your spouse?
> Even the most ardent defenders of
> divorce today view it as a necessary evil, a response to the tragedy
> of marriage failure.
We all want to live in a fairy tale world with 'happy ever after'
endings
but reality keeps getting in the way. Only a few idiots think it's a
good
thing to force people to stay in a bad marriage.
> Same-sex marriage by contrast, would say that the
> ideal marriage is gender neutral
The ideal marriage is different for everyone. There is no
one-size-fits-all marriage.
> – not a way for boys to become men by
> marrying and pledging to care for women.
Sorry, that's not how 'boys become men'. Not in any society
that ever existed.
> It would say that the ideal
> marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned
> and chosen
YES!!! Why would anyone think otherwise? Do you
really think people to having children they don't
want or can't support is a good thing?
> – children would become optional extras rather than the
> natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union.
Children have NEVER been a requirement of marriage.
> It would say that the
> ideal family need not include a father
Once again ideal is different for everyone. Why is a father
required? Would you prefer a family with an abusive father or no
father?
> – a message that is especially
> pernicious in a country where one-third of births in 2000 were to
> unwed mothers.
So gay marriage is now responsible for unwed mothers?
> And it would say (because who can imagine that most
> homosexual couples would wed?) that marriage itself is optional,
Of course it is, or do you want to force everyone to be married?
> not
> the norm – that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I aren’t
> heroic, we must not be called to marry.
Now you are going off the deep end. So you contend that
anything that is not required is 'only for heroes'? That is
truly bizarre.
> Any one of these changes would
> be destructive. Put together, they are a recipe for disaster, a recipe
> for revisiting and surpassing the harm done to families by the "sexual
> revolution."
So you want to go back to the good old days with no divorce and
no birth control. Sex is only for making babies and can only be
done missionary style and in the dark. Sex for fun is a sin and
practitioners should be burned at the stake. And if you get into
a bad marriage suck it up and live with it. You made your choice
and your stuck with it forever.
Fortunately few people agree with you. Divorce, woman's lib, the
sexual revolution, and now gay marriage are seen as progress,
not backsliding. You are free to live your live by your medieval
beliefs but the rest of us will proudly move on to the 21st century.
> Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we
> remarry, we split our resources between several sets of children.
All of which have nothing to do with gay marriage.
> But
> we still have hope that we may recover the true meaning of marriage,
You mean YOUR definition of marriage. Stop trying to force your
view of marriage on everyone else. No one is forcing you into a gay
marriage or telling you you must get a divorce. If you think sex is
only
for making babies that is fine. Don't try and force the rest of the
world into living by your ideals and we promise not to force you to
divorce your wife and marry a man.
> because we still know the ideal: the lifelong, fruitful union that
> makes boys into husbands and fathers, and reconciles the "opposite
> sexes" to one another. Same-sex marriage would mean losing that ideal
> and losing our best hope for marriage renewal.
No one wants your 'marriage renewal'. Your views of marriage have
been rejected for generations, not just by gays but by virtually
everyone.
> Copyright © 2003 Circle Media, Inc., National Catholic Register
Jeanne Douglas
May 23, 2013, 1:57:20 AM5/23/13
to
In article
<e0920160-b253-4692...@k3g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Why does society give marriage special honor? Because itıs this honor
> > What they are seeking is not, or not primarily, the right to confer
> > Social Security benefits on their partners upon their death or medical
> > power of attorney. What homosexual activists seek is honor a Good
> > Housekeeping Seal of Approval. So we should start with the fact that
> > our society exalts marriage over all other chosen relationships. Yet
> > marriage is hardly the only important kind of relationship.
>
> What they seek is equality. I would prefer that government stop
> using the term 'marriage' and called all such unions by a non-
> religious
> name such as 'domestic partnership' or 'civil union' however as long
> as government uses the term 'marriage' is should apply to all.
The state should only confer civil unions. Whatever religious acts one
chooses to add, they can call it anything they want--marriage or
partnership or holy union or whatever.
> > Many women will admit their best friends are closer to them than
> > anyone else. (This fact has spawned a whole genre of "chick flicks,"
> > from beaches to Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood.) Many men will
> > acknowledge they are more open with their friends than with their
> > wives and that they are fiercely loyal to their friends. We rely on
> > friends in familial, romantic, financial and medical crises.
> >
> > Then there are siblings; uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews; beloved
> > teachers; professional mentors; godparents; and models of faith. Most
> > of us are blessed with at least one of these people in our lives the
> > person who was there for us, who believed in us, who guided us. We
> > incur great debts to these people, and we live in loyalty to them. But
> > we are not married to them, and no one is arguing that we should be.
> > So clearly there is something more about marriage that merits our
> > attention.
> >
> > Marriage does more for society than the other kinds of loving,
> > dedicated relationships. These other relationships do less to nurture
> > children by giving each child a mother and a father; to corral the
> > often destructive forces of sexual desire into loving and productive
> > channels; to bring people from youth to adulthood; and to align the
> > interests of parents and children rather than forcing tragic choices
> > between the two. Marriage gets honor from society because it does all
> > these things more than any institution does or could.
It is completely untrue that only a male/female family can properly
raise children. There's enough evidence that proves it untrue.
> All of which equally apply to gay marriage.
Exactly. Also to single parent homes. And homes where those other
relatives are doing the raising.
It really does take a village.
> > Marriage developed over centuries to meet several specific,
> > fundamental needs: childrenıs need for a father, a coupleıs need for a
> > (and womenıs, but mostly menıs) need for a fruitful rather than
Marriage has 2 jobs: 1. provide a stable and safe environment in which
to raise children, and 2. to protect the capital of the family.
Anything else is just icing.
> > At this point, the most common question that arises is, "So what?
> > Okay, maybe marriage didnıt develop in response to same-sex couples,
> > but cımon how can Bob and Jim getting married really affect your
adopting even one aspect of it will destroy America. Just like one drop
of black DNA makes you black. It's the same "thought" process.
> > The second reason is that homosexual activists are merely picking up
> > on a trend begun by and for opposite-sex couples.
>
> Yes, gay couples want the same things as opposite-sex couples.
Excuse me, but did just call opposite-sex marriage a "trend"????
And they wonder why we think they're stupid.
> > Same-sex marriage is
> > just the next step in the divorce culture.
You need to explain this, and not with that drivel below. I'd like some
facts to support this claim. Numbers, man, nothing counts but numbers
<giggle>.
> > The belief that marriage is
> > merely the way that our culture expresses its approval of atomistic
> > adultsı sexual and romantic partnerships isnıt new
They lament the breakdown in families. But they're against people who
passionately want to have their own families. It makes no sense.
> > And finally, unlike easy divorce, same-sex marriage would change the
> > fundamental ideal of marriage.
How would it do that? You cannot drop a bomb like that without providing
an explanation, complete with the facts to back it up. That's how it's
done.
> Divorce was a much bigger change than same-sex marriage will ever be.
> And it was a change in the right direction. Or do you think we should
> go back to bad old days where the only way to get out of a bad
> marriage was to kill your spouse?
And being beaten and raped on a regular basis by your husband was just
your cross to bear. Just treat him better.
> > Even the most ardent defenders of
> > divorce today view it as a necessary evil, a response to the tragedy
> > of marriage failure.
Perhaps it should be harder to get married. (Though I'm damned if I know
how something like that could be implemented; talk about privacy
invasion!).
> We all want to live in a fairy tale world with 'happy ever after'
> endings
> but reality keeps getting in the way. Only a few idiots think it's a
> good
> thing to force people to stay in a bad marriage.
>
> > Same-sex marriage by contrast, would say that the
> > ideal marriage is gender neutral
>
> The ideal marriage is different for everyone. There is no
> one-size-fits-all marriage.
I don't understand what the problem is with marriage being gender
neutral.
> > not a way for boys to become men by
> > It would say that the ideal
> > marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned
> > and chosen
>
> YES!!! Why would anyone think otherwise? Do you
> really think people to having children they don't
> want or can't support is a good thing?
And the Republicans want to take away women's rights to do just that.
And yet people support them.
> > children would become optional extras rather than the
> Children have NEVER been a requirement of marriage.
>
> > It would say that the
> > ideal family need not include a father
>
> Once again ideal is different for everyone. Why is a father
> required? Would you prefer a family with an abusive father or no
> father?
>
> > a message that is especially
> > pernicious in a country where one-third of births in 2000 were to
> > unwed mothers.
>
> So gay marriage is now responsible for unwed mothers?
The Stupid, it hurts!
> > And it would say (because who can imagine that most
> > homosexual couples would wed?) that marriage itself is optional,
>
> Of course it is, or do you want to force everyone to be married?
It's hurts so bad!
> > not
> > the norm that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I arenıt
> > Any one of these changes would
> > be destructive. Put together, they are a recipe for disaster, a recipe
> > for revisiting and surpassing the harm done to families by the "sexual
> > revolution."
>
> So you want to go back to the good old days with no divorce and
> no birth control. Sex is only for making babies and can only be
> done missionary style and in the dark. Sex for fun is a sin and
> practitioners should be burned at the stake. And if you get into
> a bad marriage suck it up and live with it. You made your choice
> and your stuck with it forever.
>
> Fortunately few people agree with you. Divorce, woman's lib, the
> sexual revolution, and now gay marriage are seen as progress,
> not backsliding. You are free to live your live by your medieval
> beliefs but the rest of us will proudly move on to the 21st century.
>
> > Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we
> > remarry, we split our resources between several sets of children.
>
> All of which have nothing to do with gay marriage.
Yep, we're in a moment of transformation, which always gets crazy
before it sorts itself out. Fortunately, we finally seem to be civilized
enough to keep the crazy from getting out of control. And the thing that
really set it off was The Pill; there's definitely a case to be made for
its right to be considered the greatest invention in history, because it
set the other 50% free to achieve their own greatness.
> > But
> > we still have hope that we may recover the true meaning of marriage,
>
> You mean YOUR definition of marriage. Stop trying to force your
> view of marriage on everyone else. No one is forcing you into a gay
> marriage or telling you you must get a divorce. If you think sex is
> only
> for making babies that is fine. Don't try and force the rest of the
> world into living by your ideals and we promise not to force you to
> divorce your wife and marry a man.
Why do I never get an answer when I ask them why they expect people who
don't share their religious beliefs to live by them? And why they don't
see that that is absolutely the same thing that happens in Iran and
Pakistan?
> > because we still know the ideal: the lifelong, fruitful union that
> > makes boys into husbands and fathers, and reconciles the "opposite
> > sexes" to one another. Same-sex marriage would mean losing that ideal
> > and losing our best hope for marriage renewal.
>
> No one wants your 'marriage renewal'. Your views of marriage have
> been rejected for generations, not just by gays but by virtually
> everyone.
But it is sweet to see those few marriages that do live up to the ideal
(hoping fervently that there's not a dark secret there).
<e0920160-b253-4692...@k3g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Jack <joat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 11:11 am, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >
> > >Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
> > >05/17/2013
> >
> > What Homosexuals Want
> > by Eve Tushnet
> >
> > The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what
> > marriage is. But perhaps itıs better to begin from a different angle:
> On May 18, 11:11 am, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >
> > >Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
> > >05/17/2013
> >
> > What Homosexuals Want
> > by Eve Tushnet
> >
> > The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what
> > Why does society give marriage special honor? Because itıs this honor
> > that activists are really seeking. If homosexual couples could cobble
> > together all the bureaucratic oddities and benefits (and penalties)
> > that attend marriage but the law still refused to call their unions
> > "marriages," no one can pretend the activists would be satisfied.
>
> Because 'Separate but Equal' is never equal.
What ARE they teaching in our schools?
> > together all the bureaucratic oddities and benefits (and penalties)
> > that attend marriage but the law still refused to call their unions
> > "marriages," no one can pretend the activists would be satisfied.
>
> Because 'Separate but Equal' is never equal.
> > What they are seeking is not, or not primarily, the right to confer
> > Social Security benefits on their partners upon their death or medical
> > power of attorney. What homosexual activists seek is honor a Good
> > Housekeeping Seal of Approval. So we should start with the fact that
> > our society exalts marriage over all other chosen relationships. Yet
> > marriage is hardly the only important kind of relationship.
>
> What they seek is equality. I would prefer that government stop
> using the term 'marriage' and called all such unions by a non-
> religious
> name such as 'domestic partnership' or 'civil union' however as long
> as government uses the term 'marriage' is should apply to all.
chooses to add, they can call it anything they want--marriage or
partnership or holy union or whatever.
> > Many women will admit their best friends are closer to them than
> > anyone else. (This fact has spawned a whole genre of "chick flicks,"
> > from beaches to Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood.) Many men will
> > acknowledge they are more open with their friends than with their
> > wives and that they are fiercely loyal to their friends. We rely on
> > friends in familial, romantic, financial and medical crises.
> >
> > Then there are siblings; uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews; beloved
> > teachers; professional mentors; godparents; and models of faith. Most
> > of us are blessed with at least one of these people in our lives the
> > person who was there for us, who believed in us, who guided us. We
> > incur great debts to these people, and we live in loyalty to them. But
> > we are not married to them, and no one is arguing that we should be.
> > So clearly there is something more about marriage that merits our
> > attention.
> >
> > Marriage does more for society than the other kinds of loving,
> > dedicated relationships. These other relationships do less to nurture
> > children by giving each child a mother and a father; to corral the
> > often destructive forces of sexual desire into loving and productive
> > channels; to bring people from youth to adulthood; and to align the
> > interests of parents and children rather than forcing tragic choices
> > between the two. Marriage gets honor from society because it does all
> > these things more than any institution does or could.
raise children. There's enough evidence that proves it untrue.
> All of which equally apply to gay marriage.
relatives are doing the raising.
It really does take a village.
> > Marriage developed over centuries to meet several specific,
> > promise of fidelity (and consequences for breaking that promise),
> > young peopleıs need for a transition to manhood or womanhood and menıs
> > (and womenıs, but mostly menıs) need for a fruitful rather than
> > destructive channel for sexual desire a way of uniting eros and
> > responsibility. In other words, marriage developed to meet the needs
> > of opposite sex couples.
>
> Even if true (and not all of it is) marriage has developed to be much
> more. The only thing in your list above that does not apply to gay
> marriage is the unsupported claim that 'children need a father'. (And
> in some gay marriages they would have two.)
Of course it's nonsense. Fanciful nonsense.
> > responsibility. In other words, marriage developed to meet the needs
> > of opposite sex couples.
>
> Even if true (and not all of it is) marriage has developed to be much
> more. The only thing in your list above that does not apply to gay
> marriage is the unsupported claim that 'children need a father'. (And
> in some gay marriages they would have two.)
Marriage has 2 jobs: 1. provide a stable and safe environment in which
to raise children, and 2. to protect the capital of the family.
Anything else is just icing.
> > At this point, the most common question that arises is, "So what?
> > but cımon how can Bob and Jim getting married really affect your
> > marriage?" There are three basic reasons to think same-sex marriage
> > will damage, perhaps fatally, the institution of marriage maybe not
> > in this generation, but in the one that grows up with same-sex
> > marriage as the norm.
> >
> > The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on
> > the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial
> > and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could
> > write a history of American culture without noting how much of it
> > began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV
> > shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to subtler infusions of
> > "camp" humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority
> > culture.
>
> This sounds like a reason to support gay marriage, not oppose it.
> One of the strengths of America is it takes the best from a variety
> of
> cultures. Do you think America would be better off without
> ³black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture.² Are you racist in
> addition to being anti-gay?
He's explicitly saying that every aspect of gay culture is so bad that
> > will damage, perhaps fatally, the institution of marriage maybe not
> > in this generation, but in the one that grows up with same-sex
> > marriage as the norm.
> >
> > The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on
> > the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial
> > and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could
> > write a history of American culture without noting how much of it
> > began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV
> > shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to subtler infusions of
> > "camp" humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority
> > culture.
>
> This sounds like a reason to support gay marriage, not oppose it.
> One of the strengths of America is it takes the best from a variety
> of
> cultures. Do you think America would be better off without
> ³black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture.² Are you racist in
> addition to being anti-gay?
adopting even one aspect of it will destroy America. Just like one drop
of black DNA makes you black. It's the same "thought" process.
> > The second reason is that homosexual activists are merely picking up
> > on a trend begun by and for opposite-sex couples.
>
> Yes, gay couples want the same things as opposite-sex couples.
And they wonder why we think they're stupid.
> > Same-sex marriage is
> > just the next step in the divorce culture.
facts to support this claim. Numbers, man, nothing counts but numbers
<giggle>.
> > The belief that marriage is
> > merely the way that our culture expresses its approval of atomistic
>
> Your beef isn't with gay marriage. It's simply that marriage is not
> what
> you want it to be. Forcing your view of marriage on everyone else
> will not work. We've seen the light and do not want to go back to
> the dark ages.
>
> > itıs the same "me
> Your beef isn't with gay marriage. It's simply that marriage is not
> what
> you want it to be. Forcing your view of marriage on everyone else
> will not work. We've seen the light and do not want to go back to
> the dark ages.
>
> > generation" worldview that produced "fatherless America."
>
> 'Fatherless America² has nothing to do with gay marriage.
See, there's that particular stupidity.
>
> 'Fatherless America² has nothing to do with gay marriage.
They lament the breakdown in families. But they're against people who
passionately want to have their own families. It makes no sense.
> > And finally, unlike easy divorce, same-sex marriage would change the
> > fundamental ideal of marriage.
an explanation, complete with the facts to back it up. That's how it's
done.
> Divorce was a much bigger change than same-sex marriage will ever be.
> And it was a change in the right direction. Or do you think we should
> go back to bad old days where the only way to get out of a bad
> marriage was to kill your spouse?
your cross to bear. Just treat him better.
> > Even the most ardent defenders of
> > divorce today view it as a necessary evil, a response to the tragedy
> > of marriage failure.
how something like that could be implemented; talk about privacy
invasion!).
> We all want to live in a fairy tale world with 'happy ever after'
> endings
> but reality keeps getting in the way. Only a few idiots think it's a
> good
> thing to force people to stay in a bad marriage.
>
> > Same-sex marriage by contrast, would say that the
> > ideal marriage is gender neutral
>
> The ideal marriage is different for everyone. There is no
> one-size-fits-all marriage.
neutral.
> > not a way for boys to become men by
> > marrying and pledging to care for women.
>
> Sorry, that's not how 'boys become men'. Not in any society
> that ever existed.
It's like he's living in a romance novel.
>
> Sorry, that's not how 'boys become men'. Not in any society
> that ever existed.
> > It would say that the ideal
> > marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned
> > and chosen
>
> YES!!! Why would anyone think otherwise? Do you
> really think people to having children they don't
> want or can't support is a good thing?
And yet people support them.
> > children would become optional extras rather than the
> > natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union.
They always have been.
> Children have NEVER been a requirement of marriage.
>
> > It would say that the
> > ideal family need not include a father
>
> Once again ideal is different for everyone. Why is a father
> required? Would you prefer a family with an abusive father or no
> father?
>
> > a message that is especially
> > pernicious in a country where one-third of births in 2000 were to
> > unwed mothers.
>
> So gay marriage is now responsible for unwed mothers?
> > And it would say (because who can imagine that most
> > homosexual couples would wed?) that marriage itself is optional,
>
> Of course it is, or do you want to force everyone to be married?
> > not
> > the norm that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I arenıt
> > heroic, we must not be called to marry.
>
> Now you are going off the deep end. So you contend that
> anything that is not required is 'only for heroes'? That is
> truly bizarre.
Ummm, it's starting to sound like real psychosis.
>
> Now you are going off the deep end. So you contend that
> anything that is not required is 'only for heroes'? That is
> truly bizarre.
> > Any one of these changes would
> > be destructive. Put together, they are a recipe for disaster, a recipe
> > for revisiting and surpassing the harm done to families by the "sexual
> > revolution."
>
> So you want to go back to the good old days with no divorce and
> no birth control. Sex is only for making babies and can only be
> done missionary style and in the dark. Sex for fun is a sin and
> practitioners should be burned at the stake. And if you get into
> a bad marriage suck it up and live with it. You made your choice
> and your stuck with it forever.
>
> Fortunately few people agree with you. Divorce, woman's lib, the
> sexual revolution, and now gay marriage are seen as progress,
> not backsliding. You are free to live your live by your medieval
> beliefs but the rest of us will proudly move on to the 21st century.
>
> > Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we
> > remarry, we split our resources between several sets of children.
>
> All of which have nothing to do with gay marriage.
before it sorts itself out. Fortunately, we finally seem to be civilized
enough to keep the crazy from getting out of control. And the thing that
really set it off was The Pill; there's definitely a case to be made for
its right to be considered the greatest invention in history, because it
set the other 50% free to achieve their own greatness.
> > But
> > we still have hope that we may recover the true meaning of marriage,
>
> You mean YOUR definition of marriage. Stop trying to force your
> view of marriage on everyone else. No one is forcing you into a gay
> marriage or telling you you must get a divorce. If you think sex is
> only
> for making babies that is fine. Don't try and force the rest of the
> world into living by your ideals and we promise not to force you to
> divorce your wife and marry a man.
don't share their religious beliefs to live by them? And why they don't
see that that is absolutely the same thing that happens in Iran and
Pakistan?
> > because we still know the ideal: the lifelong, fruitful union that
> > makes boys into husbands and fathers, and reconciles the "opposite
> > sexes" to one another. Same-sex marriage would mean losing that ideal
> > and losing our best hope for marriage renewal.
>
> No one wants your 'marriage renewal'. Your views of marriage have
> been rejected for generations, not just by gays but by virtually
> everyone.
(hoping fervently that there's not a dark secret there).
duke
May 23, 2013, 7:07:06 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:35:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
Strange comment from an even stranger woe_man.
Paul Duca
May 23, 2013, 10:26:00 AM5/23/13
to
On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:02:09 PM UTC-4, duke wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:11:19 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>
> >>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>
> >>05/17/2013
>
> >
>
> >What Homosexuals Want
>
> >by Eve Tushnet
>
>
>
> What they want is one thing. What ANYONE gets from God is nothing.
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>
> >>Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S.
>
> >>05/17/2013
>
> >
>
> >What Homosexuals Want
>
> >by Eve Tushnet
>
>
>
Paul Duca
May 23, 2013, 10:34:38 AM5/23/13
to
Paul
Paul Duca
May 23, 2013, 10:39:12 AM5/23/13
to
>
> to laugh at, disdain, and dismiss Jews as idiot bottom feeders.
>
> They REFUSE to understand Jesus made pork and shellfish our FRIENDS,
Paul Duca
May 23, 2013, 10:44:52 AM5/23/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 7:18:02 AM UTC-4, duke wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:34:13 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> >Who cares what your religion says outside of your churches? It is
>
> >> >completely irrelevant to the law.
>
> >> The law is completely irrelevant to God.
>
>
>
> >> >Why do you think your religious views should be forced on people who
>
> >> >don't share them?
>
> >
>
> >> God is mankind's final judge. Like it or not.
>
>
>
> >Irrelevant.
>
>
>
> I'm telling you that God is final judge of all mankind - Christian, Jew, Muslim,
>
> atheist, Buddhist, etc, etc. But He only rewards Catholics.
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:34:13 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> >Who cares what your religion says outside of your churches? It is
>
> >> >completely irrelevant to the law.
>
> >> The law is completely irrelevant to God.
>
>
>
> >> >Why do you think your religious views should be forced on people who
>
> >> >don't share them?
>
> >
>
> >> God is mankind's final judge. Like it or not.
>
>
>
> >Irrelevant.
>
>
>
> I'm telling you that God is final judge of all mankind - Christian, Jew, Muslim,
>
>
>
>
> >Why do you think you can force people to live by your religious beliefs
>
> >when they don't share them?
>
>
>
> I'm not. I'm telling you that you can't expect reward from God if you're
>
>
> >Why do you think you can force people to live by your religious beliefs
>
> >when they don't share them?
>
>
>
>
> not a white male American Catholic Republican.
Paul Duca
May 23, 2013, 10:49:02 AM5/23/13
to
Paul
Paul Duca
May 23, 2013, 10:57:26 AM5/23/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:39:12 AM UTC-4, PATRICK wrote:
>
> The Ten Biggest Problems Facing African-Americans Today
>
> By: Lee McGrath
>
> FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, September 03, 2002
>
>
>
>
>
> The Ten Biggest Problems Facing African-Americans Today. Ranked in
>
> order of Despair Caused.
>
> 1-10. African-Americans REFUSE to bow down to the wisdom of white
>
> The Ten Biggest Problems Facing African-Americans Today
>
> By: Lee McGrath
>
> FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, September 03, 2002
>
>
>
>
>
> The Ten Biggest Problems Facing African-Americans Today. Ranked in
>
> order of Despair Caused.
>
>
> conservatives, and accept THEY have the answer to everything.
That certainly makes a dolt like Patrick feel good about himself...if the darkies would just be grateful for the little people like him do for them, they would be SOOOOO happy. And while HIS kids should just say no, legal drugs for the blacks WOULD keep them numb, dumb, and obedient.
Paul
Paul Duca
May 23, 2013, 11:01:45 AM5/23/13
to
Jeanne Douglas
May 23, 2013, 5:13:08 PM5/23/13
to
In article <7jtrp85vcqu7v345j...@4ax.com>,
Strange only if you define strange as an accurate assessment.
duke
May 24, 2013, 7:06:18 AM5/24/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:13:08 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
Haahaahaa.
0 new messages