|
0 members (),
5
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,089
Posts313,787
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
Well, CM, for starters, repeal DOMA, equalize all tax and other legal benefits and then we can talk. Until then I will remain an advocate for gay marriage.
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28 |
Yes, repeal the DOMA, the Healthy Marriage Initiative and the latest over the top: $5 million ad campaign paid for by the U.S. government is touting the benefits of marriage for people in their 20s, a government adviser said.
The campaign is the work of the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, USA Today reports. In addition to a Web site, TwoofUs.org, the campaign includes on-line ads, a YouTube video, spots on radio talk shows, and ads on buses and subways.
I think we have lost our collective minds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646 |
Very interesting, CM. I found the following:the website is designed to provide technical assistance to states and organizations that receive federal program grants to promote healthy marriages, a key plank of President Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiative. In addition, "this online resource center will help millions of Americans, who have chosen marriage for themselves, gain greater access to information about forming and sustaining a healthy marriage," according to Dr. Wade Horn, HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
The website was expected to go into operation several months ago, but was delayed after the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR), a Minneapolis-based private research facility, announced it was ending its participation in the project after it was asked to include a statement by President Bush and a picture of the President and First Lady on the website. At the time of its decision, NCFR was working under a $900,000 a year contract from HHS to serve as the national repository and central clearinghouse for the Bush Administration's Healthy Marriage Initiative. What, you may ask, is the Healthy Marriage Initiative? I may ask, anyway. Here's the answer: The Healthy Marriage Initiative was included in the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Bill of 2005 (S. 1932) as a proviso that sets aside $100 million annually "to help families stay together."
President George W. Bush said, regarding the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children & Families "Healthy Marriage Mission":
"To encourage marriage and promote the well-being of children, I have proposed a healthy marriage initiative to help couples develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages . . .
. . . By supporting responsible child-rearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home."  Anyone want to guess what the Bush Administration meant by "a safe and loving home"?
Steve Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.
(Native American prayer)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28 |
I think there is political difficulty with the approach of pushing government sanctioned same sex marriage. Chipping away at government involvement in marriage takes the moral high ground and has prospect of enlisting the real majority: voters that are single. I think it would be tough to convince single folks to support and subsidize a program or law that gives benefits to single sex couples and not to single people. It is sort of like ML King saying we want civil rights for black folks, but not yellow folks. There are some weaknesses in the fairness and justice arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646 |
Chipping away at government involvement in marriage takes the moral high ground and has prospect of enlisting the real majority: voters that are single. Interesting concept! How would people see that as the "moral" high ground? And can you support your "majority" claim statistically?
Steve Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.
(Native American prayer)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28 |
The number I have seen approaches 100 million. It will take me a little digging to find the source. The problem with the statistic is that "single" does include people who were once married, but no longer so. A case could be made that a meaningful measure should also include those who intend to get married. I suppose the real statistic should be those who do not want to get married plus those who have no hope of getting married. I admit that I have not seen that statistic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28 |
The moral or noble aspect is championing fairness and justice for all people not just single sex couples. Benefits for all or benefits for none.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646 |
It will take me a little digging to find the source. The problem with the statistic is that "single" does include people who were once married, but no longer so. Allow me to be helpful. Here is an excel chart from the US Census Bureau on the 2004 election. As you can see, the numbers are broken down into some of the sub-categories we might be interested in. As you can also see, the number of voters who have never been married, combined with the number who are currently divorced or separated, adds up to about 38.6 million, while the number who are currently married, or were married but are now widowed, adds up to about 86 million. These data emphatically refute the thesis that "the majority of voters are single".
Steve Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.
(Native American prayer)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646 |
The moral or noble aspect is championing fairness and justice for all people not just single sex couples. Benefits for all or benefits for none. I hear the "noble" part loud and clear, CM. But moral for me implies some sort of standard typically derived from an insititutional religious source, and I don't see that at all. Do you know of any major religious institutions that support abolishing the rights and privileges afforded to married couples by the government? I think the argument we inevitably see in the "marriage" issue is not one of moral versus immoral, but of moral versus noble. Those arguing for continued government sanctioning of marriage either have a vested personal interest or a moral compunction borne of religious conviction. Those arguing for the "wall of separation" are seen by these folks as "immoral", not noble.
Steve Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.
(Native American prayer)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28 |
Wow,thanks for the homework. If I am reading the spreadsheet correctly the total population from column B is 216 million. The various single categories in column B sum to 92 million. You are right. Not a majority, but still a sizable group.
|
|
|
|
|
