The definitive word on "gay"marriage

Discussion in 'Health and Lifestyle' started by sitarro, Sep 25, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    As only he can do, Thomas Sowell writes about how truly silly the whole concept of "gay"marriage is, read and weep Jili, grump, hagard ,kagom, matts and any of the other illogical nonthinkers out there.... you have no comeback to his logic.

    http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081606.php3

    Gay ‘marriage’

    By Thomas Sowell


    Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, cries of "discrimination" are being heard.

    The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

    When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

    In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.

    Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.

    Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

    In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

    Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other — and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

    In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

    They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.

    Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

    Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries, based on experience with male-female unions.

    There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.

    Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable phrases as "a pregnant couple" or references to "spouses" rather than husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have many repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.

    Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.

    In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.

    Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?

    And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Excellent piece - and I hear he shoots pics w/ a Canon DSLR, too! :D

    :poke:
     
  3. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,386
    Thanks Received:
    7,859
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,907
    One of the best lines I've heard as of yet.
     
  4. Kagom
    Offline

    Kagom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,161
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vicksburg, MS
    Ratings:
    +141
    Read it and didn't weep. I'm more than used to this rhetoric.

    While it IS true that marriage has been strictly man-woman, that's the Abrahamic concept of marriage that's been practiced. But I would like you to go here: http://sacred-texts.com/lgbt/index.htm and scroll down to "Gay Marriage in the Bible" (disregard the Johnathon/David crap) and look through. It's an interesting viewpoint on marriage in the Biblical times. BUt all that aside, other cultures have practiced gay marriage, including the Egyptians. The above link also talks about other cultures and homosexuality in general.

    I liked this paragraph. Why? Because right off it tells you this person believes homosexuality isn't a thing similar to race. It tells you this person's bias in believing it's a choice and an action. To a degree it is in as much as the person chooses to follow their natural attraction. The rest, however, is within a person's nature. To be attracted to someone of the same sex isn't necessarily something a person can choose freely. A ban on gay marriage is still a discrimination against people.

    I may have read this wrong, but basically this is saying since homosexuals can't naturally produce offspring, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. So feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in my reading of this. But if we were to go on that belief alone, we'd need to revoke the marriages of all barren couples because they can't produce children and therefore cannot contribute to society.

    I like the alimony statement. It's a good point in so far as recouperating one spouse for their investement. But the second one I don't like. It's bogus. There are plenty of wives who fuck their husbands over and still get the alimony when they shouldn't get a dime. Though, sadly, we can't investigate things enough to determine the worthiness of alimony, it's still something courts should consider.

    Again, I will bring up the barren couple shield because it does have truth to it. If we throw in the idea of procreation being a reason for marriage, then we must revoke the marriages of barren couples for that reason. Alimony is a tricky issue, I must admit. But I figure that we'd determine it the same way as we do with heterosexual couples who break up in marriage.
     
  5. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741

    You REALLY believe that? Dude, everytime I read you here on the board wagging and jumping and defending the destructive lifestyle you've chosen, my heart breaks a little bit. It's like a captain going down with a ship. You know you hate your sin; but instead of dealing with fixing yourself, you pretend it's NORMAL and GOOD.

    :-/
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Kagom
    Offline

    Kagom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,161
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vicksburg, MS
    Ratings:
    +141
    dmp, I know how you feel. I honestly do. I'm not going to dabble into my life story or anything, but I do know how you feel and why you feel the way you do.

    And yes, I do believe it. As for defending my "destructive" lifestyle, why wouldn't I defend it? It's who I am and it plays a role in my life. I feel that it isn't wrong or destructive and a rather normal part of life. We disagree on that and we always will.

    Are you a mind-reader, dmp? Because that's a load of tripe if I've ever read anything. You don't know what goes on in my head nor would you be able to ever GUESS what goes on in my head.
     
  7. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0


    in your head what was programmed...get a grip dude....or is that dudette?
    You were lied to..and now ya must pay the price...if ya are still willing to go down that road...lifes a bitch and some parents make it worse...by saying ya are cool or whatever!
     
  8. Kagom
    Offline

    Kagom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,161
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vicksburg, MS
    Ratings:
    +141
    Ya know, I found this really cool archangel decoder ring and then it broke. I guess it was made in China.

    Programmed? Yes, because I'm really a cyborg with a 55 terabyte drive for a brain. And I'm Microsoft friendly. Yeah, total programming of this brain o' mine.

    I haven't been lied to by anyone. I make my own decisions after careful examination of what's said.
     
  9. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    So Canon gave him a set up also.... I have to give it to them, they have some of the best marketing people out there.
     
  10. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    I know people's hearts, generally, betrayed by what they say - or type :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page