The definitive word on "gay"marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.

sitarro

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
1,028
Points
153
Location
USA
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?
 

007

Charter Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
46,317
Reaction score
16,118
Points
2,250
Location
Podunk, WI
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.
One of the best lines I've heard as of yet.
 

Kagom

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
141
Points
48
Location
Vicksburg, MS
Read it and didn't weep. I'm more than used to this rhetoric.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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?
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.

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?
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.
 

dmp

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
13,088
Reaction score
746
Points
48
Location
Enterprise, Alabama
BUt all that aside, other cultures have practiced gay marriage, including the Egyptians. .

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.

:-/
 

Kagom

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
141
Points
48
Location
Vicksburg, MS
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.

:-/
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.
 
A

archangel

Guest
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.


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!
 

Kagom

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
141
Points
48
Location
Vicksburg, MS
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!
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.
 
OP
sitarro

sitarro

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
1,028
Points
153
Location
USA
Excellent piece - and I hear he shoots pics w/ a Canon DSLR, too! :D

:poke:
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.
 

dmp

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
13,088
Reaction score
746
Points
48
Location
Enterprise, Alabama
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.
I know people's hearts, generally, betrayed by what they say - or type :)
 

Kagom

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
141
Points
48
Location
Vicksburg, MS
I know people's hearts, generally, betrayed by what they say - or type :)
Not all. I'm not exactly like any other person you'll meet. I've said nothing to give away any kind of feeling of resentment for being who I am.
 
OP
sitarro

sitarro

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
1,028
Points
153
Location
USA
I felt this couple of lines were some of my favorites.....

"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."

Makes you wonder why the "gay marriage" advocates are pushing it on society so hard when the simple solution is to go to a homosexual lawyer and set up what ever legal restrictions you want on your relationship. But in reality it has absolutely nothing to do with marriage in any traditional sense, it is all about getting a symbolic "OK" to the lifestyle that they know deep inside is neither equal or natural in any way.The hypocrisy in the homosexual community is overwhelming. There is the criticism of those who are normal(breeders) and yet they want the acceptance of those they criticize. The whole point of marriage is to join two people into one for a lifetime, nothing about this is natural to the homosexual lifestyle. As much as homosexuals would like to pretend that they aren't different in the way they live their lives, they are. Never have seen a "heterosexual pride" parade with promiscuous people acting out sexual positions on floats.

Homosexuals like to use the worst of heterosexual marriages as a reason why they should be allowed to marry, I think the comparison should be with marriages like my parents who raised 6 kids and were married for 57 years when my father died 3 years ago, at 83, my mother is still very much married to her man. As for the hetero couples that are "barren"(?????), they are still able to provide a stable healthy environment to raise children.

Marriage has always been an institution to provide a stable homelife for the procreation of children. It isn't another social experiment that will destroy everything special about it, there are already enough heterosexuals doing that.
 

Reneer

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
109
Reaction score
8
Points
6
Location
Ann Arbor, MI
All quotes from http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081606.php3.

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.
Actually, most homosexuals that I know simply want equal treatment under the law. To have their union legally recognized by the state, which would afford them the same rights that any heterosexual couple would have when they sign a marriage certificate with witnesses present to the signing.

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.
Actually, the state asserts an interest in all (currently heterosexual only) unions. Let's take my state, Michigan, as an example. The marriages that are prohibited under Michigan Marriage Law only have to do with marriages that may lead to inbreeding. Any other marriage (excepting homosexual) is just fine, and affords the couple all the benefits of marriage under United States Code.

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.
That is incorrect. Most gay marriage advocates talk about equality under the law, not about expansion of rights. Note how in his own article Mr. Sowell talks about the "equal protection of the laws" given to people by the Constitution.

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.
Simply because an institution existed for an extended period of time in some form does not mean that it should continue to exist in that form indefinitely. Simply because marriage has existed between men and women for hundreds of years does not mean it should continue to do so. To use 'tradition' as an argument to 'stay the course' with marriage falls directly under the appeal to tradition fallacy.

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.
Going with that logic, gay marriage is also discrimination against people, because it bans marriage because of the 'particular people' involved, who are both of the same sex.

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.
Then 'those laws' should be revoked from couples who cannot bear children or do not wish to bear children or adopt children. Gay couples can, if their marriage is allowed, adopt children, just like infertile couples do. If the couple has a child that they are supporting, then they should get the benefits that go along with supporting a child, no matter if the couple is homosexual or heterosexual.

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.
I do not see how this would be affected by one member of a couple simply restricting their involvement in the workforce, regardless if they are considered the 'wife' or not. Supporting the family is supporting the family, no matter who does it.

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?
Whoever has custody of the children / has been supported by the other financially should be given alimony. If both of the parties was financially independent, then no alimony should be given (unless children are involved.)

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?
Because of the fact that there are heterosexual marriages that do not produce children, and because of the fact that Mr. Sowell's 'asymmetries' applying to a particular gender are definitely out-dated in this day and age when men are 'stay at home dads' and mom goes out to work as the CEO of a company.
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas
:sleep: (YAWN)
I’ve gone over all of the arguments before. There is nothing new here. I don’t have time to hit every sentence. Here are a couple of simple rebuttals.

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.
Let's make more discrimination against actions. There should be no interfaith marriages. Aren't there high divorce rate between couple that have different religious faiths. Also, let us prevent Backs from getting married to Whites.

Yes. People discriminate against some actions but we don't discriminate against other actions. It looks like we have no argument here. I simply don't see that we should discriminate against marriage between people of the same sex.

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.
Wrong. Interracial marriage is an action. It is the action of choosing a partner (one who happens to be of a different race) and creating a union (a marriage)

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.
So what. Tradition is not an indication of right or wrong.

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.
Okay. Let us then outlaw marriage for those heterosexual couple that can't or won't have children. Besides. If a gay couple it can adopt or use a surrogate parent.

-------------------------------------------

It is the same tired rhetoric merely worded differently. It has been soundly rebutted time after time.
 

OCA

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Messages
7,014
Reaction score
223
Points
83
Location
Washington D.C.
Lol, apparently the courts don't agree with any of the bullshit that Fagom, Rudolph The Reindeer and of course the mutual masturbator himself Matts spout...........all the constitutional challenges to queer marriage bans have been defeated in the states that have passed such measures.

You guys are losing this issue to obtain "special rights" and for legitimization of a perversion of choice, I love it!
 

Kagom

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
141
Points
48
Location
Vicksburg, MS
Lol, apparently the courts don't agree with any of the bullshit that Fagom, Rudolph The Reindeer and of course the mutual masturbator himself Matts spout...........all the constitutional challenges to queer marriage bans have been defeated in the states that have passed such measures.

You guys are losing this issue to obtain "special rights" and for legitimization of a perversion of choice, I love it!
Uh huh. Yes, we're losing the battle because the majority of America is Christian and follows Christian ideals. Okay, have fun with that.
 

Reneer

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
109
Reaction score
8
Points
6
Location
Ann Arbor, MI
Lol, apparently the courts don't agree with any of the bullshit that Fagom, Rudolph The Reindeer and of course the mutual masturbator himself Matts spout...........all the constitutional challenges to queer marriage bans have been defeated in the states that have passed such measures.

You guys are losing this issue to obtain "special rights" and for legitimization of a perversion of choice, I love it!
And yet you offer no rebuttal to my breakdown of Mr. Sowell's article and why it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You boast of homosexuals losing 'special rights' but homosexuals do not want 'special rights.' You call it a perversion of choice, yet the medical community does not consider it so. You say that the issue is being lost, but I say there are still bastions of tolerance even in those states with Constitutional Amendments.
 
OP
sitarro

sitarro

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
1,028
Points
153
Location
USA
Uh huh. Yes, we're losing the battle because the majority of America is Christian and follows Christian ideals. Okay, have fun with that.
Losing the battle? Is that what you addicts are calling it today? Are you really going to try to tell us with a straight(oops) face that when you lay there in the dark with another man's unit in your mouth, somewhere deep in the back of your mind your conscious isn't saying to you....WHAT THE FUCK AM I DOING???!!!

If being a homosexual is so tough and you wouldn't wish that lifestyle on anyone, why would you want to promote it? Why would you want to tell kids that it isn't a perverted lifestyle? You were just born with a defect that makes you abnormal and that's OK, just keep it to yourself and you won't be round up and quarantined from society. They are doing it to tobacco smokers so man pole smokers shouldn't be far away.:funnyface
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top