latest Thomas Sowell column - gay marriage

[dmadman43]

I have a whole list of heterosexual couples you'd better stop from getting married - while you're at it.

Why don't you just be in charge of deciding - on a case to case basis.

Either you are being deliberately pedantic or dense. When it comes to the legal contract of marriage, purely from a legal POV, love, emotion, sexual attraction, or sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to the legal institution of marriage. I know plenty of illegal immigrants that marry simply to gain residency. The law does not prevent one from getting married because they may not be in love.

It's not a matter of deciding. It's a matter of how the law is written.

 

[swilphil]

Page 6. If the divorce rate is so high, how do we know that interracial marriages & marriages of different faiths aren't possibly part of the problem? I honestly don't know if there is a way to find out or not. Certainly, other issues contribute to the high divorce rate.

The number of interracial marriages is a very small percentage of all marriages that take place in the US. If 50 percent of the marriages end in divorce, then the number of interracial marriages can't statistically have an impact on the divorce rate. It's like saying couples who don't go to Disney World once a year are more likely to get divorced. It's an illogical conclusion.

As far as marriages of different faiths, that is a little harder to measure. There are statistics that show that couples who go to church together are less likely to divorce, but there are several different types of couples who go to church together. There are couples from different faiths who marry and then go to church together. There are lots of couples who are of the same faith who don't go to church regularly. Some of these couples get divorced, and some stay together.

I think the whole point is that decades ago people were crying wolf about all the terrible things that would happen if people of different races and faiths were allowed to marry. No harm done. We Anglo-Saxons went on to marry and divorce just as we did before.

So how exactly does interracial marriage affect the high divorce rate? I've yet to hear of any possible connection between the two.

 

[auntpolly]

Either you are being deliberately pedantic or dense. When it comes to the legal contract of marriage, purely from a legal POV, love, emotion, sexual attraction, or sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to the legal institution of marriage. I know plenty of illegal immigrants that marry simply to gain residency. The law does not prevent one from getting married because they may not be in love.

It's not a matter of deciding. It's a matter of how the law is written.

Oh, I see!!!!! Why didn't you say so in the first place!!!! You're against gay marriage because <i>it's against the law and you're such a law abiding citizen!</i>

You guys crack me up! Thanks for the laugh!

 

[dmadman43]

The problem with trying to be nice in a discussion like this one is that it's impossible to say what you mean and still avoid the taboo words like racist and homophobe.

Conservatives throw around words like "liberal elite" as an insult (what? they mean it as a compliment?) If I mean racist - I should be able to say racist. If I mean homophobic - what other word will do?

You'd have a point if you used the words correctly. It's clear to me you do not know the definition of either the word "racist" or "homophobe" and are incapable of using them correctly in a sentence.

 

[dmadman43]

Oh, I see!!!!! Why didn't you say so in the first place!!!! You're against gay marriage because <i>it's against the law and you're such a law abiding citizen!</i>

You guys crack me up! Thanks for the laugh!

Perhaps you missed the point where I said I was FOR gay marriage? I'm just the against the illogical approach some are taking to change it.

 

[auntpolly]

You'd have a point if you used the words correctly. It's clear to me you do not know the definition of either the word "racist" or "homophobe" and are incapable of using them correctly in a sentence.

OOOOOhhhhh......burn! I guess you told me! Good thing I clicked "view post" or I would have missed your witty barbs!

 

[auntpolly]

Perhaps you missed the point where I said I was FOR gay marriage? I'm just the against the illogical approach some are taking to change it.

Oh, that's logical!

 

[dmadman43]

Ughh, this thread's OP disgusts me.

I think many of the conservatives on this thread can speak out of fear, but know that same-sex marriage is inevitable... at least this is what most of my classmates and I believe, even coming from a very conservative town.

Congratulations Rick!

mariamouse

Nothing wrong with hope. Walk the talk, then. Work on your state legistatures to get your state laws changed. That's the how the process is designed to work and I wish you success. Shouting about it, and using name-calling tactics like auntpolly apparentl thinks will be effective and shopping for judges that will do it for you is sure to ensure you will fail.

 

[dmadman43]

OOOOOhhhhh......burn! I guess you told me! Good thing I clicked "view post" or I would have missed your witty barbs!

I'm glad you agree you misuse the words.

 

[dmadman43]

Oh, that's logical!

Again, I'm glad to see you are becoming a bit more open-minded and seeing the illogic of your position.

 

[jimmiej]

I think the whole point is that decades ago people were crying wolf about all the terrible things that would happen if people of different races and faiths were allowed to marry. No harm done. We Anglo-Saxons went on to marry and divorce just as we did before.

No harm done? Are you 100% sure?

 

[swilphil]

The problem is that states like Ohio (I believe) also voted down to allow civil unions. So we have already tried to have a new word to encompass the same beliefs and it was voted down. Everyone has a different definition of marriage - there is not one sole definition of it. You yourself have posted that earlier in this thread. When it comes to the state marriage should be legal contract between two consenting adults - why suddenly do we feel the need to clarify this as to say marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults of different sex. Why does the state care? Again I can understand religions saying that they will not marry or recognize the union of same sex partners - but the state is not a private institution.

~Amanda

Amanda is right. Some of the states that passed gay marriage bans also took away rights that gay couples previously had. The really sad part is that many people who voted for the gay marriage ban were for civil unions and those rights, but they didn't realize what they were voting for.

 

[ElwoodBlues2]

I have a whole list of heterosexual couples you'd better stop from getting married - while you're at it.

Why don't you just be in charge of deciding - on a case to case basis.

Instead of tossing barbs, answer the question.

 

[dmadman43]

Let's try a little word substitution and see if it sounds familiar based on the above quote;

I have no problem at all with NEGROS as people. I have now, and always have had, NEGRO friends - of both sexes. We just don't discuss NEGRO activities. As a matter of fact I don't discuss NEGRO activities with my WHITE friends either.

I am disgusted by what I hear described as their LIFE STYLE when I am forced to hear about it. However, I would be just as disgusted with a group of WHITES who made some particular aspect of their LIFE STYLE as the complete definition of who they were and why I should be forced to accept it.

I fully support legal protection giving NEGROS the same kind of VOTING rights that WHITE PEOPLE have. My first impulse would be to LEGISLATIVELY change the laws that DENY such obvious inequities.

Now why don't you go and educate yourself?

Unless, or until it is proven homosexuality is as genetic as race, your argument is not valid. I don't know of anyone (save perhaps Michael Jackson) that can choose to be another race. We, indeed, have instances of people chosing to be gay. And I do know that many gays believe they never had a choice and it is something they "know" they are. I just don't recall anyone ever saying.. "I just knew I was Black"

 

[swilphil]

No harm done? Are you 100% sure?

No harm that I can see. Blacks and whites who loved each other were allowed to marry and raise children who became productive members of our society just as often as children from totally white families.

So what harm are you seeing? Yes, there are more children in my neighborhood and in our schools that are biracial instead of 100 percent Anglo-Saxon. I see that as a big advantage. I want my children to live in a diverse society. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[dmadman43]

Amanda is right. Some of the states that passed gay marriage bans also took away rights that gay couples previously had. The really sad part is that many people who voted for the gay marriage ban were for civil unions and those rights, but they didn't realize what they were voting for.

Be that as it may, it was put to the people for vote. Isn't that's how it should be? The blame there should be place with those that wrote the propostion to be voted on. You're not saying the voters were stupid and didn't know what they were doing are you?

 

[auntpolly]

Instead of tossing barbs, answer the question.

sigh - Ok - even though it's been answered a million times in this thread. First - why exactly can't we talk about love and emotion? That's how I decided to get married. Why can't people different than you have that same right unless you are <i>afraid</i> to give it to them?

And second, you know very well there are things gay couples are legally denied. Why would you even ask this question?

If you are trying to use dmadman 's illogical logic about the way the law is written to defend being against changing the law, then please stop - you are making my head swim.

 

[Chuck S]

Perhaps you missed the point where I said I was FOR gay marriage? I'm just the against the illogical approach some are taking to change it.

How is it "illogical" to use the court system to challenge a law? That is the way our founding fathers designed the checks and balances system of our constitution, giving the court the right to interpret the laws and see that they don't violate other rights found in the constitution.

 

[dmadman43]

No harm that I can see. Blacks and whites who loved each other were allowed to marry and raise children who became productive members of our society just as often as children from totally white families.

And the discrimination issue was rectified, right? Blacks and whites of the opposite sex were then given the opporuntity to marry. I don't see the correlation, based on marriage laws today, with gays. Gays that want to marry are generally of the same sex, which makes it illegal in almost all states, for them to marry. Nothing prevents them for following the law and marrying a gay person of the opposite sex, right? No discrimination. The only way I see to resolve that is having the states change the law. Which I am all for. Do you see another option?

 

[auntpolly]

How is it "illogical" to use the court system to challenge a law? That is the way our founding fathers designed the checks and balances system of our constitution, giving the court the right to interpret the laws and see that they don't violate other rights found in the constitution.

You've hit the nail on the head! This is the worst thing about this law - if you want something changed - change it the way it's supposed to be changed in this country! Not even the Nixon administration tried anything so bold!