latest Thomas Sowell column - gay marriage

[septbride2002]

When the issue comes up for vote in my state, I will vote FOR it? Satisfied. I have no interest, however, on working to get it on the ballot. Because, as you said, it does not affect me.

I'm not arguing the other side. I'm arguing the flaw in the logic of their debate.

No I am not satisfied! I don't see why you need to argue the law when it comes down to people. Real Life People. I don't care how the laws get changed - I don't care if it is done on a state level or federal level - it comes down to treating everyone will respect, equality and tolerance. And your constant arguement for how it should be done comes across as someone who is against the issue.

And I swear if you say activist judges again I am going to start taking shots!

~Amanda

 

[dmadman43]

I have actually read that the baby boomer generation had a rise in AIDS here. I guess because all of the divorced heterosexual people of that age group aren't used to using protection.

could be. Also the ones that have yet to marry. You seem to be assuming all baby boomers were married at one time.

 

[jimmiej]

exactly.

reminds me of when interracial mariage was illegal in the south.

This statement implies that we're getting smarter as the years go by. If that's the case, why is the divorce rate higher than it was 50 years ago?

Yes exactly. They imposed their values and beliefs on other people - I wonder how they sleep at night?

I doubt it's affected their sleep much. Oh, those evil conservatives!!!

 

[septbride2002]

Nothing to see here - decided to edit my own post since it was rude.

~Amanda

 

[dmadman43]

No I am not satisfied! I don't see why you need to argue the law when it comes down to people. Real Life People. I don't care how the laws get changed - I don't care if it is done on a state level or federal level - it comes down to treating everyone will respect, equality and tolerance. And your constant arguement for how it should be done comes across as someone who is against the issue.

And I swear if you say activist judges again I am going to start taking shots!

~Amanda

so you are for judges changing laws rather than interpreting them.

Drink all you want. It won't change reality. Everyone is being treated equally under the law.

How do you suggest is should be done? Because it has to be done. Marriage is a legal contract. Even if a judge rules the marriage laws unconstitutional, states will have to go back and rewrite the laws. Again, I have no problem with the laws being changed to accomodate homosexual marriages. Until then, there is neither a discrimination or an equal protection issue.

 

[spearenb]

Do you actually have anything to offer to the conversation or are these one sentence comebacks the extent of it?

{cough} liberal elite {cough}

 

[septbride2002]

This statement implies that we're getting smarter as the years go by. If that's the case, why is the divorce rate higher than it was 50 years ago?



I doubt it's affected their sleep much. Oh, those evil conservatives!!!

I did read your post back to me. And I just wanted to politely let you know that I'm not ignoring you - but I find it hard to debate or discuss with someone who post nothing but one or two sentences with nothing else to offer. Thank you for particpating and have a nice day!

~Amanda

 

[septbride2002]

so you are for judges changing laws rather than interpreting them.

Drink all you want. It won't change reality. Everyone is being treated equally under the law.

How do you suggest is should be done? Because it has to be done. Marriage is a legal contract. Even if a judge rules the marriage laws unconstitutional, states will have to go back and rewrite the laws. Again, I have no problem with the laws being changed to accomodate homosexual marriages. Until then, there is neither a discrimination or an equal protection issue.

I'm not trying to change reality - it was a joke. Ever hear of one? Or are you really that big of a stick in the mud?

~Amanda

 

[septbride2002]

{cough} liberal elite {cough}

I'm sorry are you calling me a liberal elite?

 

[dmadman43]

Yes exactly. They imposed their values and beliefs on other people - I wonder how they sleep at night?

~Amanda

Um... actually a few BLUE STATES voted against gay marriage. I agree, I wonder how those liberals sleep at night.

 

[septbride2002]

Blue, Red, I didn't bring up if the states went red or blue - I don't care either way. I don't care if they are conservatives or liberals - what was your point?

~Amanda

 

[dmadman43]

I'm not trying to change reality - it was a joke. Ever hear of one? Or are you really that big of a stick in the mud?

~Amanda

you need new writers, then.

So, I will ask again. What about my position is it that you disagree with? I am for gay marriage and will vote for it if it comes up in my state. However, I see no point in working to get it on the ballot as it affects me not.

 

[dmadman43]

Blue, Red, I didn't bring up if the states went red or blue - I don't care either way. I don't care if they are conservatives or liberals - what was your point?

~Amanda

I'm sure they are all sleeping just fine, then.

 

[spearenb]

I'm sorry are you calling me a liberal elite?

No, not calling, but coughing it.

 

[septbride2002]

you need new writers, then.

So, I will ask again. What about my position is it that you disagree with? I am for gay marriage and will vote for it if it comes up in my state. However, I see no point in working to get it on the ballot as it affects me not.

Are you trying to be difficult because you are doing a wonderful job?

Today it doesn't affect you - tomorrow it might. I believe that if we continue down this path of picking and choosing who gets to marry and who doesn't that we will soon be on a path of who gets to go to school and who doesn't, who gets to have children and who doesn't. Maybe that is extreme but then I look at what happened in Germany when all of a sudden Jews were denied basic priveleges.

~Amanda

 

[bsnyder]

Thomas Sowell is my favorite columnist. His latest column has just been published taking to task the idea that homosexuals have a "right" to "marriage." He has encapsulated my views on the subject so succinctly that I have to share the link.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041231.shtml

Thomas Sowell is the most intellectually honest and logical thinking columnist operating today. He has a way of cutting to the crux of any argument in such a way that his point is obviously logical.

I don't understand why he is not hailed more often by the media as a source of interviews. I can only think of one instance of his being a guest on a news show. And that was so long ago that I don't even recall the toplc or forum.

Rokkitsci,

He's my absolute favorite too. He understands better than almost any current writer the laws of unintended consequences, particularly for the minorities in this country. His writings on the economics of health care and low-cost housing are simply brilliant.

I don't think the lack of interviews is from a lack of interest on the part of the media. I think I read somewhere that it was his decision not to do the talk show circuit.

 

[jimmiej]

I did read your post back to me. And I just wanted to politely let you know that I'm not ignoring you - but I find it hard to debate or discuss with someone who post nothing but one or two sentences with nothing else to offer. Thank you for particpating and have a nice day!

~Amanda

I didn't know there was a word minimum to be considered a part of this debate.

When you resort to personal attacks (however slight in this case), you are out of ideas.

 

[septbride2002]

No, not calling, but coughing it.

Aw well why don't you run to Walgreens and get some cough syrup okay? Because if you knew anything about me at all - then you would know that liberal elitist really isn't a good title for me. But no you can just sit back and judge and not offer anything to the conversation. That's fine - have fun.

~Amanda

 

[Rokkitsci]

1) I have not found that my marriage has restricted any rights that I have.

2) This is all good in theory - however these contracts can be contested by individuals families and courts tend to side with families.

3) Then he may need to choose a better wife.

4) Homesexual couples would not be able to have children in the traditional sense.

5) Not from where I sit. It is more of a please stay out of our business rather then asking you appove of their lifestyle.

6) Please someone show me how your gay neighbors marrying infringes on your rights.

7) The man sounded somewhat intelligent until he made this statement. AIDS does not just kill homosexuals. It kills all genders, nationalities, and races. And this statment just goes to show the man is a bigot.

8) Again - AIDS does not just kill homosexuals. And there are many many many heterosexuals who have multiple partners. Why is it this writer feels the need to make homosexuals sound like a bunch of sex crazed idiots? Is that fear talking?

9) Well now I've read everything. Seriously some of you are actually listening to this bigot? Promoting homosexuality because the schools are teaching children about sexually transmitted diseases? Wow - I wonder what kind of bomb shelter this man lives in.

10) Yes because acceptance and tolerance have always dismantled societies. Please. It is hatred, ignorance, and fear that have destroyed societies, empires, and whole ethnic groups. This man does nothing but spew more of this out into the airwaves.

~Amanda

First - I salute your dedication in responding to Mr. Sowell's article in a point by point manner. Few do that - sincere congratulations to you.

I have excerpted your points in the above quote
1) restricted rights - you may not have any restricted "right" based on an agreement you have with your spouse. But in most cases, community propery laws restrict what you can do with property. Certainly you cannot - by law - ignore you spouse's views in how your children are treated. And, society places some restrictions on what you "may" do when you are "married" that it does not place on non-married people. Now, there are many many many imperfect marriages. This is not a good reason to abandon the notion of marriage as it has come down to us thru the eons.

2) contracts contested in courts - you may have a good point here - If that is the case - and is a problem - then the better application of energy may be to attack these unreasonable interpretations of law. I would supporty you fully in this regard. Any covenant that two adult agree to should have the full effect of law. I fully support "civil unions" in this regard. I would even support "common law" civil unions = just as common law marriages are valid.

3) better wives - good comment - no rebuttal possible on this one.

4) "traditional" children - Here is where I may be accused of bias. I do not think that it is universally "good" for homosexual unions to be encouraged to rear children. I know there are bad marriages and I know there are excellent homosexual couples and I know there are desperately abusive situations where anything is better than the present situation. However - in view of all this, I still maintain that -except for unusually abusive situations - homosexual couples should not be encouraged to rear children. I will admit to being ignorant on anecdotal evidence - I know of nobody in this relationship. I do know homosexuals who have natural children all of them 'came out' after their children were grown. I do have concerns about homosexuals having 'token' children for show - which probably reveals whatever bias I have.

5) lifestyle opinion - Your statement is also a matter of opinion of course. But, those of us who are opposed to changing the definition of marriage have the opinion that this re-definition does have the effect of forcing us to "approve" a definition we disagree with. Marriage is an institution that for tens of thousands of years has been commonly understood to mean the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of establishing a family unit for the procreation of the species. A homosexual relation does not fit this commonly understood definition. The fact that there are imperfect marriages does not at all give carte-blanc permission to redefine the basic concept. The fact that homosexuals "want" to feel better about their choices also does not give permission to change. Changes this elemental in nature can only come about naturally - not by legislation nor judicial fiat.

6) infringement of rights - see above for most of my opinion. However, this is a good place to posit another of my 'opinions' about homosexual 'marriage.' I know this will be described as too far out = but ..... What about two criminals who decide to get "married" so that they can never be forced to testify against one another. .... What about the pressure for multiple marriage partnerships. ..... what about incestual relationships. ..... what about pedophilic marriage. Now - I know the answer to all of these is that "nobody wants that" but I can assure you that 40 years ago nobody 'thought' there would ever be a move for two men to marry either. Once the erosion of definitional terms begins, there is not logical stopping point. THAT is the "right" that we feel is being infringed. The "right" of knowing what words and institutions really mean. We really don't CARE what people do in their bedrooms. Never have - never will.

7) and 8) AIDs is ubiquitous - yes - AIDs is no respector of sex, race, or location. BUT it is largely a VOLUNTARY disease. One can CHOOSE to not get AIDS, except for unimaginable foulups of transfusions or unlucky accidents. Before you say "what about an unsuspecting wife who gets it from her husband?" I say refer to your observation of item 3 - Choose better husbands.

Also - not all homosexuals are sex-crazed idiots, but at the beginning of the AIDS pandemic it was the promiscuous homosexual bath-house attitude in places like San Francisco that allowed the desease to become so pervasive in society that it DID affect other than the strictly homosexual community. The homosexual community bears DIRECT responsibility for this epidemic. Nothing they can say now really absolves them of their liability here. IF they had NOT been so promiscuous, the disease would more than likely have been detected before there were hundreds of thousands of carriers. It could have been contained. However, as much as you want to think of all homosexuals as pure as the driven snow, dedicated to one partner for life, wanting nothing but the best for all mankind, you cannot escape the fact that there WERE thousands of sex-crazed idiot homosexuals who gave rise to this terrible epidemic. And I consider it the height of chutzpah for the homosexual community to now demand that the REST of us abandon every OTHER problem that WE have in order to save them from a problem of their own making.

9) sex education - There was a time when it was not required to introduce young children to the awful realities of what can happen in promiscuous sexual relations. Yes, there were unwanted pregnancies - they went away to visit "aunt Helen" for a few months. Now - thanks to the sexual revolution of the sixties we have pregnant freshmen walking the halls of high schools and demonstrations with bananas in the classroom. This is ridiculous. I for one would like to return to all the uncertainty and the ignorance of the fifties. We figured it all our by ourselves. And now, we certainly don't need homosexual advocates to come into classroom promoting their lifestyle and we certainly don't need them to be handing out business cards to the nearest bathhouse. Not in our schools. This was the point of Mr. Sowells comment in case you overlooked it in your haste to define him as a illiterate bigot living in a cave.

10) Acceptance and tolerance - How many more times do we have to say - we ACCEPT homosexuality - we TOLERATE homosexuals. We just don't want to redefine thousands of years of definition for marriage. WHY do we have to sacrifice our definitions for the sake of making homosexuals "feel" better? WHAT good comes from this re-definition - WHY should be do it? I have seen no good reason for it at all. I suggest that homosexuals stop being so sensitive. They are all 'tolerated' until they get in our face and demand that we become more demonstrative in our "acceptance."

Finally - we really don't care what homosexuals do - we really don't - we tolerate them just fine. We just want them to be quieter about it, and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[septbride2002]

I didn't know there was a word minimum to be considered a part of this debate.

When you resort to personal attacks (however slight in this case), you are out of ideas.

Hard to discuss anything with someone who offers nothing to discuss.
Wasn't a personal attack - I was actually trying to be nice and explain why I wasn't moving forward with our thread of conversation.

~Amanda