latest Thomas Sowell column - gay marriage

[septbride2002]

A quick google search found several examples. Here's two.

http://www.newswithviews.com/public_schools/public_schools1.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1301944/posts

I will return to this because I do want to actually go back through the first article and read the actually sources.

2 thoughts ran through my mind as I was reading both articles.

#1) at my high school there were two clubs a diversity club and a Christian club. Both clubs had meetings on school property and both held events on school property. The diversity club participated heavily in Martin Luther King Day, Haunakka (sp?), and Cinco De Mayo (never figured that one out). The Christian club held prayer around the flag pole about once a month, every month. Where students could come to school 30 minutes before it began and pray openly with this group. If the students want to have a "gay club" or "homosexual club" I don't see how a school could stop them from assembling as they allow other groups to assemble as well.

#2) I can't believe that school boards and school faculty would allow such behaviour as a man in a dress to come and talk to students. But we cannot hold all homosexuals accountable for these actions - but rather the idiot administration at the school that allowed it to happen.

~Amanda

 

[Chuck S]

A quick google search found several examples. Here's two.

http://www.newswithviews.com/public_schools/public_schools1.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1301944/posts

Oh, surely JimmieJ you aren't offering up as "proof" these articles from conservative activist websites? If they were from AP or Rueters or even a major newpaper I'd be inclined to give them a little credance, but not from sites with their own agenda for donations.

Also, the first article is dated 2001, the second 2004, if this were truly as reported, and as objectionable as reported, would it still be going on?

 

[Laura]

The OP is a Louisiana-based math teacher, born in 1938. No teaching old southern dogs new tricks, I guess. Those who believe in anti-gay discrimination can talk until they are blue in the face, but come 2050, when most of you are long gone and my generation has had its chance in the government, anti-gay marriage will be reality. Twentysomethings today are over 50% in favor of gay marriage. The educated coastal populace which controls most of the money and dominates the federal government are even more in favor. We'll force gay acceptance down intolerant throats in just the same way that we forced integration and the legalization of interrracial marriage. There's no point in wasting breath changing entrenched minds - the inevitable cultural progress of America will mow over their ideology, sure as night meets day. Therefore, I won't bother, and I encourage you all to do the same - don't give them more mental fuel to waste.

D

 

[Teejay32]

As one of the politically purple (a bluish red I guess) I never did like fitting gay couples into the traditional marital framework as a solution to anything, nor do I accept the author's argument that gay activists want gay marriage in order to promote their lifestyle. I'm married, and promoting my own lifestyle just wasn't on the list of reasons to do it. That's crazy.

I'm glad it's legal here in MA and that it does solve some specific problems for specific individuals. But overall I don't see the people calling for more widespread acceptance of gay marriage to be on a particularly higher moral ground here than anyone else...rather than fighting for more rights and protections for all who don't have that piece of paper, they're in effect crawling in bed with those who created the need for that paper in the first place, and trashing them at the same time. I think: I do support it, but why, exactly? Why is there such monumental noise about fitting the square pegs into the round holes? I mean, we are supposedly smarter than this.

So that's the one part of the article with any merit imo:

Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?

The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

but that one point is a huge one. People want to get married for their own reasons. And don't want to get married for their own reasons. And people want to hold on their established norms, traditions, and beliefs for their own reasons too. From my POV neither is going to succeed in pushing the other side off its post any time soon; the most we can expect is some degree of understanding and minimal bloodshed between the two. Will we get it? No, of course not.

Ah, well...

 

[septbride2002]

I asked this on page 6 & no one answered. I'll ask again. With the divorce rate being higher than ever, how do we know these were good decisions? Just because it's the 21st century doesn't necessarily mean we're smarter.

If the reason for divorce was religion, ethnic backround, or color of skin then I guess one could say it was a bad idea. For the most part from what I have read that the #1 reason for divorce among first marriages is money. Therefore I don't think you can really devise a way to say that interacial marriage is what has caused the divorce rate to sky rocket.

~Amanda

 

[septbride2002]

The OP is a Louisiana-based math teacher, born in 1938. No teaching old southern dogs new tricks, I guess. Those who believe in anti-gay discrimination can talk until they are blue in the face, but come 2050, when most of you are long gone and my generation has had its chance in the government, anti-gay marriage will be reality. Twentysomethings today are over 50% in favor of gay marriage. The educated coastal populace which controls most of the money and dominates the federal government are even more in favor. We'll force gay acceptance down intolerant throats in just the same way that we forced integration and the legalization of interrracial marriage. There's no point in wasting breath changing entrenched minds - the inevitable cultural progress of America will mow over their ideology, sure as night meets day. Therefore, I won't bother, and I encourage you all to do the same - don't give them more mental fuel to waste.

D

Dana I hope you and I will be able to sit down and have a drink together on that fine day when the balance of power between generations shift.

~Amanda

 

[Lebjwb]

Again you have nailed me. If you keep this up I will start reading you before Thomas Sowell.

Actually I care deeply about all issues that threaten traditional institutions. And I am aware of the miscegnation laws of the fifties that have gone by the wayside. But they went by the route of legislation, not by individual judges somewhere. Society is not perfect. It took generations of bloodshed and heartache to get rid of the scourge of slavery, but we did it.

Homosexual marriage was just the topic of the day, prompted by the Sowell column. It is not one of my driving issues.

But, I have spent enough time on this for one day. I am actually taking a break from grading about three weeks worth of homework papers that I have to get done before Monday. I will do almost anything to avoid that. I may even take down the Christmas lights before I am done.

I willl check back on this later - I enjoyed the discussion - thanks.

Some "Traditional Institutions" that have wound up on the garbage heap:

Slavery
Denial of the vote to Blacks
Denial of the vote to Women
Denial of a womens right to choose
Prohibition
Inter-racial marriage
Child labor

Spew all you want..but it's just a matter of time until Gay marriage is as common place as ordering a glass of beer...and thankfully there's not a thing you can do to stop it.

 

[swilphil]

Why can't two people who love each other, and often have children, get married? They don't have to necessarily get married in YOUR church.

 

[frozone]

what an Uncle Tom he is!!! How dare an African-American take a conservative stance when all the others lean left....

Do you understand the damage you do by continuing the useage of this phrase in such a derogatory manner? I realize that this isn't a thread about racial discrimination, but it is one about discrimination and I couldn't let this one go.

 

[frozone]

I asked this on page 6 & no one answered. I'll ask again. With the divorce rate being higher than ever, how do we know these were good decisions? Just because it's the 21st century doesn't necessarily mean we're smarter.

Could you please specify exacting what you intend in asking this question before I jump to conclusions. Because you *fully* have my attention.

 

[swilphil]

Look into yourself and try to deem why you're filled with such bias.

I'm guess it's fear--fear of the unknown, fear of someone different moving into the neighborhood, and, God forbid, fear of their own children marrying someone of the same gender.

 

[TXTink]

The OP is a Louisiana-based math teacher, born in 1938. No teaching old southern dogs new tricks, I guess. Those who believe in anti-gay discrimination can talk until they are blue in the face, but come 2050, when most of you are long gone and my generation has had its chance in the government, anti-gay marriage will be reality. Twentysomethings today are over 50% in favor of gay marriage. The educated coastal populace which controls most of the money and dominates the federal government are even more in favor. We'll force gay acceptance down intolerant throats in just the same way that we forced integration and the legalization of interrracial marriage. There's no point in wasting breath changing entrenched minds - the inevitable cultural progress of America will mow over their ideology, sure as night meets day. Therefore, I won't bother, and I encourage you all to do the same - don't give them more mental fuel to waste.

D

Wow! Talk about intolerance! Dismissing someone based on geography is what I call intolerant!

 

[spearenb]

Do you understand the damage you do by continuing the useage of this phrase in such a derogatory manner? I realize that this isn't a thread about racial discrimination, but it is one about discrimination and I couldn't let this one go.

Its called sarcasm and it was in response to someone stating how an black person can identify with a white conservative male. Lord knows that a black person(s) can't possibly do that. And I am not the one discriminating on this point as I didn't make the orginial statement.

 

[swilphil]

Do you understand the damage you do by continuing the useage of this phrase in such a derogatory manner? I realize that this isn't a thread about racial discrimination, but it is one about discrimination and I couldn't let this one go.

I agree, Dave. Many of us here on the Community Board appreciate exchanging ideas with a diverse group of people.

As far as Dana's comment about a person who is "Louisiana-based," I think she was explaining her use of the expression you can't teach an old Southern dog new tricks. We have had some great comments from DixieCajun, another Disser from the great state of Louisiana.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Wow! Talk about intolerance! Dismissing someone based on geography is what I call intolerant!

HEY - I thought I was being dismissed because I was a math teacher - or maybe because I was born in 1938!!!! So you think it is the geography thing, eh ????? waddya know - someone intolerant of LoUiSiAna ??

Actually I enjoyed his intent to "ram homosexual marriage down our intolerant throats." That is what I call REAL LW tolerance in action - ROFLMAO !!!!!!

I'm getting back to work now - take care

HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

The OP is a Louisiana-based math teacher, born in 1938. No teaching old southern dogs new tricks, I guess. Those who believe in anti-gay discrimination can talk until they are blue in the face, but come 2050, when most of you are long gone and my generation has had its chance in the government, anti-gay marriage will be reality. Twentysomethings today are over 50% in favor of gay marriage. The educated coastal populace which controls most of the money and dominates the federal government are even more in favor. We'll force gay acceptance down intolerant throats in just the same way that we forced integration and the legalization of interrracial marriage. There's no point in wasting breath changing entrenched minds - the inevitable cultural progress of America will mow over their ideology, sure as night meets day. Therefore, I won't bother, and I encourage you all to do the same - don't give them more mental fuel to waste.

D

I am 21 year old Republican who is 100% in favor of gay marriage, however your post seems more intolerant than those you call intolerant. It is also very condescending, and sounds downright hateful. I would think that a Princeton educated person would be able to craft a more pleasant message in support of gay marriage than that fearful hate speech.

 

[dmadman43]

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.
~Amanda

As far as schools go, we are already there. Ever hear of affirmitive action?

I think you now engaging in hyperbole.

 

[dmadman43]

oh and BTW, I remember certain things against blacks that was legal that are now not - the same rational for no gay marriage exists now.

No, it's not. Black were actually not allowed to practice marriage laws as defined. Thus discrimination. Homosexuals can practice the marriage laws as defined.

 

[dmadman43]

The OP is a Louisiana-based math teacher, born in 1938. No teaching old southern dogs new tricks, I guess. Those who believe in anti-gay discrimination can talk until they are blue in the face, but come 2050, when most of you are long gone and my generation has had its chance in the government, anti-gay marriage will be reality. Twentysomethings today are over 50% in favor of gay marriage. The educated coastal populace which controls most of the money and dominates the federal government are even more in favor. We'll force gay acceptance down intolerant throats in just the same way that we forced integration and the legalization of interrracial marriage. There's no point in wasting breath changing entrenched minds - the inevitable cultural progress of America will mow over their ideology, sure as night meets day. Therefore, I won't bother, and I encourage you all to do the same - don't give them more mental fuel to waste.

D

Is this the type of reasoned dialog they teach at Princeton now? The interracial argument is not applicable. Any decent Ivy League graduate should understand that. Race clearly is not a choice. Homosexuality has yet to be proven to be genetic like race is. Try again.

Gotta love you irrational exubarance. I remember much the same dialog the feminist used in the 70's about the ERA. We saw how successful that was

Force, huh? Again, such logical discourse. Your professors would be proud, I'm sure.

I do agree that if that if gays take the approach in changing the laws, they will eventually find success.

I also think you have a very narrow-minded view of "your generation". But, not surprising coming from a Northeastern, Ivy League educated liberal. You epitomize what is wrong with the Democratic Party.

 

[dmadman43]

I Actually, abstinance does work. Every time. Without fail.

"

Isn't it interesting how nature appears to abhor promiscuity amongst the human race? I mean, comparitively what is the instance of AIDS and other sexually transmistted communicable diseases amongst monogomous couples?