latest Thomas Sowell column - gay marriage

[dmadman43]

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.

Actually, Church has nothing to do with the debate. Church's are free to marry whomever they want. It's what is legally recognized as a marriage contract that is the issue.

 

[dmadman43]

Most of the divorced people I know are white.

Most of the ones I know are Mexican-American. What does that say?

 

[spearenb]

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

I think I agree with you! Liberal elitist really isnt the best title for you. And no, I haven't a thing to add to this conversation as there isn't one thing thus far that hasn't been touched upon before, on this topic, on many a thread.
You know, there are many levels of maturity. Where one continues to debate a stop sign thinking they can change what the sign says, they aren't showing maturity in my book.

You are showing the same attitude that most believe lost the election. You aren't hearing what others in red are saying and until you or they (Dem party) do, this issue won't be resolved. Keep trying to force it down the nations throats and the resistance will only get stronger. There is a bad connitation of what gay marriage means and people are reacting to keep this away from them.

And before the elitism presumes that I am for or against gay marriage, re-read the above. I haven't stated the my position as it is irrelavant to this discussion.

Thanks for your permission to have fun!! I will go do that now.

 

[dmadman43]

IYou are showing the same attitude that most believe lost the election. You aren't hearing what others in red are saying and until you or they (Dem party) do, this issue won't be resolved. Keep trying to force it down the nations throats and the resistance will only get stronger. There is a bad connitation of what gay marriage means and people are reacting to keep this away from them.

Yes, it is quite obvious the Democratic Party and liberals in general are out of touch with most of America. The attitude apparently shared by Septbride2002 and danacara of eventually "forcing the issue" is indicative of that. Rather than put the issue in front of the face of the public, gay advocates would do well to go on a positive PR campaign and work behind the scenes to further their cause. Being called a homophobe, backward, intolerant, ignorant, unenlightend, and anything else that I have yet to hear is not the best way to win either undecideds or those against you over to your side. This whole, "we know better" attitude liberals have is very off-putting. People will push back if for nothing else, the simple reason they don't want to be lectured to.

 

[chrissyk]

I'm from MA, which happens to be the only state where gay marriage is legal. I support it 100%, as do the majority of my friends. Not every gay MA resident is rushing to the altar because it's legal here. My sister has several gay couples that she counts as friends. Out of all of those couples, ONE couple has tied the knot. The rest aren't sure that they're with "the one" yet, and thus they have not run down the aisle yet.

What I'm trying to say is that gay people aren't out to "corrupt" marriage or whatever people think. The gay couples who get married are as committed and thoughtful about marriage as the straight couples who get married. Some will stay married, some will get divorced eventually...just like straight couples. For the record, the couple that did get married is just like ANY other married couple. There is no difference. I look forward to the day when gay marriage is legal in every state.

 

[Laura]

Yes, it is quite obvious the Democratic Party and liberals in general are out of touch with most of America. The attitude apparently shared by Septbride2002 and danacara of eventually "forcing the issue" is indicative of that. Rather than put the issue in front of the face of the public, gay advocates would do well to go on a positive PR campaign and work behind the scenes to further their cause. Being called a homophobe, backward, intolerant, ignorant, unenlightend, and anything else that I have yet to hear is not the best way to win either undecideds or those against you over to your side. This whole, "we know better" attitude liberals have is very off-putting. People will push back if for nothing else, the simple reason they don't want to be lectured to.

Happy New Year!

You (and Joe and TXTink and spearenb and Rokkitsci) do not understood danacara's post. She said that we will force the issue of gay acceptance down people's throats the same way that the issues of integration and interracial marriage were forced. Yes, there are still people who don't agree with those issues, but people fought in many different ways for civil rights decades ago. Gay marriage will become law much the same way that interracial marriage did.

And try this sentence on for size:

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.

She is right that it's inevitable. I'm 29 and I don't know a single person my age (both liberal AND conservative) who voted for the gay marriage ban in Ohio. Eventually the older people who overwhelmingly feel gay marriage is wrong will die off and the younger and future generations will institute change. Maybe this whole process will take longer than I'd like, but gay marriage is coming. Danacara's post reminded me of that.

In Ohio, much of the measure's organizational support came from clergy, and exit polls showed that voters who attend church regularly were Issue 1's strongest allies.

About 89 percent of white evangelicals who consider themselves to be born again supported the amendment, as did 82 percent of those who attend church more than once a week.

It failed among a few select demographic groups, including non-churchgoers (66 percent), those with incomes exceeding $100,000 (54 percent) and voters between 18 and 29 (51 percent).

http://www.cleveland.com/election/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1099477843312881.xml

 

[CajunDixie]

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.

Me??!!!?? *LOL* I don't live in nor have I ever lived in Louisiana! Do people that use Tinkerbell in their user names live in Never Never Land?

 

[swilphil]

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.

Why would homosexuals want to marry someone from the opposite sex? By making gay marriage legal they would be allowed to marry the person they love and want to spend the rest of their life with.

By the way, I was born in 1963 and I'm all for gay marriage.

 

[swilphil]

Me??!!!?? *LOL* I don't live in nor have I ever lived in Louisiana! Do people that use Tinkerbell in their user names live in Never Never Land?

Sorry, the Cajun part threw me off. My apologies, but I do agree with most of your posts! Keep them coming.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

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?

Nature can also be cruel and ruthless. So tsunami victims deserve to get washed away? It's a disease, it's ludicrous to try to use it to support your cause. It's this type of thinking that led us to burn witches at the stake, and not to mention got us into The Crusades. Propel us back into the dark ages again, why don't ya?

Danacara is right, your way of thinking is obsolete.

 

[jimmiej]

Are you saying that allowing interracial marriage somehow affected the divorce rate?

Since whites make up at least 70 percent of the population, I'm guessing that most of the divorces are among white couples. Most of the divorced people I know are white.

I think Dana is right. There's no point trying to change the minds of bigots.

Wow, I've never been called a bigot before. I'll say it again. If you resort to personal attacks, you must be out of ideas.

 

[simpilotswife]

Originally Posted by Rokkitsci
Actually, abstinance does work. Every time. Without fail

You might want to tell that to Ryan White or Elizabeth Glaser

 

[minniepumpernickel]

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.

Are you trying to say that the feminists weren't successful? So we don't have women in traditional male jobs now? If we hadn't had those feminists we wouldn't be where we are today.

 

[jimmiej]

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?

I actually heard about this on the news first. That is, the incident in Newton, Mass.

 

[jimmiej]

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

Just trying to provoke some thought.

 

[auntpolly]

threatening?? homophobia??
Just try to avoid sitting on the sidelines and hissing raspberries. That's just not dignified.

You heard what I said. Threatened. Homophobic. The only appropriate response to that piece of trash is hissing and rasberries.

Nobody save a threatened homophobic would even care about this issue.

 

[swilphil]

JimmieJ--If you are saying that allowing blacks to marry whites caused the divorce rate to increase, then that is bigotry. It is also totally illogical. Frozone and I both asked you to explain your remark. Evidently you don't have an answer to our question.

 

[ElwoodBlues2]

Are you trying to say that the feminists weren't successful? So we don't have women in traditional male jobs now? If we hadn't had those feminists we wouldn't be where we are today.

Women being denied jobs just because they are women is a completely different argument. Blacks being denied the same rights as white is also not the same argument.

I don't know how many times this has been stated, but here it is again. No ones rights are being denied when it comes to marriage. Everyone has the same choices. Homosexuals are not being discriminated against. How can they be if no one can marry someone of the opposite sex in a legally recognized way? And as dmadman has said many times before, love and attraction are irrelevant because anyone can marry anyone else of the opposite sex for any reason they desire.

Oh wait, I take that back. A man can't marry his mother or daughter nor can a woman marry her father or son.

But that's next on the list of denied rights to be addressed.

 

[ElwoodBlues2]

Nobody save a threatened homophobic would even care about this issue.

That's quite a leap there aunty.

 

[chobie]

Women being denied jobs just because they are women is a completely different argument. Blacks being denied the same rights as white is also not the same argument.

I believe she was countering the argument that the feminist movement was not successful. We may have some more work to do, but many advances for women have been brought about thanks to those feminists in the 70's pushing the ERA.