latest Thomas Sowell column - gay marriage

[auntpolly]

That's quite a leap there aunty.

Nope - welcome to my new years resolution - calling them like I see them.

I accept the fact that my state is against gay marriage - but they gotta come clean and admit they are homophobic. Why beat around the bush? Don't be shy. You've already spoken with your vote.

Homophobic. Homophobic. Homophobic.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

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.

The "incestuous marriage argument" is a totally different argument.

What this whole thing comes down to is basically a bunch of mostly white males, who want to say I am more moral than you, and it's my way or the highway, and I feel obligated to assert that fact to prove my manhood.

I just will never get it? No offense intended, LOL!!

 

[ElwoodBlues2]

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.

That may be the case but I have to ask about the methods.

In the movie "Iron Jawed Angles" they got Congress to pass the amendment that gave women the right to vote and not by judicial fiat.

 

[ElwoodBlues2]

The "incestuous marriage argument" is a totally different argument.[/b]

I disagree. It's the next logical step. Just look at the progression of other "rights" throughout history.

What this whole thing comes down to is basically a bunch of mostly white males, who want to say I am more moral than you, and it's my way or the highway, and I feel obligated to assert that fact to prove my manhood.

Mostly white males? That's a bit harsh and probably nowhere near the truth.

Sounds like you hate men.

If the law states that only heterosexual couples can marry and there is no legal requirement that they are even attracted to or love each other, how is that imposing morals on just homosexuals?

 

[septbride2002]

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

I think you now engaging in hyperbole.

I love how you don't fully quote me and then say that I am engaging in hyperbole. In my original post I said that these thoughts are extreme. Thereby stating that one would hope they would be so extreme they would never happen. But I think we can all admitt that as humans we can sink to the lowest of the lows.

With schools - yes I've heard of affirmitive action. Ever hear of history repeating itself?

~Amanda

 

[septbride2002]

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.

No matter how slight the insult it will reflect on you and not on me. And as Jimmie said so eloquently to me today - it just shows you are out of ideas. Although to be honest - you never brought any to the discussion anyway. And Ha! I'm immature - you are the one calling people's names how mature is that?

Yes the topic has been discussed before - please understand that I didn't start this topic so I don't see why you are so aggravated with me for stating my opinion on it. Not to mention you come into this thread to just call me names. The original poster and I have had a great debate going back and forth and have shown nothing but respect to one another. You however come on to the thread - call me a name......interesting.

~Amanda

 

[septbride2002]

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.

Yes because the DIS board is where Dana and I hope to make the difference. Please.

I joined this discussion because I disagreed with the author. I don't believe I have called anyone homophobe, backward, intolerant, ignorant, or unenlightend. Nor have I ever said that I know better then anyone else on the board. It is in fact the person you are quoting that started the name calling.

~Amanda

 

[Chuck S]

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

But since the latest article you reference is Dec 2004, did all the articles that surely must have been written this year about it, since this is reported in your articles to be such objectionalble actions, suddenly disappear? Or, have the articles you references been re-written and the truth stretched considerably that they no longer even resemble the "original" articles, so that they now serve to rally the conservative so they open their wallets and donate to the sites. That's the problem with using these types of articles to "prove" anything.

Remember, the first article is written in 2001, the latest in 2004, so 3 years worth of AP, Rueters and assorted mainline newspaper article suddenly "disappeared" from public view?

 

[Lebjwb]

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.

Wow! Consider this the second time then!

 

[septbride2002]

Forget it.

 

[jimmiej]

But since the latest article you reference is Dec 2004, did all the articles that surely must have been written this year about it, since this is reported in your articles to be such objectionalble actions, suddenly disappear? Or, have the articles you references been re-written and the truth stretched considerably that they no longer even resemble the "original" articles, so that they now serve to rally the conservative so they open their wallets and donate to the sites. That's the problem with using these types of articles to "prove" anything.

Remember, the first article is written in 2001, the latest in 2004, so 3 years worth of AP, Rueters and assorted mainline newspaper article suddenly "disappeared" from public view?

I saw actual news footage of a mom saying she had been kicked off school property for protesting.

Or, maybe I just made it up.

 

[jimmiej]

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.

When you answer mine, I'll answer yours. Deal?

 

[ElwoodBlues2]

Nope - welcome to my new years resolution - calling them like I see them.

I accept the fact that my state is against gay marriage - but they gotta come clean and admit they are homophobic. Why beat around the bush? Don't be shy. You've already spoken with your vote.

Homophobic. Homophobic. Homophobic.

Have at it if you so desire.

Because you tossed out the idea that *any*one who is against gay marriage is a homophobic, I understood that to include me as well so that's why I replied.

The term homophobic has been redefined to include anyone who doesn't like homosexual activities. Or am I mistaken?

Just because I find sex between two men distasteful and not something that I would engage in, doesn't make me homophobic. Or does it?

 

[jimmiej]

Okay seriously I do not want this thread closed because there are some good exchange of ideas going on. Lets not call people names. I'm sure Jimmi is a very nice person and lets all remember on the DIS we don't really get to "know" people.

~Amanda

Boy, that's a backhanded compliment if I've ever heard one! Thanks...I guess.

 

[ElwoodBlues2]

Wow! Consider this the second time then!

Real nice there pal.

 

[septbride2002]

Boy, that's a backhanded compliment if I've ever heard one! Thanks...I guess.

I'm so sorry it wasnt' up to your standards. I said you were a nice person and that on the DIS you don't really get to know the whole person - since I don't know you and this is the first time I've ever even read your post I can't really say much more then that. Don't worry next time I won't bother at all.

~Amanda

 

[auntpolly]

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?

I call the columnist homophobic because I believe he is one. He has written a illogical ranting that can actually only inspire people that were looking for the approval to turn their backs on their gay brothers, sisters, neighbors and friends.

Among the many illogical things the guy says is that it's not a matter of equal rights - he's kidding; right? obviously, I, a heterosexual female, have rights that a gay couple do not have, perhaps the most important being the right to being respected as a couple. I can just hear some of you guys, pre-civil rights saying things like - "hey, I'm not denying black folks rights - they can start their own country club."

 

[Lebjwb]

Real nice their pal.

Not your pal...sorry.

And like I posted previously...spew all you want, wrap it up in your "logic" and put a pretty bow on it if that helps you to justify your prehistoric position...but at the end of the day gay marriage will be as common place as ordering a glass of beer...and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[Chuck S]

I saw actual news footage of a mom saying she had been kicked off school property for protesting.

Or, maybe I just made it up.

I'm not saying you made it up, JimmieJ, I'm asking where the documentation is. If a mother was "kicked off" of school property for protesting, you don't find it odd that there is no major uproar, or that there don't seem to be any articles from non-biased non-donation driven websites?

Believe me, if anyone were to "kick off" a religious based protest from a school, it would definately make a media splash in todays political climate. How many articles were in the New Braunfels Herald Zeitung about prayer being banned prior to public school football games in Texas? I can pull up pages and pages from mainline news organizations on it, yet basically nothing about a Mom being kicked off a school campus for protesting the "promotion" of the "homosexual agenda."

 

[frozone]

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.

So a personal attack is not OK, but your insinuations that the mixing of races is corrupting the institution of marriage somehow is? I think I'd prefer the personal attack. Only "trying to provoke discussion?" I don't buy it. Perhaps you saw a gathering of people trying to convice others that discrimination is OK and thought you might get away with rolling the clock back a couple of decades. If not, great. Just a reminder that everyone here doesn't necessarily look or think like you.