latest Thomas Sowell column - gay marriage

[mariamouse]

Ughh, this thread's OP disgusts me.

I, too, believe that soon in the future, gay marriage will be common. It has also been my experience that the younger generation (including myself) is a bit more liberal... once we have the power to vote over this debate, I believe that gay marriage will exist and future Americans will look back at its earlier lack of existance as shocking.

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

 

[auntpolly]

So a personal attack is not OK, but your insinuations that the mixing of races is corrupting the institution of marriage somehow is? .

You know what I always say; Why only make a<i> personal</i> attack when you can attack an entire race?!

Seems more efficient; doesnt' it?

 

[frozone]

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.

Well, I don't appreciate this phrase being used in the name of sarcasm. I'm going to assume that you don't understand the history of the term and the damage it's done since you are willing to use it so lightly. Have you read Uncle Tom's Cabin, or maybe you just know it as the novel that supposedly provoked the Civil War. Read it and note the sterotyping- these are the categories that blacks are still fighting on television, in movies, and where we live. This is a phrase that whites have used against blacks and that blacks have used against each other. Is this a history you really want to participate in? If so, continue to perpetuate this phrase. But be prepared for people to call you out for it.

 

[Rokkitsci]

If I mean racist - I should be able to say racist. If I mean homophobic - what other word will do?

Since you seem to encompass a lot of your thinking in the use of the one word "homophobe" would you care to define what you mean by that?

Perhaps you are mis-using it in terms of my definition. To me, it means just what it says = "fear of homosexuals." This would include the loathing of homosexuals based strictly on their sexual preference.

You seem to be using it as a political description = "anyone who disagree with me relative to my homosexual political agenda." If this is your definition then that automatically makes you a "heterophobic" because you obviously have different view than me on the political discussion. Quite a ridiculous stance.

Perhaps you have a definition somewhere in between those two extremes. If so, please clarify. I need to know if I am being insulted or just confronted with someone who does not use the language properly.

To assist you in your categorization, I will define my attitude and political stance relative to the issue.

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

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

I would sincerely love to never have to discuss anyone's love-making techniques at all. Of either sex - of either preference. I would prefer to make my associations based on character and integrity.

I fully support legal protection giving homosexual couples the same kind of inheritance or visitation rights that heterosexual couples have. My first impulse would be to LEGISLATIVELY change the laws that DENY such obvious inequities.

I completely oppose the JUDICIAL approach to addressing these grievances. Just as I oppose the judicial approach to many other pressing 'problems' such as abortion, church/state, and education. We have a system that empowers the legislature to settle these kinds of issues after due consideration of all points of view. I adamantly oppose the techinque of shopping around for an activist judge who can almost unilaterally change a set law or custom.

I adamantly oppose the current agenda to change the definition of so well-understood term as marriage. Since the homosexual community was so dis-satisfied with the well-understood term "homosexual" to the extent that they appropriated a new term "gay" for their descriptor, I cannot understand why they insist on the use of the well-understood word "marriage" for this issue. Why not just appropriate some other description?? or making up a new word??

I am a conservative - I see no reason for experimenting with social norms just to make some sect 'feel better.' If there are genuine greivances, let us discuss them and resolve them in the least disruptive manner possible. Let us not just assault the entire established order because there are some minor grievances.

I am a thoughtful person - I try to understand the logic of my political opposition, not just their passion. To me, if all you can do is shout your passion, and not defend your reasons, then you have nothing to offer any further discussion. We might as well set up bleachers and get cheerleaders and try to shout each other down. This works great for football games but doesn't shed much light on the situation.

Now - please describe homophobe to me - exactly what are you calling me when you call me that??

 

[Chuck S]

I did find this article on the Boston Herald site:

1) the woman was warned and was violating the schools student privacy policy by videotaping

2) This "Diverstity Day" has been going on 10 years, if it was so objectionable to the general populace of the area, it is funny we hear so little about it.

3) She kept her children home, so the discussion did NOT even involve her kids at all.

4) Students were not required to attend, they could "opt out" and go tot he library or computer lab if they so desired.

5) The mother was attending the event with an anti-gay activist, who is also a parent of a student. (Brian Camenker)

Mom ousted for taping gay acceptance `lies'
By Jessica Fargen
Thursday, December 16, 2004

Two parents, shocked at frank talk during a gay and lesbian awareness day at Newton North High, were forced off the property after one parent whipped out a video camera and started taping.

``This does not belong in curriculum,'' said Kim Cariani, who said four police officers and the principal told them they would be charged with trespassing if they did not leave.

``It's against my religion. It's morally wrong and forced in a child's face.''

Each year, some students at Newton North forgo classes during To BGLAD: Transgender, Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Awareness Day with assembly-like sessions including ``Out at the Old Ballgame'' and ``Color Me Queer.'' Students are not required to attend.

Cariani kept her two kids home during the day, but she was curious.

Cariani and another parent, Brian Camenker, were in the audience when adults in a panel discussion talked about being gay. When one man told the students he was attracted to his sister's husband, Cariani said she started to record the ``propaganda, false information and lies.''

The principal demanded Cariani turn over the videotape or leave, Camenker said.

``They took the two of us and pulled us out and gave us one minute to leave and if we came back on the property we would be arrested for trespassing,'' he said.

Tom Mountain, a columnist for the Newton Tab, was also barred from the assembly ``for the safety and security of the children,'' he said he was told.

Newton schools Superintendent Jeff Young said it is a violation of school policy to tape or photograph students without parental permission. Cariani refused to give up the tape, so they were asked to decamp, he said.

The awareness day, held for the past 10 years, is one of several ways the schools highlight diversity, Young said. Students who don't want to go can go to the library or computer lab.

 

[auntpolly]

Since you seem to encompass a lot of your thinking in the use of the one word "homophobe" would you care to define what you mean by that?

Perhaps you are mis-using it in terms of my definition. To me, it means just what it says = "fear of homosexuals." This would include the loathing of homosexuals based strictly on their sexual preference.

You seem to be using it as a political description = "anyone who disagree with me relative to my homosexual political agenda."

I don't know how else to describe why someone would deny someone different than them rights - if you aren't afraid of something - you tell me. Why would you do this?

Of course you are afraid. Afraid of people who are different. Afraid they'll change the world as you know it.

Yeah, we disagree. You're shocked by this? Where have you been?

 

[Lebjwb]

Since you seem to encompass a lot of your thinking in the use of the one word "homophobe" would you care to define what you mean by that?

Perhaps you are mis-using it in terms of my definition. To me, it means just what it says = "fear of homosexuals." This would include the loathing of homosexuals based strictly on their sexual preference.

You seem to be using it as a political description = "anyone who disagree with me relative to my homosexual political agenda." If this is your definition then that automatically makes you a "heterophobic" because you obviously have different view than me on the political discussion. Quite a ridiculous stance.

Perhaps you have a definition somewhere in between those two extremes. If so, please clarify. I need to know if I am being insulted or just confronted with someone who does not use the language properly.

To assist you in your categorization, I will define my attitude and political stance relative to the issue.

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

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

I would sincerely love to never have to discuss anyone's love-making techniques at all. Of either sex - of either preference. I would prefer to make my associations based on character and integrity.

I fully support legal protection giving homosexual couples the same kind of inheritance or visitation rights that heterosexual couples have. My first impulse would be to LEGISLATIVELY change the laws that DENY such obvious inequities.

I completely oppose the JUDICIAL approach to addressing these grievances. Just as I oppose the judicial approach to many other pressing 'problems' such as abortion, church/state, and education. We have a system that empowers the legislature to settle these kinds of issues after due consideration of all points of view. I adamantly oppose the techinque of shopping around for an activist judge who can almost unilaterally change a set law or custom.

I adamantly oppose the current agenda to change the definition of so well-understood term as marriage. Since the homosexual community was so dis-satisfied with the well-understood term "homosexual" to the extent that they appropriated a new term "gay" for their descriptor, I cannot understand why they insist on the use of the well-understood word "marriage" for this issue. Why not just appropriate some other description?? or making up a new word??

I am a conservative - I see no reason for experimenting with social norms just to make some sect 'feel better.' If there are genuine greivances, let us discuss them and resolve them in the least disruptive manner possible. Let us not just assault the entire established order because there are some minor grievances.

I am a thoughtful person - I try to understand the logic of my political opposition, not just their passion. To me, if all you can do is shout your passion, and not defend your reasons, then you have nothing to offer any further discussion. We might as well set up bleachers and get cheerleaders and try to shout each other down. This works great for football games but doesn't shed much light on the situation.

Now - please describe homophobe to me - exactly what are you calling me when you call me that??

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?

 

[frozone]

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?

Thanks-I appreciate what you are trying to do, but they aren't going to get it. They're stubborn and scared of losing control. Like their use of "homosexual" when they know that gays and lesbians chose to be referred to as "gay" "lesbian" or "queer." Same why they insist they don't have to say African American if they don't want to and use all the derogatory sterotypes they want in the name of "sarcasm". They use the words they want to try and keep control

 

[swilphil]

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

I'll be happy to answer any question you have. So, what's your question?

 

[swilphil]

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.

I think the comment was made to "provoke" something, but certainly not an exchange of ideas. It's so easy on these boards to throw out insinuations and perpetuate stereotypes, but I doubt they would have the gonads to ever do it to your face.

 

[ElwoodBlues2]

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."

I don't care if you call someone a racist or homophobe as long as it fits the standard definition. Not the one you made up on your own. You can have the opinion that the definition is incorrect based on your feelings but that doesn't change the fact that's what's been decided as the standard.

We've seen this argument used elsewhere on the CB when someone called Ramsey Clark defense of SH treasonous. By definition (the legal one) it's not. That doesn't stop people from feeling that way, but it doesn't make his actions treasonous.

Again, racism is a different argument. What rights do you have that a gay person does not in direct regard to marrying someone else. Do not consider love or emotion when you provide your answer because it's irrelevant.

 

[septbride2002]

I adamantly oppose the current agenda to change the definition of so well-understood term as marriage. Since the homosexual community was so dis-satisfied with the well-understood term "homosexual" to the extent that they appropriated a new term "gay" for their descriptor, I cannot understand why they insist on the use of the well-understood word "marriage" for this issue. Why not just appropriate some other description?? or making up a new word??

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

 

[auntpolly]

I don't care if you call someone a racist or homophobe as long as it fits the standard definition. Not the one you made up on your own. You can have the opinion that the definition is incorrect based on your feelings but that doesn't change the fact that's what's been decided as the standard.
.

What one did I make up on my own? I agreed with the one Rokkitsci used. You have one of <i>your</i> own?

 

[Chuck S]

Again, racism is a different argument. What rights do you have that a gay person does not in direct regard to marrying someone else. Do not consider love or emotion when you provide your answer because it's irrelevant.

Interesting...love and emotion are irrelevant to an arguement in favor of marriage? I'm sorry that you married for neither love nor emotion.

Actually, the same arguement could be made about inter-racial marriages. By saying that same-sex couples have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else, the arguement was certainly made prior to allowing inter-racial marriage that one race has the same marriage rights as any other...to marry a person of the opposite sex within their own race. Separate but equal seldom works, does it?

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

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.

I am 100% in favor of gay marriage, but just because someone is against it, does not make them homophobic. You are showing a great deal of bigotry and intolerance by calling people homophobic when that is not likely to be the root of their anti gay marriage position.

 

[jimmiej]

I'll be happy to answer any question you have. So, what's your question?

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. By extension, as other posters have said, IMO, there's no compelling reason to re-define marriage just because a small minority wants to. If enough citizens feel strongly about it, the laws will eventually change. Right now, I think it's pretty clear most states don't want it. By the same token, I doubt if President Bush's constituional amendment will pass.

If this makes me a homophobic bigot, so be it. I've been called worse-I used to teach high school!

 

[ElwoodBlues2]

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?

Why don't you try being a little nicer.

But once again, using race discrimination is irrelevant to this argument because as the current marriage laws are written (before the recent elections in some states), everyone has the same rights and restrictions.

Discrimination is where one group is denied certain rights or privileges that other groups have. If all people are denied the same rights or privileges, there is no discrimination or preference to one particular group.

 

[swilphil]

What rights do you have that a gay person does not in direct regard to marrying someone else. Do not consider love or emotion when you provide your answer because it's irrelevant.

Oh please. Most of us get married because of the love and emotion we have for our spouse. If you are gay, that person is going to be of the same gender. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry that person? Whom does it hurt? Gay couples spend decades together and then run into all sorts of legal obstacles because they aren't legally married.

 

[auntpolly]

I am 100% in favor of gay marriage, but just because someone is against it, does not make them homophobic. You are showing a great deal of bigotry and intolerance by calling people homophobic when that is not likely to be the root of their anti gay marriage position.

No - I'm tired aof tiptoeing around the word. Unless someone can give me a good reason for being against gay marriage that does not involve fear - and a phobia has to do with fear - then I'll keep using the word.

We looooooove to lable liberals on this board. I'm going to use this word whenever it fits.

 

[auntpolly]

Do not consider love or emotion when you provide your answer because it's irrelevant.

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.