NationStates Jolt Archive

Please actually read the article before you respond to my post. I was always up in the air on my beliefs in this area, being a libertarian, but this argument is a rather conclusive one in my opinion.

Forgot the link.. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041231.shtml

" What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS."

Right.

" What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS."

Right.

Wrong.

Black.

White.

Ugly.

Pretty.

Bad.

Good.

The above sums up how this thread will go.

Wrong.

Black.

White.

Ugly.

Pretty.

Bad.

Good.

The above sums up how this thread will go.
Pretty much. That article is flamebait though...

Pretty much. That article is flamebait though...

It is not. I honestly was undecided prior to this argument.

Boy... I sure hope those nasty homosexuals will stay the hell away from me

:fluffle:

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.
*snip*
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 guy just answered his own question: marriage is an official recognition of the fact that both parties take responsibility for eachother. For better, for worse. In sickness and in health. Just living together does not come close.

That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.

What is truly staggering is they have time to teach such debunked backwards and harmful “abstinence only” classes
(now I know there is going to be some idiot who comes in and yells at me how good abstinence is … well it is a perfectly fine and safe form of lifestyle … it should be taught with everything else that kids need to know.)

It is not. I honestly was undecided prior to this argument.
They way I see it the government should get the hell out of marriage altogether - what do you think, since you said you are also libertarian?

Boy... I sure hope those nasty homosexuals will stay the hell away from me

:fluffle:
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

They way I see it the government should get the hell out of marriage altogether - what do you think, since you said you are also libertarian?
Yeah that confused me … him/her being “libertarian” usually you know they are all for “liberties” ?

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
Oh noooo!

A homosexual. Get him off me! GET HIM OFF ME!

:fluffle:

They way I see it the government should get the hell out of marriage altogether - what do you think, since you said you are also libertarian?

Yes without a doubt..though I realize that is an unrealistic proposition. I also believe Sowell hits on this when he states how marriage is a government restriction.

He was on a roll until paragraph 13.

Yeah that confused me … him/her being “libertarian” usually you know they are all for “liberties” ?

Read the article I believe he answers the liberty question.

He was on a roll until paragraph 13.

Yes I do think he strayed their a little, and went with a much more conservative view.

Yes I do think he strayed their a little, and went with a much more conservative view.

And before that he completely neglected to make a point... unless i missed it (see my previous post in this topic before replying).

Oh noooo!

A homosexual. Get him off me! GET HIM OFF ME!

:fluffle:
No strait … but I don’t mind fluffling a random person ;)

I like to call it equal opportunity fluffling

And before that he completely neglected to make a point... unless i missed it (see my previous post in this topic before replying).
His point was simple. Many of those calling for gay marriage act as if it is a right. It is not, at least not relating to the government.

No strait … but I don’t mind fluffling a random person ;)

I like to call it equal opportunity fluffling
:fluffle:

Fluffles for all!

Read the article I believe he answers the liberty question.
But you didn’t
[/quote] They way I see it the government should get the hell out of marriage altogether - what do you think, since you said you are also libertarian?[/quote]

If marriage in the legal form is a restriction … then I would figure a libertarian would be against government being in ANY marriage

I think the ridiculous part is the idea that Marriage is this restriction on your rights. The reason why it's being being fought so hard for is, yes, the social recognition, but almost the benifits legally that come with marriage. If two people are married and one dies, and there is no will, the other automatically gets to have the rights of decision over those posessions. If one of them is in a coma and cannot make financial decisions, the spouse gets to decide. It shows a certain connection and unity between two people that just living together cannot sufficently represent. Marriage is something that is a true connection between two people, the idea of the human insinct of love reaching it's pinncale in the eyes of society. The idea of this right of expression only being limited to heterosexual people is not something that I see as fair. This is what the gay community is saying. It's not about the rights you get when your spouse buys a car. It's about the rights you get to have your love with someone truly expressed.

:fluffle:

Fluffles for all!
Damn strait!

This world could use more fluffles :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I am against gay marriage/civil unions because allowing the sodomites to act in their immoral ways symbolizes the destruction of our country. First we allow gays to marry, next we'll be allowing polygamy. Its sickening. I personally think sodomy should be made a crime.

If marriage in the legal form is a restriction … then I would figure a libertarian would be against government being in ANY marriage
Correct

Oh noooo!

A homosexual. Get him off me! GET HIM OFF ME!

:fluffle:

ROFL let me help :fluffle: :mp5:

The guy just answered his own question: marriage is an official recognition of the fact that both parties take responsibility for eachother. For better, for worse. In sickness and in health. Just living together does not come close.

"Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

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."


This was his main argument here.

They way I see it the government should get the hell out of marriage altogether - what do you think, since you said you are also libertarian?How do you propose this be done? Marriage is the government acknowledging that you are married, and then you get benefits from the government. Without it you're just living together anyway.

ROFL let me help :fluffle: :mp5:
My hero!

:fluffle:

Correct
Not only that but is it not a liberty to be able to MAKE the choice for yourself weather the tradeoffs of love are worth the economic issues?

But you didn’t
They way I see it the government should get the hell out of marriage altogether - what do you think, since you said you are also libertarian?[/quote]

If marriage in the legal form is a restriction … then I would figure a libertarian would be against government being in ANY marriage[/QUOTE]

I said I was..but I am being realistic knowing full well that marriage would never be eliminated. It is more evidence of the government unfortunately getting involved in our lives. Personally I feel homosexuals are lucky not having the government being involved. If one wants it to stay in the bedroom then one cannot ask for government approval.

Basicaly his argument boils down to “you don’t want it over here … it’s a lot of work”

Sounds like a 7 year old trying to convince a friend that wants to play with his toy that it is not as good as he thinks so that the 7 year old can continue to play with it by himself

Silly

How do you propose this be done? Marriage is the government acknowledging that you are married, and that's it. Without it you're just living together anyway.
Simple - people can opt for Civil Unions; if they want a marriage they can have a religious one (yeah i know, i havent exactly solved how to include atheists and the like if they want a marriage)

My hero!

:fluffle:

:eek: Wow now back away from me

They way I see it the government should get the hell out of marriage altogether - what do you think, since you said you are also libertarian?

If marriage in the legal form is a restriction … then I would figure a libertarian would be against government being in ANY marriage[/QUOTE]

I said I was..but I am being realistic knowing full well that marriage would never be eliminated. It is more evidence of the government unfortunately getting involved in our lives. Personally I feel homosexuals are lucky not having the government being involved. If one wants it to stay in the bedroom then one cannot ask for government approval.[/QUOTE]
So you are making ideals out of what is realistic?

And if so gay marriage is realistic … seems to a bit more fair then getting them out of marriage all together

His point was simple. Many of those calling for gay marriage act as if it is a right. It is not, at least not relating to the government.

No - he argues that marriage is a restriction of rights. This is both true and untrue - for straights and gays alike. True because it does indeed take away some freedom to do things exactly the way you want to, like his buying an automobile example. Untrue because marriage gives you the right to officially speak on your partners behalf if he/she is not able to.

Again: a marriage is a promise to be there, for better, for worse. It comes with responsibility. It is a choice - not an obligation. But he is trying to deny people this choice based on the argument "they should not want it anyway". A choice he is not allowed to make for them.

:eek: Wow now back away from me
awwww... I like it when they're shy

:fluffle:

Simple - people can opt for Civil Unions; if they want a marriage they can have a religious one (yeah i know, i havent exactly solved how to include atheists and the like if they want a marriage)But most religions, as far as I know, don't allow gays anyway. :S

/Edit: I think I see what you're saying.

.

Simple - people can opt for Civil Unions; if they want a marriage they can have a religious one (yeah i know, i havent exactly solved how to include atheists and the like if they want a marriage)

Superpower I do agree with you.. I am in full support of homosexuals having civil unions. I also do believe Mormons or people of other beliefs should be able to opt for civil unions too. Why should one be restricted by the government in having only one wife/partner? It should be up to the individual to make the contract not the government.

:eek: Wow now back away from me
How bout me :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

No - he argues that marriage is a restriction of rights. This is both true and untrue - for straights and gays alike. True because it does indeed take away some freedom to do things exactly the way you want to, like his buying an automobile example. Untrue because marriage gives you the right to officially speak on your partners behalf if he/she is not able to.

Again: a marriage is a promise to be there, for better, for worse. It comes with responsibility. It is a choice - not an obligation. But he is trying to deny people this choice based on the argument "they should not want it anyway". A choice he is not allowed to make for them.

Civil contract is the solution. Also there still can be a celebration or ceremony for a homosexual's partnership, it just is not a marriage.

Pretty much. That article is flamebait though...
It's better than every other thread started by anti-gay activists.

Sowell argues that marriage is not a freedom, but a restriction. But should people not have the right to restrict their own freedoms?

Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex.
This is an old one. If only people who can have children should marry, why doesn't the government ban infertile people from marrying?

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.
Umm, no they just want to marry their partners.

The rhetoric of "equal rights" has become the road to special privilege for all sorts of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as well.
They don't want special privilege, they want to marry just like straight couples.
They have already succeeded in getting far more government money for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people.
I doubt the validity of this, but I'll assume it's true: perhaps the reason that AIDS gets more funding than say, heart disease, is because we know much more about heart disease than about AIDS. And does it really kill more people? 6,500 people in Africa alone die of AIDS every day.

www.data.org


What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS.
Nice that he is so sure of "what they really want". Since when is homosexuality a "lifestyle"? Most gays are just like straight people in every way except sexual orientation. This paragraph also contains the ignorant assumption that most gay people have AIDS.
They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called "AIDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality.
Umm, actually we heteros are also at risk from AIDS.

In some cases, gay activists actually come to the schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids.
*scoff*
This is ridiculous. It sounds like something you just either made up, or put such a spin on as to make it look bad.

Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers' money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable.[quote]
I regard bigotry against gays as a flaw in our society, not some kind of positive, or essential value. Several countries have legalised gay marriage and adoption, and I don't think that their societies have become less viable.
[quote=Thomas Sowell]They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that cramps their style.
What's wrong with this? Libertarians and conservative people just want to take away government restrictions on them making as much money as possible, and that is not necessarily a bad intention.
But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the structure that they don't like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times.See above. Several countries have legalised gay marriage and adoption, and their societies have not become less viable and are nowhere closer to the verge of collapse.


Congrats Tommy, you didn't even mention "God" once!

The essence of his argument is "I want things to stay exactly as they are, even if the change doesn't actually affect me."

I don't buy that.

I don't mind conservatives. I don't mind liberals. I DO mind people who are so far biased they can't even argue properly and who are so obsessed that rant about something. Take George Will. I don't agree with everything he says, but he makes good, defensible arguments that I can argue against in a reasonable fashion. Therefore, he has far more respect from me than most other 'editorialist writers,' especially people like Sowell, or even people like Michael Moore.



As for that article:
:headbang:

I am against gay marriage/civil unions because allowing the sodomites to act in their immoral ways symbolizes the destruction of our country. First we allow gays to marry, next we'll be allowing polygamy. Its sickening. I personally think sodomy should be made a crime.

Oh yeah, I agree all the way man. If the wanna be homosexual they can do it in their bathrooms or somtin...
:fluffle: :gundge: :fluffle: :mp5: :fluffle: :sniper:
:headbang: :mp5:

As for that article:
:headbang:[/QUOTE]

Sowell is an economist not an antagonist like Moore or Coulter. If you read his books(treaties on thought, economics and political systems) you know that he is by far one of the most intelligent thoughtful people around. He relys completely on the facts and is a true conservatove libertarian.

Civil contract is the solution. Also there still can be a celebration or ceremony for a homosexual's partnership, it just is not a marriage.

But what would in that case be the difference between a "civil union" between homosexuals, and a civil, non-church "marriage" between heterosexuals ?

None in my opinion. Therefor they should both have the same name: civil unions or marriages as you choose. The liason made in the church can have the other name. There was a huge topic on this a while back ;-)

Yeah that confused me … him/her being “libertarian” usually you know they are all for “liberties” ?

Really? I think that's kinda funny here... check these quotes out in terms of "liberty fighters"

"When personal freedom is being abused, you have to limit it."

"I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years."

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license & all potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes only to citizens chosen for childbearing."

"In South Africa we'd call it apartheid. In Nazi Germany we'd call it fascism. Here [in the U.S.] we call it conservatism."
______
The people that said these quotes are numbered below...

That's funny... these "liberals" don't seem to support "liberty" very much... so don't assume that's what the view point stands for...
______

- Ex-President James Carville
- Ex-President Lyndon Johnson
- David Brower, Founder of Friends of the Earth, 2x nominee for Nobel Peace Prize
- Reverend Jesse Jackson

But what would in that case be the difference between a "civil union" between homosexuals, and a civil, non-church "marriage" between heterosexuals ?

None in my opinion. Therefor they should both have the same name: civil unions or marriages as you choose. The liason made in the church can have the other name. There was a huge topic on this a while back ;-)

Well I personally believe that there is semantically something in the word marriage. I am sorry if I missed that topic, I just joined this forum.

Gay marriage should be allowed all over the world, not just in a few enlightened countries like mine.

Who cares if it spreads aids, that's a risk people will have to decide on for themselves. Besides, aids is mostly rampant in Afrika, and not everybody there is gay, right...? Quite the opposite, they reproduce like mad.

Gay marriage should be allowed all over the world, not just in a few enlightened countries like mine.

Who cares if it spreads aids, that's a risk people will have to decide on for themselves. Besides, aids is mostly rampant in Afrika, and not everybody there is gay, right...? Quite the opposite, they reproduce like mad.

WTH r u smoking

Weed, actually. :D

WTH r u smoking

http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/flameINC/images/w6.gif

http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/flameINC/images/w6.gif
oh no, you shouldn't smoke Samuel

I am against gay marriage/civil unions because allowing the sodomites to act in their immoral ways symbolizes the destruction of our country. First we allow gays to marry, next we'll be allowing polygamy. Its sickening. I personally think sodomy should be made a crime.
You'd think this was parody, but the guy is serious.

The only way that the govt could enforce anti-sodomy laws would be to set up a privacy invading Gestapo force.

I'm a libertarian and I think that there is nothing evil about polygamy or homosexuality. It doesn't affect you so shut up about it.

It is more evidence of the government unfortunately getting involved in our lives. Personally I feel homosexuals are lucky not having the government being involved. If one wants it to stay in the bedroom then one cannot ask for government approval.
So you regard marriage as a curse? Would you support a group that lobbied to outlaw heterosexual marriage?

Gay marriage should be allowed all over the world, not just in a few enlightened countries like mine.

Who cares if it spreads aids, that's a risk people will have to decide on for themselves. Besides, aids is mostly rampant in Afrika, and not everybody there is gay, right...? Quite the opposite, they reproduce like mad.Oh dear... such confusion. Enlighten us as to how gay marriage spreads AIDS? One would think pledging oneself to one partner would decrease the likelihood of infection.

Africa? Funny you should raise that issue. AIDS is almost exclusively a HETEROSEXUAL disease in Africa. Perhaps Africa should ban straight marriage, eh?

Yes without a doubt..though I realize that is an unrealistic proposition. I also believe Sowell hits on this when he states how marriage is a government restriction.

Actually, he mises the point entirely. Marriage is simply a social contract between two parties. It is a huge all-encompasing contract, but a contract none the less. It can be disolved by the parties and it can be amended by the parties. In the example the author used, the parties could specify seperation of personal property and assets in a prenumptial agreement. If they did, then the car would completely belong to the wife.

The real importance of marriage is that it grants blanket protections and privilages to both spouses. A girlfriend can't make medical decisions for an unconcious love but a wife can. A boyfriend isn't automaticly granted a lover's estate in the absence of a will, but a husband is. There are countless privilages that are granted to spouses but not live-in lovers.
Many can be duplicated through other types of contracts, but some cannot.The ability to file taxes jointly, medical leave to take care of a sick spouse, legally privlaged communication, these are but a handfull of the benefits of marriage that cannot be granted by other contracts. In any event, lovers would have to carry around upwards of 20 legal documents whereever they go just to get a fraction of the protections afforded by marriage.

Marriage is no more of a restriction than any other contract. If the government forced people to get married or prohibited marriage in some cases, then it would be a restriction.




The his second argument is also terribly flawed. The author falls back on the tired and true "homosexuals can't have children" excuse. The fact that it is fallacious in multiple ways doesn't dawn on him. One, infertile people are allowed to get married. Two, homosexuals can have children. There are countless homosexual couples who adopt, who have children from failed heterosexual relationships, or who choose to have children using modern medical technology and doner material. Currently, it is medically possible for two men to concieve a child together. It is, however, experimental and prohibitivly expensive. Ten years from now, it may be common.
Marriage laws do provide protections for children, as well. Why is it that children of homosexuals don't deserve the same protections that children of hetrosexuals do?

Of course, his stupidity shows through when he starts talking about AIDS. Of course, everyone knows that it is physically impossible for hetrosexuals to get AIDS and there are no children with AIDS. AIDS can't be transfered through normal penile-vaginal intercourse. AIDS can't be transfered through contact with ontaminated blood.
:rolleyes: In case no one noticed, I was being sarcastic.

He just goes down hill from there.

1. "What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS."

I have a big problem with this statement.

First of all, the "homosexual lifestyle," per se, is no deadlier than the "heterosexual lifestyle." I've personally known homosexuals who weren't promiscuous, and heterosexuals who were. You can guess who was more likely to get AIDS. In addition, reports have been coming out for the past decade which show that homosexuals have largely curbed, or have been more selective with, their sexual activity because of the potential threat of AIDS.

Secondly, for at least the past ten years the majority of the world's new HIV cases have been through heterosexual sexual activities. When I was taking a high school peer leadership class ten years ago, the statistic, in fact, was that 75% of the world's new HIV cases were a result of heterosexual sex.

Thirdly, homosexuals don't want a "stamp of approval" upon their lifestyle. They merely want to be given equal treatment where the law is concerned, which isn't so wrong if you think about it. Before I go any further, I would like to state that I have a strong disagreement with, and disapproval of, homosexuality. However, my personal disagreement has no bearing on whether or not they should be legally allowed to marry. Many things in the States are legal, and yet there are always those who strongly disagree with/disapprove of them. Abortion, for example, is legal and yet there is a large number of Americans who disapprove of it. Those who wish to have abortions are free to have them, and those who wish to not have abortions also have the freedom to have as many children as they desire. Much in the same manner, homosexual marriage would likely not threaten heterosexual marriage in any way. Homosexual married couples could legally provide for one another in a manner similar to that of heterosexual married couples, and both would likely continue to exist. In fact, in order for humanity to survive you NEED the latter to continue, so I don't think homosexual marriage would threaten heterosexual marriage.



2. "I am against gay marriage/civil unions because allowing the sodomites to act in their immoral ways symbolizes the destruction of our country. First we allow gays to marry, next we'll be allowing polygamy. Its sickening. I personally think sodomy should be made a crime."

This statement was made by Commando2. Commando2, I take it you are an American as I am (although I have been living in Britain the past six months, LOL). The point of the US Constitution as it currently stands is to protect the rights of the people you disagree with as well as those of the people you agree with. If you really are a believer in American style freedom, you of all people should recognise that your own personal distastes for certain types of people are not to play a proper role in a democracy. Granted, what they do is something you think is immoral, but it is immoral to YOU, not to everyone who lives in the United States.

As for your slippery slope argument, what does it matter if homosexuality and polygamy are legally allowed? These are personal choices OTHER PEOPLE make, and we haven't the right to dictate our personal distates to them. You and I will still be free to engage in our monogamous heterosexual lives and marry one woman each, whilst others will be equally free to marry more than one person or to marry within their own gender. Where's the problem? Where's the threat?

AIDS is almost exclusively a HETEROSEXUAL disease in Africa.

Proves my point. Then there is even less reason to outlaw gay marriage, so, like I said, it should be allowed everywhere. If it makes them happy to get married, let them. If it bothers some people, too bad. Go join the Amish if you feel like living in a traditional way.

Oh dear... such confusion. Enlighten us as to how gay marriage spreads AIDS? One would think pledging oneself to one partner would decrease the likelihood of infection.

Africa? Funny you should raise that issue. AIDS is almost exclusively a HETEROSEXUAL disease in Africa. Perhaps Africa should ban straight marriage, eh?

What THE F*** ... r u saying that we should allow gay marriage only becuase starit marriage spreads aids. r u ppl f****ed

Umm, no they just want to marry their partners.
They don't want special privilege, they want to marry just like straight couples.

In other words, they want social recognition, social validity...just like Sowell said.


*scoff*
This is ridiculous. It sounds like something you just either made up, or put such a spin on as to make it look bad.

You know, I have the funny feeling Sowell isn't reading your posts. Just a feeling.

See above. Several countries have legalised gay marriage and adoption, and their societies have not become less viable and are nowhere closer to the verge of collapse.

I'd be interested in knowing what countries have legalised gay marriage and gay adoption. I'm not challenging you, I'm actually interested in knowing.

Congrats Tommy, you didn't even mention "God" once!

Not everyone whose against gay marriage is religious. I'm not religious in the least bit, and I think it's wrong. Don't make such silly assumptions.

What THE F*** ... r u saying that we should allow gay marriage only becuase starit marriage spreads aids. r u ppl f****ed
no, but you clearly are...

Sowell is an economist not an antagonist like Moore or Coulter. If you read his books(treaties on thought, economics and political systems) you know that he is by far one of the most intelligent thoughtful people around. He relys completely on the facts and is a true conservatove libertarian.One can be both economist and antagonist. I'm surprised that you are unaware of Sowell's consistent far-right point of view.

This article was dead in the water. Sowell, as he frequently does, had an argument he wanted to make (gay marriage is bad), then cast about for a rationale to make said argument (ooh ooh, marriage isn't a right, it's an anti-right). He then manages to trot out a whole slew of tired, well-countered arguments that others have detailed point by point. The righties will have to keep looking for a good argument--they certainly haven't found it with Sowell.

And, my god man, a 'conservative libertarian.' What bastard breeding experiment could produce such a thing.

no, but you clearly are...

i dnt see u sayin anytin u gay asshole

Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.


This statement is plainly factually untrue.

Can two homosexuals in a relationship 'arrange' to have their partner designated as recipient of the survivor benefits of the Social Security they're forced to pay into? Can they, for that matter, jointly own an Individual Retirement Account (to plan for their retirement in a nice, libertarian capitalist manner)? Nope. Private employer benefits, of course, should be a non-governmental matter -- if a private company doesn't want to provide benefits to homosexual employees' partners that they provide to heteroxexual employees spouses, that should be their right -- but the government intrudes here, too: domestic partner benefits are taxable income, while the same benefits going to a wedded spouse are untaxed; in short, the homosexual couple, even having found a private employer who supports gay couples, cannot make 'whatever arrangements they want' -- they cannot make the same arrangements heterosexual couples can make.

That is an equality issue -- simple, straightforward equality before the Law.

There are lots of arrangements a couple can choose to negotiate -- but
generally this involves hiring a lawyer for hundreds or thousands of dollars to write a contract that spells out the same reciprocal obligations entailed in a fifty-dollar marriage license from the County Clerk's office. And there are literally hundreds of areas in which laws current allow arrangements between spouses that one cannot privately negotiate at any price.

That is an equality before the Law issue -- government offering a standard, enforceable contract -- but only offering it to some of its citizens.

I asked a Christian libertarian once whether a homosexual man who believed in his heart that he was married to another man in the eyes of God as God gave them the light to see His Will should be compelled by a court of law to testify against his spouse. He was honest, and said he couldn't answer that. But if the gay person's religious belief in the sanctity of his marriage is disregarded and the heterosexual person's religious belief about his/her marriage is 'respected,' then the society does not have freedom of religion -- they have the permission of the government to practice certain religious beliefs. That's not a libertarian argument -- it's an authoritarian argument.

The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges -- for anybody -- and gay marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else.

But Sowell doesn't want to dismantle 'special privileges' -- he simply argues that they only remain 'special' when they are restricted to what he sees as a worthwhile social goal. I don't see that as a libertarian attitude -- it seems to me the same approach of champions of the welfare state, of affirmative action advocates, of using tax codes for social engineering, whether to punish big business or to advance corporate interests. The difference is only in the goal of Sowell's social engineering: the stated goal of saving the children by preserving an Ozzie and Harriet ideal of marriage, and the purpose about which he is disengenuous: bringing the force of the State to bear in support of his religious beliefs about homosexuality.

And he's wrong about the marriage goal, too. Loosening divorce laws hurts marriage; allowing more people to partake of the system of mutal obligations entailed in civil marriage does not. In fact, while it no doubt appalls Sowell and other social conservatives, same-sex couple are increasingly visible. Making certain that these couples are existing without the parameters of the institution of marriage creates an example for the generation of heterosexuals reaching adulthood -- an example of couples that, to all appearances, do not need marriage to function. The result will/is more and more young people seeing there choices as:

-- Be like Mom and Dad who married and then went through a devastating and expensive, bitter divorce;

-- Be like Aunt Sarah and Uncle Bob, trapped in an unhappy, perhaps faithless, marriage;

-- Or be like Uncle Dave and his gay partner, living together (at least until the Morals Police come), without the awful 'restrictions' of marriage.

I've seen lots of libertarians hrow up their hands and declare that government shouldn't 'be involved' in marriage at all; but like so many libertarians ideals, I don't see any mechanism offered for undoing the State's twining involvement in the institution, nor as far as I can recall even the most modest rollback of the special privileges currently given to heterosexual couples (such as immunity from testifying against one's spouse).

i dnt see u sayin anytin u gay assholeNice flame. Real mature.

What THE F*** ... r u saying that we should allow gay marriage only becuase starit marriage spreads aids. r u ppl f****edDoes that sound like what I said? No, it doesn't. Go back and read not only my post, but the one it responded to.

I'll even make part of it simple for you... AIDS is not a gay disease (re: Africa and Asia). AIDS has nothing to do with marriage gay or straight; it's a red herring in relation to the marriage argument.

i dnt see u sayin anytin u gay asshole

Please fully read and comprehend the posts made before you decide to flame someone. Aside from that, learn to type and stop acting like a newbie.

This is your friendly advice for the day, courtesy of the voices in Angry Fruit Salad's head.

Loosening divorce laws hurts marriage; allowing more people to partake of the system of mutal obligations entailed in civil marriage does not. In fact, while it no doubt appalls Sowell and other social conservatives, same-sex couple are increasingly visible. Making certain that these couples are existing without the parameters of the institution of marriage creates an example for the generation of heterosexuals reaching adulthood -- an example of couples that, to all appearances, do not need marriage to function. The result will/is more and more young people seeing there choices as:

-- Be like Mom and Dad who married and then went through a devastating and expensive, bitter divorce;

-- Be like Aunt Sarah and Uncle Bob, trapped in an unhappy, perhaps faithless, marriage;

-- Or be like Uncle Dave and his gay partner, living together (at least until the Morals Police come), without the awful 'restrictions' of marriage.

You've raised a fundamental point here. The institution of marriage itself is being called into question by more and more younger people, heterosexual or otherwise, in no small part thanks to policies in most Western nations that prohibit same-sex marriage. The question running through these young people's minds is likely something to the effect of: "If a couple can have a working relationship that has nothing to do with marriage, what then IS the point of marriage?"

This reminds me of the legal British definition of marriage, which can be seen at any given registry office throughout Britain:

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Given modern awareness of same-sex issues, this statement does not promote marriage to those who have seen too many failed heterosexual marriages. Whilst I am by no means saying that homosexuals do not also have failed relationships and would thusly not also have failed marriages, the fact that such a bond cannot exist legally with gays in most Western nations sends a very clear message (stated in my own words in order to illustrate the point) to those who question marriage in the first place: "Heterosexual marriages may fail, but we won't allow homosexual marriages to even exist to succeed or fail."

Given this received message, however unintended, it is little wonder that marriage is treated with cynicism by a growing number of young people.

i dnt see u sayin anytin u gay asshole

Here you go!

http://www.kiddieacad.com/newpage1.htm

I'd be interested in knowing what countries have legalised gay marriage and gay adoption. I'm not challenging you, I'm actually interested in knowing.
The Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Belgium and Denmark.

The Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Belgium and Denmark.

Thank you, Il Capitano. Mucho appreciated.

Please actually read the article before you respond to my post. I was always up in the air on my beliefs in this area, being a libertarian, but this argument is a rather conclusive one in my opinion.

Yep, it conclusively shows that they might as well be given the right, as it is perfectly able to be done, and is a restriction. After all, can't do anything but increase the economy.

:rolleyes:

It is not. I honestly was undecided prior to this argument.


So what exactly about this article convinced you? You honestly feel that marriage represents a restriction of rights? Like restricting your rights to visitation in cases of illness?

And if it IS such a restriction of rights, why then is this person guarding it so jealously?

"No! No! YOU can't have your rights so horribly restricted! Being so heinously subjugated is a restriction that only the hetrosexuals can endure!"

And for the rest it veers all over the place with the usual spiteful invective. It's a Death Style. There's "no limit to what (these) people will do if you let them get away with it", they want to "want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable".

THIS is the best argument against gay marriage?

Well, if so - that side of the debate just lost. Big time.

So what exactly about this article convinced you? You honestly feel that marriage represents a restriction of rights? Like restricting your rights to visitation in cases of illness?

And if it IS such a restriction of rights, why then is this person guarding it so jealously?

"No! No! YOU can't have your rights so horribly restricted! Being so heinously subjugated is a restriction that only the hetrosexuals can endure!"

And for the rest it veers all over the place with the usual spiteful invective. It's a Death Style. There's "no limit to what (these) people will do if you let them get away with it", they want to "want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable".

THIS is the best argument against gay marriage?

Well, if so - that side of the debate just lost. Big time.

Strange the author is concerned that homosexuals would lose rights. :rolleyes:

Here you go!

http://www.kiddieacad.com/newpage1.htm
<Insert appropriate acronym indicated laughter here>

I wonder how he will respond to that.

actually what I'm suprised at is that a black guy is writing the article. Let's go back 50 or so years, take away all of his freedoms and then see if he wants them back. Maybe then he will understand why some people want gays to be able to marry.

Best argument for gay rights: It doesn't hurt you.

We already owned that article here (http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=408&topic=18434556)

The article was fine... all the way up until... oooh, about Word 18, I think.

"In all the states where gay marriage was on the ballot this year, the voters voted against it -- as they should have".

Voters also voted FOR it, which this biased piece seems to ignore... in fact, even where religious fundamentalism skewed the result in favour of a ban - many people who voted against it feel that they were lied to (Georgia, for example, where many people have complained that they were mislead).

Also, overally, of those that expressed a preference, about 70% of Americans actually expressed APPROVAL for a civil union of some kind, equal to, but searate to, currently defined 'marriage'.

I didn't bother reading any further, I'm afraid.

If the guy can't set up a stall without lying in the FIRST sentence, he probably has nothing I'm willing to waste time to hear.

Forgot the link.. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041231.shtml
They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called "AIDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality. In some cases, gay activists actually come to the schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids.
How despicable. I can't believe that schools can condone this type of thing!

This is the "best argument against gay marrige?"

Wow.


You guys are fucked.

This is the "best argument against gay marrige?"

Wow.


You guys are fucked.

I was thinking something similar after reading it.

I was thinking, 'Well, I don't have a problem with gay marriage. But if I DID, I could do better.' :p

How despicable. I can't believe that schools can condone this type of thing! :rolleyes: yeah it's the latest incarnation of the 'evil drug pusher' of the 70's. They're luring innocent straight kids to these 'places' and turnin' 'em gay!



Sarcasm, just another service I provide for the one low price.

Out of all the things happening in the world, we're worried about gay marriage?

I'm gay. Marriage would be great, but I'm not going to fight tooth and nail about it. Who the hell cares?

A few pieces of paper and government recognition. BFD.

In the immortal words of John Lennon, "All you need is love." :)

I was thinking something similar after reading it.

I was thinking, 'Well, I don't have a problem with gay marriage. But if I DID, I could do better.' :p
you do everything better :fluffle:

How despicable. I can't believe that schools can condone this type of thing!

Well, now. I can recall having "AIDS Awareness" in Physical Education during Middle (Jr. High) and High school. The only thing is, I never learned where any of these alleged gay meeting places were. All my classes ever entailed were "this is what causes AIDS, this is what HIV does, these are ALL of the ways you can't get AIDS (holding hands, using same waterfountain, etc.)" and things like that. Maybe our "beloved" author could stand to sit through a few himself?

Ha. The guy might as well be saying, "This group of people here can go to that side of the playground, but you guys can't. You wouldn't really like it over there anyway, trust me. That side of the playground is all dangerous and stuff. In fact, we're putting an electric fence around it so you can't get in... because you wouldn't want to anyway. Let those other boys and girls suffer instead of you, k?"
That is insane! By his argument, we SHOULDN'T ban gay marriage, because it should be their choice whether to ruin their own lives.

"If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it." - From article
YEP! I agree with him. Which is why a marriage BAN is wrong. The amendment shouldn't exist in the first place.

It seems to me that this man is repeatedly arguing against a gay marriage ban. Also, he's crazy.

Simple law:
I QUOTE:

Amendment I:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

First amendment of the constitution, everyone!
Reason for gay marriage ban: Religion
Constitution shall make no law respecting an establishment of: Religion

Defense rests.

you do everything better :fluffle:

Just the important things. :fluffle:

WHat a horrible article. Just another red neck. Don't waste your time with this bullshit.

Just the important things. :fluffle:
if fluffles are important sure thing! (I think they are)

They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called "AIDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality. In some cases, gay activists actually come to the schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids.
Yeah, that's it, we're trying to turn the whole fucking country gay.

What are you people, insane? :headbang:

Simple law:
I QUOTE:

Amendment I:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

First amendment of the constitution, everyone!
Reason for gay marriage ban: Religion
Constitution shall make no law respecting an establishment of: Religion

Defense rests.
Don't rest yet, defense. You don't know when the Plaintiff will try to pull some other cock-and-bull story to sway the jury.

I'd like to know what diseases he was talking about. You know, the ones that are supposed to be killing more people than AIDS? Because the only disease I can think of that might fit the description is cancer, and that at least isn't contagious.

Marriage is a right. Here is an excerpt from the ruling in Loving vs. Virginia which has been upheld dozens of times and was used to allow prisoners to get married while still incarcerated.

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Also the state amendments against gay marriage and same sex civil union are clearly against the section 1 of the 14th amendment which reads -

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yeah, that's it, we're trying to turn the whole fucking country gay.

What are you people, insane? :headbang:

When he used the fallacy of "Homosexuals = Pedophiles" in his statement, that's all it took to disprove him as a supposed libertarian.

What a great article from a very smart man!

Maybe this article will help alot of people build New Years Resolutions to fight against gay marriage in the year 2005!

It's church right to select who they will marry and who not. Or should
they change their holy book for couple guys who disagree with it?

It's church right to select who they will marry and who not. Or should
they change their holy book for couple guys who disagree with it?
True enough. But allowing that church's decision to effect the way the country is run is clearly against the US Constitution. Can't speak for other countries.

It's church right to select who they will marry and who not. Or should
they change their holy book for couple guys who disagree with it?
Uh, I'd say it was more than a couple of guys.

This is the "best argument against gay marrige?"

Wow.


You guys are fucked.

Exactly.

Forgot the link.. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041231.shtml
If this nutter Sowell had posted this tripe on a message board, I'd have yelled troll!! And I thought nobody could be that stupid.

Marriage is a restriction?!?! Steaming cowpie! The federal government grants approximately 1000 rights and privileges automatically upon marriage, and state governments grant about 400. If Sowell regards these as "restrictions," then he had a suck divorce attorney (bitter, party of one!). Gay people only want the same ~1400 rights and privileges granted to those who may currently marry. We aren't even challenging the current definition of 'marriage'; we want a parallel system of 'civil unions' or 'domestic partnerships' granting equal rights.

Sowell's article is full of hatred and outright stupidity. I didn't see society collapse when women got the vote, when blacks got the vote, and when only 38 years ago interracial marriages became legal. Of course, every bigot predicted it would. Case closed. :rolleyes:

It's church right to select who they will marry and who not. Or should
they change their holy book for couple guys who disagree with it?

The only people who think churches will be forced to wed gay people...

...are people in churches.




Here's a gem: it's a church right to select who they will marry and who not. Or should they change their holy book for a couple of guys who think they arn't allowed to marry who they want?

Funny thing, I'm married.

And a church had nothing to do with it.

I get kind of pissed when I hear all the bible thumpers claiming marraige as their own. You guys trying to tell me my courthouse marraige isn't valid in some way? The government sees it as real, my insurance company recognizes it, my wife and five kids sure as hell see it as real, and if our relationship ever went south, I'm sure the courts would see it as very real. But no Church had anything to do with it.

So if a man and woman can get married without involving a church right now in this country, where the fuck do all these wackos get off calling marraige a religious institution?

It's church right to select who they will marry and who not. Or should
they change their holy book for couple guys who disagree with it?
Some churches do recognize same sex marraiges already. So if all religions get the same recognition or lack of it under the law why doesn't the law recognize these marraiges? The gov. is clearly playing favorites which is unconstitutional by my interpretation. :D

I have a problem with gay marriage because it's an abomination. Other than that… I can't think of any non-religious reason. I can see it causing a huge split in the churches (especially among the proddies), though.

He was on a roll until paragraph 13.

Quoted for truth.

Thing is... he was on a roll of the different kind intended.

His argument is more anti-marriage than anti-GAY-marriage, right up until paragraph 13.

Maybe we should all give up our "right" to marry, I mean why do gays get all the good non-restricting unions? (Note the irony)

Out of all the things happening in the world, we're worried about gay marriage?

I'm gay. Marriage would be great, but I'm not going to fight tooth and nail about it. Who the hell cares?

A few pieces of paper and government recognition. BFD.

In the immortal words of John Lennon, "All you need is love." :)
I'm straight and I technically have no interest in this. But I argue for it because I think recognising gay marriage is an essential part of a society that is geniunely tolerant and accepting. To give in to social conservatives is to let them create a climate of homophobia in the world. This is, in my view, bigger than "a few pieces of paper and government recognition".

It's church right to select who they will marry and who not. Or should
they change their holy book for couple guys who disagree with it?


This is true enough, and which is why laws enabling gay marriage must not force them on churches. However, that being said, if a church IS willing to officiate on a gay marriage, why should another church care? They are not being required to recognize it. And there are still non-religious civil ceremonies as well.

That is the thing you see. Marriage has both a religious and a civil definition.
To make that point a bit clearer, your local Catholich church will not wed two Taoists, however that does not mean that the government refuses to accept a Taoist wedding as valid.

The fact that your church will not wed two gays does not, by definition, mean that a gay marriage cannot be recognized.

When he used the fallacy of "Homosexuals = Pedophiles" in his statement, that's all it took to disprove him as a supposed libertarian.
Yeah, he's not libertarian in any way. I looked at his archive, and it's clear that he's one of those knob-hats who agrees with Bush on absolutely everything.

Thank you, Il Capitano. Mucho appreciated.
Do Americans really not know that other countries have legalised it?

It's church right to select who they will marry and who not. Or should
they change their holy book for couple guys who disagree with it?
I am not in favour of forcing churches to marry gays if they don't want to. I am also against banning churches that will happily marry gays from doing so.

It's church right to select who they will marry and who not. Or should
they change their holy book for couple guys who disagree with it?

You don't seem to realise that Christianity isn't the only religion in the United States. By Constitutional law, gays could well circumvent Christian wedding practise and have a Wiccan wedding, or an Asatru wedding (in some cases, depending on the political views of the individual Asatru hearth), or a Unitarian Universalist wedding, or a wedding from any other non-Christian homosexual-tolerant belief system.

I have a problem with gay marriage because it's an abomination. Other than that… I can't think of any non-religious reason. I can see it causing a huge split in the churches (especially among the proddies), though.
Why would it cause a split … no real movement to make any church accept anything … not unless their members wished them to have a religious ceremony.

That’s another question … what is being proposed is the addition of gay to the legal definition … that is what is important (so full right civil union) but really if it is legal what is against some religion on recognizing it as not only union but marriage.

Catholics do not hold the corner on marriage … not even the first religion to recognize it.

You don't seem to realise that Christianity isn't the only religion in the United States. By Constitutional law, gays could well circumvent Christian wedding practise and have a Wiccan wedding, or an Asatru wedding (in some cases, depending on the political views of the individual Asatru hearth), or a Unitarian Universalist wedding, or a wedding from any other non-Christian homosexual-tolerant belief system.
or even *gasp* a NON-RELIGIOUS WEDDING! believe it or not, some people don't EVER have religious weddings, and yet our crazy American government still recognizes their legal unions.

or even *gasp* a NON-RELIGIOUS WEDDING! believe it or not, some people don't EVER have religious weddings, and yet our crazy American government still recognizes their legal unions.
Is a gasp kind of like :eek: ?

:D

The best argument I have against two men getting marries is that I heard somewhere that men get less happy or even mildly depressed when married.
So imagine two of them in the same marriage... :p

The best argument I have against two men getting marries is that I heard somewhere that men get less happy or even mildly depressed when married.
So imagine two of them in the same marriage... :p
I heard the opposite -- that men generally fare better in marriage and women worse. So I suppose 2 blokes should have wedded bliss while 2 chicks should just off themselves after the honeymoon? Heh.

I have a problem with gay marriage because it's an abomination. Other than that… I can't think of any non-religious reason. I can see it causing a huge split in the churches (especially among the proddies), though.

1) Exactly. There is no other reason except religion. Unfortunately, religious people tend to skip over the whole part of the Bible where Jesus spoke of love for your fellow man.

2) Do you know there are gay protestants? I'm Lutheran.

This is true enough, and which is why laws enabling gay marriage must not force them on churches. However, that being said, if a church IS willing to officiate on a gay marriage, why should another church care? They are not being required to recognize it. And there are still non-religious civil ceremonies as well.

That is the thing you see. Marriage has both a religious and a civil definition.
To make that point a bit clearer, your local Catholich church will not wed two Taoists, however that does not mean that the government refuses to accept a Taoist wedding as valid.

The fact that your church will not wed two gays does not, by definition, mean that a gay marriage cannot be recognized.

I've been waiting for someone to actually say this. Thank you!!

It's church right to select who they will marry and who not. Or should
they change their holy book for couple guys who disagree with it?
to put this bluntly, you are an idiot


marriage is NOT a religious institution, were it the govenrment could not give benefits to marriaed couples, nor are gay couples asking churches to recognize gay weddings, they are asking the GOVERNMENT to recognize their marriage as legal.

maybe you should clue in before arguing

The best arguments for gay marriage are:

1. You double your wardrobe
2. You have someone intelligent to talk to

This is the "best argument against gay marrige?"

Wow.


You guys are fucked.

Exactly my first thought.

Then again... "best" is relative, right?

Forgot the link.. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041231.shtml

Absolute bullshit.

First of all, many of the protections afforded by marriage cannot be obtained any other way, so the very premise of the argument is bullshit. (Examples: next-of-kinship, insurance protections, child custody rights.)

Two people cohabitating cannot choose how to split up their worldly belongings, not if anyone's name is on a lease, etc. - and people get really screwed in the deal if someone gets angry and goes against whatever verbal agreement they have.

Second of all, the vast majority of marriage protections have nothing whatsoever to do with children, so the premise that the purpose of legal marriage is children is pure bullshit as well.

Sorry, Sowell is absolute slime. Even before the "death style" venom, this article just doesn't hold water. But I will agree with the poster. This probably is the "best" argument against gay marriage. Given: it is a little more developed that "Queers is icky," but it still sucks.

The whole argument about laws relating to men and women evolving over centuries basically boils down to: "This is the way it's always been and we tain't changing." Ignoring the fact that law is a fluid element that continues to evolve. A hundred years ago, folks could have used the same argument against woman suffrage, saying that the disenfranchisement of chicks was the result of thousands of years of working out the kinks in gender relations.

By Sowell's logic, marriage is tied to procreation because the transfer of property to offspring requires special laws. So, if you buy this, why should an infertile individual permitted to marry?

It's also particularly nasty how the intro is veiled in this "protect homosexuals from unnecessary infringement on their rights" load. Nobody's ever compelled to get hitched, and there's obviously a few folks who are willing to travel to SF or New Paltz in order to have their rights infringed upon. So what's the beef?

to put this bluntly, you are an idiot

Chess Squares will you please stop flaming everyone who disagrees with you. The guy wasn't even trolling.

believe it or not, some people don't EVER have religious weddings, and yet our crazy American government still recognizes their legal unions.

Touché, Bottle! Quite a concept is this non religious wedding. It so boggles the religiously fanatical as to make them foam at the mouth! :D

I heard the opposite -- that men generally fare better in marriage and women worse. So I suppose 2 blokes should have wedded bliss while 2 chicks should just off themselves after the honeymoon? Heh.No, no. That's only when the woman is married to a man. So for true bliss, women should only marry other women. ;)

Talk about staggering belief....if this is really the best argument against homosexual marraiges, I dont get why they are not legal already. If an unsound (ie false) argument is the best, then the inferior arguments must also be false (else they would be better), ergo am I to assume from this thread that there is no sound legitimate credible argument against homosexual marraige.

The founding premise of this argument is so obviously false. We already know that people have a right for instance to fair and equal consideration when it comes to employment, but according to this argument that is not a right but a removal of rights since it places restrictions on a person, so too taking out a mortgage, entering into a sales contract, taking out a credit card, contracting to enlist a phone or internet service....

I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to believe that homosexuals shouldnt be allowed equal access to mortgages and phone line services just because in doing so they are agreeing to certain restrictions, ergo it cannot be described as a right, ergo they can be legitimately denied such 'non-rights'...

I honestly am having trouble believing that those opposed to homosexual marraiges actually have any earnest or honest reason for doing so. If they did, why has no one yet managed to describe that reason, and why is every argument formulated by such people, provably unsound, relying either on false (untrue) premises or logical fallacies? Let me put it this way, if it were so wrong, why is it so hard to find any sound argument that actually demonstrates this?

It's church right to select who they will marry and who not. Or should
they change their holy book for couple guys who disagree with it?


True -- it is the churches'' right to select who they will marry and who not.

It is not the churches' right to decide which taxpayers may obtain a civil marriage license down at city hall.

Some churches do recognize same sex marraiges already. So if all religions get the same recognition or lack of it under the law why doesn't the law recognize these marraiges? The gov. is clearly playing favorites which is unconstitutional by my interpretation. :D

Religious conservatives have regularly insisted that their promotion of a 'Christian' America is not a violation of the First Amendment because, they say, the Religious Establishment clause is intended only to prevent government from favoring one (Judeo-Christian) religious denomination over another, not to separate government and religion.

And then they go an promote a ban on recognition of same-sex marriages. Since marriage is, we're told, a 'sacrament,' recognizing it when performed in accordance with the (current) majoritarian religious sects' ideals while refusing recognition to the sacrament when performed by those sects that open the sacrament to gays amounts to doing what even the pro-religion-in-government activists previously said was prohibited by the First Amendment -- exhibiting a preference for the religious sacrements of some denominations over others.

It's interesting to note that the source for the First Amendment was Thomas Jefferson's Statute For Religious Freedom, introduced in the Virginia Assembly in 1779, and eventually passed after being resubmitted by James Madison in 1786. Jefferson considered it one of his proudest acheivements, instructing that it be mentioned on his tombstone (along with authoring the Declaration of Independence and founding the University of Virginia -- he omitted being President of the United States).

One of the religious freedoms Virginians didn't have prior to this Act was the freedom to marry according to their Faith, if it was not the established Anglican Church, which held an effective monopoly on marriage in the colony/state.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/va-religiousfreedom.html

Madison described the current, exclusively heterosexual civil marriage law quite accurately in his 'Memorial and Remonstrance,' supporting passage of the Jefferson bill:

(it) violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions.

In fact, Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance is a brilliant declaration of why having government undertake endorsement of religious opinions is a bad idea:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/madison_mr.html

(I bet Madison couldn't get appointed to the Supreme Court today, with ideas like that!)

Recipe for Thread Flambee:
Ingredients:
Half a brain
A sheltered middle class upbringing in a neophyte culture
Healthy Contempt for others
Desire for attention and approval


Create a title. This is much like making a crust, except you use the following easy form:
"How come (Insert demographic) always think (Insert Opinion)?"

Include veiled implication that (Inserted Opinion) is of course, a completely invalid idea, and that anyone forcefully asserting their beliefs is a singleminded zealot incapable of reason. Bake at 450 F on a multiracial/denominational/gendered forum ten seconds and let stand.

Does anyone else here think that if they are reading off a site filled with:

1) Ads for Reagan books/memorabilia/etc
2) Ads for conservative book authors (Coulter/Hannity/etc)
3) Ads for online conservative DATING sites
4) Ads for a variety of conservative organizations

that they are about to read a bunch of horse shit?

I mean is it just me or do others think this way?

BTW..this is for the homos... :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Chess Squares will you please stop flaming everyone who disagrees with you. The guy wasn't even trolling.

I don't even bother Sil. Youth is an illness and the only cure is time.

I don't like that article. That paragraph abotu the "Era of AIDS" is totally out of line.

No, no. That's only when the woman is married to a man. So for true bliss, women should only marry other women. ;)

Jokes aside, Rubina, I can tell you that's patently false from personal experience. My wife and I are quite happily married. Granted, she and I have disagreements, but we end up resolving them without bloodshed and without telling one another to fuck off.

Jokes aside, Rubina, I can tell you that's patently false from personal experience. My wife and I are quite happily married. Granted, she and I have disagreements, but we end up resolving them without bloodshed and without telling one another to fuck off.Most excellent! May you and she continue for many years.

And in the world of anecdotal evidence, your comment puts the lie to the 'women do worse in marriage' comment to which I was (sarcastically) replying.

Does anyone else here think that if they are reading off a site filled with:

1) Ads for Reagan books/memorabilia/etc
2) Ads for conservative book authors (Coulter/Hannity/etc)
3) Ads for online conservative DATING sites
4) Ads for a variety of conservative organizations

that they are about to read a bunch of horse shit?

I mean is it just me or do others think this way?

Yeah, I thought the same thing when Ann Coulter's ugly mug flashed in the side bar!

Boy... I sure hope those nasty homosexuals will stay the hell away from me

:fluffle:

Man, tell me about it. I'm so sick of those damn homosexuals trying to push their homosexual agenda on me.

...

No, damnit Andre, I've told you a million times, I'm not going to take up interior decorating.

...

Oh, OK then, I'll suck your cock instead.

Whiny bitch.

I know that many of you have heard Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and others speak of the "Homosexual Agenda," but no one has ever seen a copy of it. Well, I have finally obtained a copy directly from the Head Homosexual. It follows below:

6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch

2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels,
5) Establish planetary chain of homo breeding gulags where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership,
6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.

2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)"

I know that many of you have heard Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and others speak of the "Homosexual Agenda," but no one has ever seen a copy of it. Well, I have finally obtained a copy directly from the Head Homosexual. It follows below:

6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch

2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels,
5) Establish planetary chain of homo breeding gulags where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership,
6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.

2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)"

Your attempt to portray a "homosexual agenda" is obviously false without including:

8) Spread AIDS. By corrupting innocent God-fearing children. Like yours. Mwahahahahahahahahahaha... etc.

Unless you include that it just sounds ridiculous.

Don't forget this addendum of the Homosexual Agenda:

9) Isolate homosexual genes; mass synthesize homosexual genes; inject genes into virus; mass produce homosexual virus; finally commence Dawn of the Gay.

:D

Most excellent! May you and she continue for many years.
Thank you.

And in the world of anecdotal evidence, your comment puts the lie to the 'women do worse in marriage' comment to which I was (sarcastically) replying.
So I inadvertently killed a second bird with that same stone. Pity, it would've made me look better had that second effect been intentional. :(

Reason AGAINST gay marriage - it will mean that there will mean MORE divorce laywers! The horror!

Seriously, I'm all for it... It doesn't affect me in any way...

11) Take over all TV sitcoms with quirky and acceptable characters, lulling the population into a false sense of security

I know that many of you have heard Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and others speak of the "Homosexual Agenda," but no one has ever seen a copy of it. Well, I have finally obtained a copy directly from the Head Homosexual. It follows below:

6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch


Obviously this did not come from the head homo. If it did, then he would've known that you don't have brunch at 12PM That would be lunch. Brunch is eaten closer to 10AM.

Finally, someone with some sense. Good job Tom, I say. I like the way he recognizes the heart of the matter - that homosexuals already have more protections than normal people.

Also I thought his whole point about unmarried couples having more freedoms very pertinent.

Update:

Eastchester, in the NYC metro area has just repealed its domestic partner benefits law. All this militancy is doing the "gay" marriage cause a whole load of good. Keep it up homosexuals. :)

"There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering. "

It would be nice if ANYONE paid ANY attention to the schools in this nation AT ALL for ANY REASON.

Finally, someone with some sense. Good job Tom, I say. I like the way he recognizes the heart of the matter - that homosexuals already have more protections than normal people.

Also I thought his whole point about unmarried couples having more freedoms very pertinent.


More protections? What are these protections not enjoyed by so called normal people? If you really were normal we might not need "protection."

It is not the role of government to decide on questions of morality, but the individuals choice. The government is only there to ensure that trade is allowed in a safe enviroment, protect its citizens from agression from other nations and other citizens, and ensure that infrastructure is secure and in place. Everything else is up to the citizens choice. Marriage does not fall under the federal governments role, nor the states role. It is an individuals choice. Therefore, let us not say "Gay marriage should be banned!" but "I am not the one who is going to marry a person of my same gender, therefore I do not care." As long as they do not harm us, and we do not harm them, let them continue what they want to do. I personaly find women dressing up in skimpy outfits in public to be disgusting, but do I want to ban it? No, I do not. To each his or her own choice in life, and let them deal with the consequences. And yes, I am a libertarian, and I hate anything that restricts the freedom of the individual.,

They way I see it the government should get the hell out of marriage altogether - what do you think, since you said you are also libertarian?
So that no one gets the financial benefits of being married (tax savings etc.)? Let's be pragmatic.

Thomas Sowell seems to be a very eloquent and intelligent man, which is why I'm so sorry to see him dressing up his prejudices like this. I'll try to explain why I believe that he (and others against gay marriage) is ethically misguided. The reasons that he (and others) use to justify their wiews are - as far as I can see - these:

(1) Marriage is not a positive right, it is a restriction of rights

(2) We don't know what'll happen, because it hasn't been done before

(3) It would mean restricting other people's right to be against gay marriage

(4) Accepting homosexuality means promoting AIDS

(5) It would mean promoting homosexuality

(6) It would mean accepting gay adoption, which would harm the children adopted by gays

(7) The Bible says no

Now, here is my arguments:

(1) If marriage is not seen as a positive right, why do people marry?
Of course marriage is a good thing! It means stability for the children that are a product of the union, and it is a pledge of faithfullness and support to your partner. There is no reason that this should be denied any two consenting adults.

(2) This argument is just plain stupid. What does he excpect to happen?? The love that I feel for my boyfriend is the same love that anyone else feels, and if I were to marry my boyfriend, our marriage would be the same as every other marriage.

(3) Also just plain stupid; Gay marriage would simply mean that the government recognises the love that two people have for each other. Any one else can still think what ever they want to.

(4) Like the others, this argument has no basis in fact. Is institutionalized faithfullness supposed to promote AIDS? Get outta here!

(5) Promoting homosexuality? Anyone who's done the research will tell you that about 2% of any large populace (much higher percentage in the big cities, beacause that's where gay people move to) is gay. Whatever people do, that's not gonna change. Promoting homosexuality is the same as promoting left-handedness - it can't be done.

(6) Plenty of research have been done on this subject, and the results are clear; The children of gay people are excactly the same as any other children. They don't turn out gay, and they don't get picked at any more than any other children.

(7) If you use the Bible to support your anti-gay opinions, then you also have to accept stoning, amputation as punuishment, slavery and many other things which are all endorsed by the Bible. If you can't accept these things as well, then you're just using the Bible to dress up your own prejudice.

Obviously this did not come from the head homo. If it did, then he would've known that you don't have brunch at 12PM That would be lunch. Brunch is eaten closer to 10AM.

not necessarily....Brunch could be at 12 and Lunch could be at 2pm....

So that no one gets the financial benefits of being married (tax savings etc.)? Let's be pragmatic.
what's not pragmatic about that? the government should have no involvement in the unions of private citizens, since it's not the government's job to regulate our private romantic interactions with other consenting adults.

Wait a minute.

Before we get into a semantic argument about what does and does not count as brunch, let me just point out that Denny's serves breakfast twenty-four hours a day.

Also, if you're drinking a mimosa or a bloody mary, it doesn't matter what or when you're eating. That's brunch.

.../sigh

I find this disturbing. Gays have everyright to get married, and to exsist, though I will say this:

This is the best reason I've heard. The majority are, "QUEERSAREBAD!!!111ONEONE"

Wait a minute.

Before we get into a semantic argument about what does and does not count as brunch, let me just point out that Denny's serves breakfast twenty-four hours a day.

Also, if you're drinking a mimosa or a bloody mary, it doesn't matter what or when you're eating. That's brunch.

You damn brunch relativists disgust me. First it'll be brunch at 12, then breakfast at 3:42 PM, then people marrying their pets. It's the slippery slope, people, THE SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!!

what's not pragmatic about that? the government should have no involvement in the unions of private citizens, since it's not the government's job to regulate our private romantic interactions with other consenting adults.

Erm, just thought I'd point out that you just justified the statement as being pragmatic by appealing to an ideological concept.

Finally, someone with some sense. Good job Tom, I say. I like the way he recognizes the heart of the matter - that homosexuals already have more protections than normal people.

Also I thought his whole point about unmarried couples having more freedoms very pertinent.
BAN STRAIGHT MARRIAGE!!!

I'm sure you and Sowell would support that right? Marriage "is not a freedom" after all, yes?

The fact is homosexuals don't have more protections than the rest of us, they are victims of the likes of you.

The fact is that gay marriage doesn't cause AIDS or increase promiscuity - rather, the opposite.

The fact is that you have no real reasons to be the militant homophobe that you are.

Eastchester, in the NYC metro area has just repealed its domestic partner benefits law. All this militancy is doing the "gay" marriage cause a whole load of good. Keep it up homosexuals. :)
That is disadvantageous to straight couples too, dumbass.

The mimosa is a well-known gateway drink.

The mimosa is a well-known gateway drink.

Orange Juice, too.

Sure, it starts out acting all innocent, "Hey man, it's just, like, the juice of a fruit, yeah?"...

And then, it's late night Orange Juice parties where 'hippy chicks' make up 'drinks' mixing Orange Juice with other 'drinks'... maybe lemonade, or tonic water...

And, before you know it, they are mixing Orange Juice with vodka... and then they have to steal people's children and sell them on the white slave market just to pay for their citric addiction...

I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet, since I skipped the last couple of pages, but those laws banning gay marriages backfired on hetero couples as well. I'm not sure about all the states, but Kentucky's not only banned homosexual marriage, it also banned civil unions. Nowhere did it state that those civil unions had to be between a man and a man or woman and a woman. That means that our previously legally recognized common law marriages are gone as well.