Dr. Thomas Sowell On Gay Marriage

NZT73

In reference to Gay Marriage in America which I think it relevant to us I want to quote from Dr. Sowell's book Dismantling America:



"Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

The life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries based on experience with male female unions. There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different kind of union, one with neither the inherent tendency to produce children or the inherent A – symmetry of relationships between people of different sexes.

U.S. district Judge Von Walker

Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage."



In my opinion the first quote has so much more meaning, substance and thoughtfulness and takes into account history while the second provides no bases at all.

Here is a link to a video where Dr. Sowell discusses these quotes:

youtube.com/watch?v=YboWZ1hE71M

oscarBravo

Can you explain (a) why the absence of a tendency to produce children doesn't disqualify old people from marrying, and (b) what inherent asymmetry has to do with anything?

sheesh

I think laws should reflect how we live our lives. This is the way a certain section of or society are living and should be accommodated, these people are our fellow citizens.

BTW the US is not being dismantled because of gay marriage. it is because of lack of social mobility and being controlled by big business.

Godge

NZT73 wrote: »

In reference to Gay Marriage in America which I think it relevant to us I want to quote from Dr. Sowell's book Dismantling America:



"Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

The life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries based on experience with male female unions. There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different kind of union, one with neither the inherent tendency to produce children or the inherent A – symmetry of relationships between people of different sexes.

U.S. district Judge Von Walker

Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage."



In my opinion the first quote has so much more meaning, substance and thoughtfulness and takes into account history while the second provides no bases at all.

Here is a link to a video where Dr. Sowell discusses these quotes:

youtube.com/watch?v=YboWZ1hE71M

Can't watch the link, can you summarise the arguments in a few short sentences?

OldNotWIse

NZT73 wrote: »

In reference to Gay Marriage in America which I think it relevant to us I want to quote from Dr. Sowell's book Dismantling America:



"Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

The life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries based on experience with male female unions. There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different kind of union, one with neither the inherent tendency to produce children or the inherent A – symmetry of relationships between people of different sexes.

U.S. district Judge Von Walker

Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage."



In my opinion the first quote has so much more meaning, substance and thoughtfulness and takes into account history while the second provides no bases at all.

Here is a link to a video where Dr. Sowell discusses these quotes:

youtube.com/watch?v=YboWZ1hE71M

Ah yes, Wendell Holmes. The one who legitimised eugenic sterilisation in Buck v. Bell. What was it he said - "three generations of imbeciles is enough"? A decision which was later cited in the Nuremberg trials in support of Nazi sterilisation experiments. Yes, the voice of reason indeed, let's all use Wendell Holmes as our morality benchmark :rolleyes:

NZT73

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you explain (a) why the absence of a tendency to produce children doesn't disqualify old people from marrying, and (b) what inherent asymmetry has to do with anything?

(a) It's sounds like your conflating two seemingly similar categories that are in fact different

(b) It's means men and women are different, they relate to each other differently and the law has been built up around that fact for centuries. The relationship between a man and women is different to the relationship between two men. So the laws would not be a match.

sheesh wrote: »

I think laws should reflect how we live our lives. This is the way a certain section of or society are living and should be accommodated, these people are our fellow citizens.

The law does reflect how we live our lives and the history of our lives. That's the point, there is a history there built up around the relationship between a man and woman

Godge wrote: »

Can't watch the link, can you summarise the arguments in a few short sentences?

Just copy and paste the link into your browser. Between that I can't help.

You could also do a search for Dr. Thomas Sowell and find his website where you will get more information.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Ah yes, Wendell Holmes. The one who legitimised eugenic sterilisation in Buck v. Bell. What was it he said - "three generations of imbeciles is enough"? A decision which was later cited in the Nuremberg trials in support of Nazi sterilisation experiments. Yes, the voice of reason indeed, let's all use Wendell Holmes as our morality benchmark :rolleyes:

I think his point still stands. There were many governments involved in eugenics. Just because today we would judge his opinion to be wrong doesn't mean we should dismiss everything he ever said.

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

(a) It's sounds like your conflating two seemingly similar categories that are in fact different

That's hand-waving, not answering. Would you mind actually answering the question?

(b) It's means men and women are different, they relate to each other differently and the law has been built up around that fact for centuries.

Laws change. That's sort of the point.

The relationship between a man and women is different to the relationship between two men.

How?

So the laws would not be a match.

Again, the point is to change the law. If there's a good reason not to change the law, please articulate it.

Nodin

NZT73 wrote: »

In reference to Gay Marriage in America which I think it relevant to us I want to quote from Dr. Sowell's book Dismantling America:

..........

Arguing "tradition!" and some rather silly nonsense about not being able to have children - for an intelligent man, its rather weak.

I might point out to those unaware that Thomas Sowell is an economist, not a medical doctor.

OldNotWIse

NZT73 wrote: »

(a) It's sounds like your conflating two seemingly similar categories that are in fact different

(b) It's means men and women are different, they relate to each other differently and the law has been built up around that fact for centuries. The relationship between a man and women is different to the relationship between two men. So the laws would not be a match.



The law does reflect how we live our lives and the history of our lives. That's the point, there is a history there built up around the relationship between a man and woman



Just copy and paste the link into your browser. Between that I can't help.

You could also do a search for Dr. Thomas Sowell and find his website where you will get more information.



I think his point still stands. There were many governments involved in eugenics. Just because today we would judge his opinion to be wrong doesn't mean we should dismiss everything he ever said.

I'm not dismissing everything he said, on the contrary I have spent some time researching him, but I would still be loathe to hang an argument on someone who believed that "feeble minded" people should be sterilised against their will, especially when said feeble minded person in Buck v Bell was a woman who wound up in a Virginia correctional institution with an apparent "imbecile" baby born because she'd been raped. Funny, he never mentioned that in his judgment. I wouldn't take any heed of someone with such values preaching about family and what's right or wrong.

NZT73

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's hand-waving, not answering. Would you mind actually answering the question? Laws change. That's sort of the point. How? Again, the point is to change the law. If there's a good reason not to change the law, please articulate it.

Yes laws change but the point is taking a huge set of laws and applying them to a different kind of relationship doesn't make sense and I think in the long run would not be good for gay relationships as there would be a mismatch.

I think it's obvious how the relationship between men and women and men and men are different. You don't need me to spoon feed you or draw you a picture

For your consideration here is a link to an article about why the author thinks marriage is not a good fit for gay people's lifestyles. I'm not saying I totally agree with it, it's just for you to consider
irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/marriage-is-not-a-good-fit-for-gay-people-s-lifestyles-1.1956665

The first quote in my first point is one reason to consider not an entire argument

Nodin wrote: »

Arguing "tradition!" and some rather silly nonsense about not being able to have children - for an intelligent man, its rather weak.

I might point out to those unaware that Thomas Sowell is an economist, not a medical doctor.

So all the knowledge and wisdom all people have gained throughout our society and culture means nothing?

Yes take his profession on board and his points are still valid no matter what his profession.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not dismissing everything he said, on the contrary I have spent some time researching him, but I would still be loathe to hang an argument on someone who believed that "feeble minded" people should be sterilised against their will, especially when said feeble minded person in Buck v Bell was a woman who wound up in a Virginia correctional institution with an apparent "imbecile" baby born because she'd been raped. Funny, he never mentioned that in his judgment. I wouldn't take any heed of someone with such values preaching about family and what's right or wrong.

Sterilization was a programme in effect in America for a number of decades. It was because of the Nazi's it became unpopular, anything associated with the Nazi's became unpopular.

I'm sure there are acceptable things being said today that in a hundred years will be thought of as being unacceptable. We just have to take the points that work and leave behind the points that don't work.

When everyone and everything becomes equal everyone and everything becomes meaningless.

We are not the same. That doesn't mean one has more value than the other. The meaning of equality has become totally distorted. Usain bolt is the fastest man on the planet. Should he have to wear lead boots to make him equal to the other runners? People and their relationships are different and the law should continue to reflect that.

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

Yes laws change but the point is taking a huge set of laws and applying them to a different kind of relationship doesn't make sense...

What makes it a "different kind" of relationship? Are you unable to define a relationship other than in terms of matched sets of genitals?

...and I think in the long run would not be good for gay relationships as there would be a mismatch.

Yet again, you blithely state something without bothering to explain what it means, let alone offer any convincing evidence for it.

If you're just here to preach, fair enough: preachers gonna preach. If, on the other hand, you are interested in actually discussing the topic, it would be good if you could explain what it is you feel would be "mismatched" and why it would be bad for gay relationships.

I think it's obvious how the relationship between men and women and men and men are different. You don't need me to spoon feed you or draw you a picture

It's not obvious to me. Please explain.

Shrap

NZT73 wrote: »

It's means men and women are different, they relate to each other differently and the law has been built up around that fact for centuries.

....and over the centuries, at this stage you find that men and women are treated much more equally under the law, to the extent that gender is not a deciding factor in determining succession rights, etc. any more. Obviously, centuries ago when wives were considered their husband's property then your statement would be true. These days, you are a few centuries out of date. Thankfully. Thankfully, society is capable of change, or else your statement would make sense. However, sadly for you, it doesn't.

NZT73 wrote: »

I think it's obvious how the relationship between men and women and men and men are different. You don't need me to spoon feed you or draw you a picture

I don't see it myself. Please explain how these relationships are different? - bearing in mind that you are talking to a woman who is in a 50/50 relationship with a man, and that our genders do not determine what we each bring to the relationship. Our attraction to each other, yes. Our different genders, no.

Nodin

NZT73 wrote: »

So all the knowledge and wisdom all people have gained throughout our society and culture means nothing?.

Something being most common practice over a long period of time does not give it some intrinsic worth or "wisdom". Racism, sexism, the caste system, xenophobia are old and ancient practices, but I'm seeing no "knowledge and wisdom" in them.

Sheldons Brain

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you explain (a) why the absence of a tendency to produce children doesn't disqualify old people from marrying,

The reality is that a very large proportion of marriages have children arising from the marriage and this happens to zero same sex marriages. That difference underlies the customs and laws relating to marriage even if not everyone married has children. Without children there would be no substantial body of law relating to marriage at all, people would just suit themselves.

Shrap

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

That difference underlies the customs and laws relating to marriage even if not everyone married has children. Without children there would be no substantial body of law relating to marriage at all, people would just suit themselves.

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. Marriage down through the centuries in early Christian times here in Ireland at least, was for the contractual merging of property and possessions. Children barely get a mention except in terms of inheritance rights (a right not precluded by the child not having been a product of the couple's sexual union, btw).

"Lawyers writing in Irish divide first and principal marriages into three categories:

(1) lánamnas comthinchuir, ‘marriage of common contribution’, marriage in which, apparently, both parties contribute equally to the common pool of marital property;

(2) lánamnas for ferthinchur, ‘marriage on man-contribution’, an arrangement by which the bulk of the marriage goods are contributed by the man; and

(3) lánamnas for bantinchur, ‘marriage on woman contribution’, marriage to which the woman brings the preponderance of the property.

All three main types of marriage are considered by the lawyers as special contractual relationships between the spouses in regard to property"

Marriage in Early Ireland

Donnchadh Ó Corráin
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/marriage_ei.html

As you can see from this text and the difference between then and now, we are well capable and within our rights to change marriage customs to suit ourselves as a society. Which is what we are going to be doing in the referendum. All references to "traditional marriage" are moot, I'm afraid, when one knows and can prove how much this contractual relationship has changed down through the centuries.

Chips Lovell

The life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries based on experience with the white race. There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different kind of race, one without the inherent tendencies of the white race.

Daith

NZT73 wrote: »

I think it's obvious how the relationship between men and women and men and men are different. You don't need me to spoon feed you or draw you a picture

I would! As nobody has explained why the relationship is different aside from genitalia.

oscarBravo

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The reality is that a very large proportion of marriages have children arising from the marriage and this happens to zero same sex marriages.

So what? There's no requirement that a marriage be capable of producing children.

The argument goes that same-sex couples should be legally prohibited from marrying because they can't inherently produce children (and let's ignore the question of trans erasure for the moment). Unless you're going to argue that marriage should be denied to postmenopausal women (or post-orchiectomy men), then that argument is a transparent figleaf for anti-gay discrimination, no matter how hard you try to pretend it's not.

Daith

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The reality is that a very large proportion of marriages have children arising from the marriage

What a nonsense argument.

How many of these relationships had children before they got married?
Gay people and same sex couples also raise children. Why shouldn't these couples be able to marry?
What about couples who marry and decide not to have children? They're a minority, just like gay people.

Why should a couple who marry and don't have children have the rights and security of having a family home? Why shouldn't gay couples have the same rights to have a family home instead of a shared home.

Shrap

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries based on experience with the white race. There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different kind of race, one without the inherent tendencies of the white race.

:pac:

(would have benefited from a quote from the paragraph in the post you were lampooning as it took me a while to spot, but yeah. Exactly.)

SpaceTime

Daith wrote: »

I would! As nobody has explained why the relationship is different aside from genitalia.

To be perfectly honest, I just do not get what all the fuss is about. Men and women have been put into some kind of puritanical, Victorian inspired cultural straight jacket for most of the 19th and 20th centuries.

When you dig past the relatively minor (and often very accentuated by clothes and hair styles) differences, they aren't a hell of a lot different from each other.

There were similar arguments that women shouldn't be given the right to vote because it would cause social upheaval. There were arguments that they shouldn't do certain professions due to 'differences of the mind' and so on.
They were supposed to just mind the house and have lots of babies and never ask any questions...

Meanwhile, men (unless upperclass or wealthy of course) were expected to be emotionless, disposable automatons who mined the coal, did all the work, got used as canon fodder in wars, beaten, traumatised, shot if they questioned orders or developed post-traumatic stress disorder.
If they expressed any emotional side they faced potential ridicule for being 'sissies'.

Non-white people were 2nd class citizens in the US and many other places with few rights and people arguing that it was perfectly acceptable right up until the 1960s

Gay people were just told they didn't exist basically and swept under the carpet, threatened by the state, threatened by thugs etc.
In many countries they still are facing all sorts of oppression and here in Ireland being gay was basically illegal until 1995...

Sometimes precedent and tradition is something that has to be broken because it's just plain wrong.

Conservatives do not like change, that's why they're called conservatives. If they dominate you tend to slip into the dark ages.

It's up to the rest of us to push society forward or we would be basically stuck in a non-changing rut for ever.

Daith

SpaceTime wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, I just do not get what all the fuss is about. Men and women have been put into some kind of puritanical, Victorian inspired cultural straight jacket for most of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Victorian and a very Christian thing of the sexes "complimenting" each other.

Mark Tapley

In all the threads in different fora regarding the referendum I have yet to read a cogent argument for a no vote. There certainly isn't one here.

SpaceTime

Daith wrote: »

Victorian and a very Christian thing of the sexes "complimenting" each other.

To me, that kind of view of the world is just over-simplistic nonsense. It's not how humans have ever operated. If you go back through recorded history, there are gay people all over the place. It's nothing new and it's certainly nothing that's been in anyway damaging to the species.

I think perhaps part of the problem is that certain conservatives don't actually see "humanity" as a bigger thing. They see little individuals who are all independent of each other. In a way, I can understand how that fits into the American idealised view of a lone frontiersman with a gun who needs absolutely no social supports (other than the huge industrial complex that made his clothes, his gun, his food, the army that was protecting him from the natives, the people who built and designed the ship that got him/his family there in the first place and so on, but let's not mention any of that).

Humans are probably the most social and interdependent creatures on the plant, certainly of any scale anyway other than insects. The reality of it is that we operate more like a hive of bees, just with a lot more personality and individuality within that network as we've huge brains.
Success of the species is what counts in terms of evolution, and many of our contributions to that success aren't necessarily just reproducing with our own DNA. People provide all sorts of knowledge generation, cultural glue, support services, defence services, leadership roles, education roles, explorer roles, science roles, religious roles, you name it... All of those things have big impacts on how society works, how successful it is and how it moves forward.

For all we know, there may well have been an evolutionary advantage for a 100% social species to have members who weren't entirely tied up all the time with having their own kids. You had the extra aunt, uncle, cousin, neighbour who could do other stuff, could get the food, build stuff, create social assets, research/develop, fight wars or even just the single aunt/uncle/ cousin who babysit, could take over the role possibly in the (in the past highly likely) event that the parents died before the kids were raised.

All I'm saying is that I think some people take a massively over-simplistic view of how evolution, humanity and society work.
We're not even capable of surviving without being plugged into our big messy version of the borg collective. or we basically go mental. Try spending time in solitary confinement - you will actually become mentally ill very quickly.

NZT73

To all the posters saying please explain the difference between men and women except for genitals you're being pedantic.

I suppose the next thing you'll say is gender is just a social construction, completely ignoring the reality of biology and how vastly different it makes us.

As I think about it, maybe some posters biology is not typical and this is why they are struggling with an understanding.

All of your posts are an example of the post modernist fallacy of subjectivism, meaning there is no objective reality and reality can be whatever you want it to be. Well you can think of yourself as a bird that wants to fly away but if you step off a cliff you know what's going to happen........ or do you need me to explain it.

I posted this link and it was ignored, I'd like to get your opinion on please
irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/marriage-is-not-a-good-fit-for-gay-people-s-lifestyles-1.1956665

One more thing. If I lived in a society where I felt like a second class citizen I would go crazy and be angry. I can only imagine how gay people having the sense that they are second class citizens feel and I think it's wrong, I think it's wrong for anyone to have to feel that way. I believe marriage equality is an attempt to correct that sense of second class. It is however wrong. It is misjudged and misguided. We are not equal and when I say that I mean we are not the same, not worth more or less, just different.

NZT73

Mark Tapley wrote: »

In all the threads in different fora regarding the referendum I have yet to read a cogent argument for a no vote. There certainly isn't one here.

In your opinion

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

To all the posters saying please explain the difference between men and women except for genitals you're being pedantic.

Actually, nobody asked you to explain the difference between men and women. You've argued that a relationship between a man and a woman is different from the relationship between two people of the same gender, and it's that distinction that you're being asked to explain. At this stage, I'm curious why you're working so hard to avoid answer the question. It's hard to escape the conclusion that you won't answer it because you don't actually have a good answer for it.

I suppose the next thing you'll say is gender is just a social construction, completely ignoring the reality of biology and how vastly different it makes us.

Does this "vast difference" justify women being paid less than men? Does it justify not allowing women to drive? Or vote?

There are those who would argue in favour of all of these. Are you one of them?

As I think about it, maybe some posters biology is not typical and this is why they are struggling with an understanding.

Leaving the ad-hominem aside, all that I'm struggling to understand is why you won't actually answer the questions you're asked.

All of your posts are an example of the post modernist fallacy of subjectivism, meaning there is no objective reality and reality can be whatever you want it to be.

On the contrary, our posts are examples of rhetorical devices called "questions", which are traditionally responded to with "answers". In the absence of a willingness to provide answers, "conclusions" will be drawn. If you wish to dispel those conclusions, feel free to actually answer the questions you've been asked.

I posted this link and it was ignored, I'd like to get your opinion on please
irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/marriage-is-not-a-good-fit-for-gay-people-s-lifestyles-1.1956665

You've said you don't fully agree with it. Maybe you could identify the specific parts of it you actually do agree with, and we can comment on those.

One more thing. If I lived in a society where I felt like a second class citizen I would go crazy and be angry. I can only imagine how gay people having the sense that they are second class citizens feel and I think it's wrong, I think it's wrong for anyone to have to feel that way. I believe marriage equality is an attempt to correct that sense of second class. It is however wrong. It is misjudged and misguided. We are not equal and when I say that I mean we are not the same, not worth more or less, just different.

I'm afraid that's just patronising.

Women aren't the same as men - nobody would argue that they are, despite your attempt at strawmanning the discussion in that direction. But that doesn't mean that they are unequal, and shouldn't have equal rights.

Black people aren't the same as white people; that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have equal rights.

Gay couples aren't the same as straight couples, and that seems to be sufficient for you to deny them equal rights. The bit you're missing, and that I keep asking you for, is a rationale to deny them equality. So far, that rationale seems to amount to "I don't want to".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

NZT73

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

The tactic you've been using so far is to break down my points and rebuild them in a distorted way.

You take away the original meaning and replace it with your own and I find that deceptive.

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

The tactic you've been using so far is to break down my points and rebuild them in a distorted way.

You take away the original meaning and replace it with your own and I find that deceptive.

We're just asking questions. If you can't answer them, perhaps you should reassess your views?

NZT73

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're just asking questions. If you can't answer them, perhaps you should reassess your views?

I am going to answer them, I don't have time right now.

You're not just asking questions you disassemble everything I say and rebuild it into something else. I'm not fooled by that nor will the majority of people be.

Here a new post I made, you're thoughts?
boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057392554

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

I am going to answer them, I don't have time right now.

Uh huh.

Here a new post I made, you're thoughts?
boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057392554

I have no idea what it has to do with the topic at hand.

NZT73

oscarBravo wrote: »

Uh huh. I have no idea what it has to do with the topic at hand.

If you read it, it might help you to understand the difference between men and women and how the relationships between straight people and gays are different.

But I have to admit, you had me going for a second there, You're trying to get me to justify myself to you when it's gays who need to prove their case to We The People.

You try to bring blacks, women, old people into the argument. The thing is, there's nothing wrong with them, they are totally different to you. Again if you read the article you'll see why.

Mark Tapley

"We the people" can spot a numpty with an unpleasant agenda at a hundred paces.

NZT73

Mark Tapley wrote: »

"We the people" can spot a numpty with an unpleasant agenda at a hundred paces.

I understand from your perspective it would seem unpleasant but to everyone else it's providing relief

Mark Tapley

NZT73 wrote: »

I understand from your perspective it would seem unpleasant but to everyone else it's providing relief

Utter tripe.

NZT73

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Utter tripe.

No it's not because people like you are constantly intimidating people to agree with you.

If we don't accept you then we are immoral or hateful or just bad people.

People are entitled to make a choice even if you don't like it.

Mark Tapley

NZT73 wrote: »

No it's not because people like you are constantly intimidating people to agree with you.

If we don't accept you then we are immoral or hateful or just bad people.

People are entitled to make a choice even if you don't like it.

Oh diddums are you intimidated. I am a bit confused are you saying you don't accept heterosexual males who think its worth making a stand for equality. What exactly is the choice you are making?

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

If you read it, it might help you to understand the difference between men and women and how the relationships between straight people and gays are different.

I read it. You seem to be clinging desperately to the tired trope that homosexuality is a choice.

Here's the thing: if you want to know whether homosexuality is a choice, ask a gay person whether they chose to be gay. When (not if) they tell you it's not, you then have an actual choice: you can cling to your beliefs, thereby implying that every gay person who says they don't have a choice about their sexuality is a liar; or you can re-evaluate your views.

So I'll ask you again (even though you seem to feel that me having the temerity to actually ask you a question is an egregious imposition): what's the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship that justifies discriminating against one of them?

But I have to admit, you had me going for a second there, You're trying to get me to justify myself to you when it's gays who need to prove their case to We The People.

You show your true colours by implying that gay people are somehow distinct from "We the People".

Gay people are, in fact, people.

You try to bring blacks, women, old people into the argument.

And you try to arm-wave them away, because you can't explain why it's OK to discriminate against some people and not others. Unless, of course, gays aren't people.

The thing is, there's nothing wrong with them, they are totally different to you. Again if you read the article you'll see why.

Who's totally different to me? Women? Black people? Old people? Gay people?

Shrap

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who's totally different to me? Women? Black people? Old people? Gay people?

Je suis la différence

Nous sommes la différence

Vive la différence


Gender is not the only difference between us all. There are many significant differences and we all have them, so we're all similar that way. That's why it's no longer acceptable to say "this difference means you are not as worthy as me". Vive la différence. Time to celebrate how different and unique we all are, and yet how equally capable of love.

Sheldons Brain

Daith wrote: »

What a nonsense argument.

How many of these relationships had children before they got married?
Gay people and same sex couples also raise children. Why shouldn't these couples be able to marry?
What about couples who marry and decide not to have children? They're a minority, just like gay people.

Why should a couple who marry and don't have children have the rights and security of having a family home? Why shouldn't gay couples have the same rights to have a family home instead of a shared home.

There is a difference between a minority of a group benefiting from arrangements for that group and the extension to a group of people 100% of whom do not have the characteristics of marriage.

Not all women get pregnant, but no man does, so certain things are properly available to women but not to men.

Annasopra

NZT73 wrote: »

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

The tactic you've been using so far is to break down my points and rebuild them in a distorted way.

You take away the original meaning and replace it with your own and I find that deceptive.

"Wah wah wah. I don't know how to argue against your points."

Annasopra

NZT73 wrote: »

No it's not because people like you are constantly intimidating people to agree with you.

If we don't accept you then we are immoral or hateful or just bad people.

People are entitled to make a choice even if you don't like it.

Ah here. You were asked a few questions. That is not intimidation.

Annasopra

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

There is a difference between a minority of a group benefiting from arrangements for that group and the extension to a group of people 100% of whom do not have the characteristics of marriage.

Not all women get pregnant, but no man does, so certain things are properly available to women but not to men.

You mean like 12 year old girls were legally able to marry?

oscarBravo

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

There is a difference between a minority of a group benefiting from arrangements for that group and the extension to a group of people 100% of whom do not have the characteristics of marriage.

...and we're back to the repeatedly-debunked nonsense that marriage is defined by the ability to produce children unaided.

Here's a free clue for you: when your only argument against something has been refuted to death, it's a strong indicator that you don't actually have any rational arguments against it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

NZT73

WHY HASN'T THIS THREAD BEEN LOCK ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ISN'T THAT WHAT THE MODERATORS DO WHEN THEY DON'T LIKE A THREAD AND WALK ALL OVER FREE SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!!

NZT73

OscarBravo It's just goes to show how weak your position is when all you can do is lock threads.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

The thread isn't locked, and your freedom of speech (insofar as it exists on a privately-owned website) is unabridged.

So, could we prevail upon you to actually argue in favour of the case you've put forward? Surely you can see that if, given an opportunity to make a case, all you can produce is angry bluster, it tends to suggest that you don't actually have any cogent arguments in its favour?

Let's start again. You argue that same-sex couples should be denied marriage, because they lack the inherent tendency to produce children. Given that we don't deny marriage to women who are past childbearing age - or to couples who require medical assistance to reproduce - can you explain why it's OK to discriminate against same-sex couples in this regard, while not discriminating against infertile couples?

You also argue that the relationship between a man and a woman is different from the relationship between a man and a man (and, presumably, between a woman and a woman). When asked to explain what the difference is, you refuse to do so. What is the difference, and how does it justify discrimination?

These are simple questions. If there are good, sound, logical reasons for discriminating, then it shouldn't be hard to not only list those reasons, but to defend them. If you can't even get to the point of listing the reasons for discriminating, then it's hard to escape the conclusion that there really aren't any.



Of course, there are always reasons for discriminating. Mostly they boil down to either religion or conservatism: in the former case, it's necessary to discriminate because a bronze-age book told me to; in the latter, it's necessary because we've always discriminated, therefore we must continue to do so.

Now, both of those are transparently bad reasons to deny someone equal rights, which is why it's uncommon to see anyone actually admit that these are their reasons; but in the absence of any actual rational explanation for discrimination, it's hard to escape the logical conclusion.