Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Gay "marriage" by Thomas Sowell

Expand Messages
  • John
    This comes from Townhall..Thomas Sowell is one of the most brilliant minds in the country. He is a black man and and independent thinker, which puts him at
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 2, 2006
      This comes from Townhall..Thomas Sowell is one of the most brilliant
      minds in the country. He is a black man and and independent thinker,
      which puts him at odds with many who constantly bark for "rights",
      black rights, gay rights, and any rights not based upon real human
      rights, not ones that just fit whatever the politically correct fad
      of the moment. His books and writtings tear apart the basis of these
      supposed "rights". Needless to say the NAACP and others who make a
      living keeping people excited about these "rights" are not fond of
      his writings. Get ANY of his books and read them (the subject is
      irrelevant) you will come away impressed by the depth of this mans
      intellect. He slams the comparrison the gay rights crowd uses when
      they point to inter-racial marriages being banned, Thomas is black,
      and destroys that line of thinking brilliantly (as usual). He is an
      American treasure.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------

      Gay "marriage"
      By Thomas Sowell
      Tuesday, August 15, 2006


      Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine marriage
      to include same-sex unions, cries of "discrimination" are being
      heard.

      The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of
      the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist
      precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of
      actions.

      When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids
      bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against
      people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can
      drive on the highway just like anyone else.

      In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor
      facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.

      Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the
      law had no business interfering with relations between consenting
      adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their
      behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.

      Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the
      first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of
      certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the
      parties themselves.

      In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could
      arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it
      temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in
      whatever way they chose.

      Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even
      prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and
      still more their relationship with whatever children may result from
      their union.

      In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away
      rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage"
      advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are
      entitled.

      They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for
      centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay
      marriage to ban.

      Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is
      not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage
      is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race
      of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against
      people, not actions.

      Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that 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 union, one with no inherent tendency to produce
      children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people
      of different sexes.

      Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable
      phrases as "a pregnant couple" or references to "spouses" rather than
      husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have many
      repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of
      experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.

      Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting
      their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care
      of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in
      this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate
      degrees from Harvard and Yale.

      In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at
      will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship.
      Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through
      alimony when divorce occurs.

      Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right
      that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But
      what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?

      And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where
      there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to
      produce children?
    • Elizabeth Reese
      I thought this discussion was over - oh weell -- some people are just insistent. ... brilliant ... thinker, ... fad ... these ... black, ... an ... marriage
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 4, 2006
        I thought this discussion was over - oh weell -- some people are
        just insistent.





        --- In exgaydiscussionboard@yahoogroups.com, "John" <tygrjohn02@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > This comes from Townhall..Thomas Sowell is one of the most
        brilliant
        > minds in the country. He is a black man and and independent
        thinker,
        > which puts him at odds with many who constantly bark for "rights",
        > black rights, gay rights, and any rights not based upon real human
        > rights, not ones that just fit whatever the politically correct
        fad
        > of the moment. His books and writtings tear apart the basis of
        these
        > supposed "rights". Needless to say the NAACP and others who make a
        > living keeping people excited about these "rights" are not fond of
        > his writings. Get ANY of his books and read them (the subject is
        > irrelevant) you will come away impressed by the depth of this mans
        > intellect. He slams the comparrison the gay rights crowd uses when
        > they point to inter-racial marriages being banned, Thomas is
        black,
        > and destroys that line of thinking brilliantly (as usual). He is
        an
        > American treasure.
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > Gay "marriage"
        > By Thomas Sowell
        > Tuesday, August 15, 2006
        >
        >
        > Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine
        marriage
        > to include same-sex unions, cries of "discrimination" are being
        > heard.
        >
        > The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of
        > the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist
        > precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of
        > actions.
        >
        > When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids
        > bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against
        > people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can
        > drive on the highway just like anyone else.
        >
        > In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden
        nor
        > facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.
        >
        > Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the
        > law had no business interfering with relations between consenting
        > adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their
        > behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.
        >
        > Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the
        > first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes
        of
        > certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of
        the
        > parties themselves.
        >
        > In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals
        could
        > arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it
        > temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in
        > whatever way they chose.
        >
        > Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even
        > prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other --
        and
        > still more their relationship with whatever children may result
        from
        > their union.
        >
        > In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away
        > rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage"
        > advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they
        are
        > entitled.
        >
        > They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for
        > centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay
        > marriage to ban.
        >
        > Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race
        is
        > not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial
        marriage
        > is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the
        race
        > of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against
        > people, not actions.
        >
        > Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that 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 union, one with no inherent tendency to
        produce
        > children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between
        people
        > of different sexes.
        >
        > Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable
        > phrases as "a pregnant couple" or references to "spouses" rather
        than
        > husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have
        many
        > repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of
        > experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.
        >
        > Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting
        > their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take
        care
        > of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting
        in
        > this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate
        > degrees from Harvard and Yale.
        >
        > In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at
        > will and she could lose decades of investment in their
        relationship.
        > Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her
        through
        > alimony when divorce occurs.
        >
        > Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right
        > that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But
        > what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?
        >
        > And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions,
        where
        > there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency
        to
        > produce children?
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.