The Fraud of "Gay Marriage"
Thomas Sowell, dated 11/5/2008
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110508.php3
Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.
WWM note: Sowell says some good things here, but he fails to say, probably because it would not make him look intellectual to the unbelieving world, that marriage was defined by God and not by man. If he brings God's definitions and God's words into this, he would automatically be disqualified as knowledgeable by the people he wants to impress.
Sowell doesn't see at least two things: That the people he is trying to convince and convict are not going to be moved by logic; and that we should be God-pleasers not man-pleasers.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.
The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.
All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?
.png?timestamp=1515998378236)
If you profess to be a Christian and agree with this sign, why not just admit you are against what the Holy Bible actually says? Stay home on Sunday and take that cross off from around your neck. Because you're the hypocrite, not bible-believers.
While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.
But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.
The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.
The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined— and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?
Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.
Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing— riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.
Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.
Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.
None of us has a right to other people's approval.