1 - 7
In response to:

Gay "marriage"

eonegin Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:52 AM
(part 6) And finally, for an argument that claims that gay marriage advocates fall into thinking of people in the abstract, it is incredibly short on actual real-life examples from places where gay marriage has been a thing for quite some time now. In fact I looked through the article again and found that his 'concrete' and 'realistic' argument is built entirely on pie-in-the-sky-is-falling hypotheticals and leaps of faith that are, according to his own trumped-up charges against gay marriage advocates completely removed from reality.
In response to:

Gay "marriage"

eonegin Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:50 AM
(Part 5) "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?" Wait, what? Ex-husbands who receive alimony are generally stay-at-home dads who either gave up or delayed their careers to take care of the kids. So what are they being compensated for? Same thing that ex-wives are. Alimony is designed to keep both members of a couple in an approximation of the lifestyle 'to which they are accustomed.' Alimony is given out on that basis. Well that, and on the relative quality of the legal representation of all parties involved. But you know what I mean. How does this make any less sense for the gays again?
In response to:

Gay "marriage"

eonegin Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:45 AM
(Part 4) Basically he is arguing for the abolition of marriage without realizing it. I'm totally down with that by the way. If taken to its logical conclusion, his categorical argument of difference would rule out marriage as an institution entirely due to the vast differences in the lives of various married couples. But if the institution can handle that array of difference, isn't that in and of itself an argument that it is more than suited for this tiny one that has been introduced by gay marriage? The lines that he draws are entirely arbitrary. The only reason that he gets away with this intellectual laziness is because these lines are supported by old and widely held societal prejudices.
In response to:

Gay "marriage"

eonegin Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:43 AM
(part3) Gays often raise children together, and straights can be infertile. So if the whole body of law regarding marriage and children doesn't rule out infertile straight couples (whether they choose to adopt or not) from the institution of marriage, then it should be able to handle gay couples as well. Or is the columnist suggesting that children raised by gay couples are so fundamentally different that they just don't deserve to be in the same legal structure as those raised in straight couples? This is veering very far away from the whole 'action' argument indeed!
In response to:

Gay "marriage"

eonegin Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:38 AM
(part 2) He says: "Race is not part of the definition of marriage" But guess what? IT USED TO BE He then goes on to argue that gay and straight couples should not have the same legal standing because gay couples are not economically identical to straight couples. But straight couples are not economically identical to straight couples either, nor are gay couples to gay couples. And when you take the entire suite of privileges and responsibilities embedded in the construct of marriage, they actually work out as much for gays as for straights.
In response to:

Gay "marriage"

eonegin Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:38 AM
(part 2) He says: "Race is not part of the definition of marriage" But guess what? IT USED TO BE He then goes on to argue that gay and straight couples should not have the same legal standing because gay couples are not economically identical to straight couples. But straight couples are not economically identical to straight couples either, nor are gay couples to gay couples. And when you take the entire suite of privileges and responsibilities embedded in the construct of marriage, they actually work out as much for gays as for straights.
In response to:

Gay "marriage"

eonegin Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 9:34 AM
Sowell's argument falls flat on so many levels. (part 1) Marriage is a social/economic institution that grants certain state-created privileges to pair-bonded couples. As it stands, it discriminates against a vast array of *people*, based on relationship preferences and situations over which they have no actual control and/or should for no conceivable reason be penalized for. Of course, and gay marriage does not even in and of itself reverse this fact. But it helps a little. According to the internal 'logic' of this absurd 'action' argument, interracial coupling also constitutes an 'action', so a ban on interracial marriages should also be also fine and dandy. He contradicts his own logic of course.
1 - 7