latest Thomas Sowell column - gay marriage

[minniepumpernickel]

So, again, prevetion seems to be pretty straightforward.

I must comment. Are you taking into consideration the issues that health care and emergency workers face? Especially in other countries like Africa?

 

[dmadman43]

You are right marriage is not a right - I wasn't arguing that.

But a homosexual cannot enter into the same kind of "marriage/realtionship" that you can enter into and be happy! Our basical fundamental right is the pursuit of happiness - yes he can marry someone of the opposite sex - but will he be happy? No. He can choose to be with someone of the same sex and not be married and have priveleges denied to him because of that. That in my opinion is discrimination. People have the right to pursue happiness - I don't see how Joe and Bob getting married will take away your right to happiness. Care to explain it to me?

~Amanda

It doesn't. For the record, I'm not opposed to gay marriage. But, gays are going about the debate all wrong. It is not a rights or discrimination issue. It is simply an issue of changing the way state marriage laws are written. Take the issue up with your state representitive, not some activist judge.

I'm sure there are a number of contracts out there that people are prevented from entering in to based on the way the laws are written. Doesn't mean it's discrimination. Marriage laws have nothing to do with love, sexual orientation, or attraction. Based on you logic, I should be able to marry more than one person. Preventing me from doing so hinders me from "pursuing my happiness"

 

[rubyslipperlover]

Marriage confers certain legal rights on each partner, rights that they would not have absent a legal recognition of their union.

some of those rights can be acquired through other mechanisms, such as executing a power of attorney and a health care proxy,writing a will, etc.

let's face it, though. when two people get married, they're not usually thinking about all the legal rights each will have. why should a homosexual couple have to jump thorugh a dozen hoops to put themselves in the same legal position a married couple finds themselves in just by virtue of a marriage license?

 

[jimmiej]

Everyone has a right to their own opinions and values what they do not have the right to do is impose them on anyone else.

That's not true. Voters in 11 states did just that back on election day.

 

[dmadman43]

I must comment. Are you taking into consideration the issues that health care and emergency workers face? Especially in other countries like Africa?

Is the AIDS epidemic in Africa caused by indiscriminant heterosexual relationships?

 

[septbride2002]

Why is it so important to you that I be forced to redefine the natural history of the world in the definition of marriage?

And please define the natural history of the world's definition of marriage.

Don't forget that in India arrange marriages are still extremely popular. Polygamy is still practiced today although it really isn't called that anymore. You have serial polygamy which is marriage, divorce, marriage, divorce, marriage and then you have a man married to one woman but having and supporting one or more mistresses. There is also those women in Africa sold into marriage or prostitution which ever you would prefer to call it. Homosexuality is not something that is new - it has been present throughout history in some of the most famous names in history Alexander the Great, Leonardo DiVinci to name two.

~Amanda

 

[rubyslipperlover]

That's not true. Voters in 11 states did just that back on election day.

exactly.

reminds me of when interracial mariage was illegal in the south.

 

[septbride2002]

Is the AIDS epidemic in Africa caused by indiscriminant heterosexual relationships?

There are both men and women in Africa with Aids...plus children. Why don't you get to your point instead of asking pointless questions?

~Amanda

 

[dmadman43]

Marriage confers certain legal rights on each partner, rights that they would not have absent a legal recognition of their union.

some of those rights can be acquired through other mechanisms, such as executing a power of attorney and a health care proxy,writing a will, etc.

let's face it, though. when two people get married, they're not usually thinking about all the legal rights each will have. why should a homosexual couple have to jump thorugh a dozen hoops to put themselves in the same legal position a married couple finds themselves in just by virtue of a marriage license?

Because that's the way the majority of state laws are written. It seems to me the gay community is afraid to work to change the laws through the legislative process because they know how that will likely turn out, so they are appealing to activist judges to make new laws.

 

[dmadman43]

There are both men and women in Africa with Aids...plus children. Why don't you get to your point instead of asking pointless questions?

~Amanda

I was addressing the issue of the apparent rise in AIDS among youth in the US that was raised.

 

[jimmiej]

seems to me the gay community is afraid to work to change the laws through the legislative process because they know how that will likely turn out, so they are appealing to activist judges to make new laws.

 

[septbride2002]

It doesn't. For the record, I'm not opposed to gay marriage. But, gays are going about the debate all wrong. It is not a rights or discrimination issue. It is simply an issue of changing the way state marriage laws are written. Take the issue up with your state representitive, not some activist judge.

I'm sure there are a number of contracts out there that people are prevented from entering in to based on the way the laws are written. Doesn't mean it's discrimination. Marriage laws have nothing to do with love, sexual orientation, or attraction. Based on you logic, I should be able to marry more than one person. Preventing me from doing so hinders me from "pursuing my happiness"

You marrying more then one person does not effect me - have at it.

I take this arguement up with people who are against gay marriage. That is where you go wrong. You constantly and I mean CONSTANTLY have to argue the "law" side of this. What it comes down to is that there are people - you can see them right here on the DIS - who are against 2 consenting adults of the same sex to become married. If you are not against gay marriage then how can you sit there and argue on the other side? Why not stand up for what you believe in?

~Amanda

 

[dmadman43]

exactly.

reminds me of when interracial mariage was illegal in the south.

And the laws were changed, right? That is different however. People OF THE OPPOSITE SEX were being prevented from marrying. Thus, discrimination based on the way the laws were written. Moreover, blacks were being discriminated against based on something over which they had no control...their race. Unless or until it can be proven homosexuality is as genetic as race is, it will be difficult to draw the corrolary between interracial marriage discrimination and gay marriage.

 

[dmadman43]

You marrying more then one person does not effect me - have at it.

I take this arguement up with people who are against gay marriage. That is where you go wrong. You constantly and I mean CONSTANTLY have to argue the "law" side of this. What it comes down to is that there are people - you can see them right here on the DIS - who are against 2 consenting adults of the same sex to become married. If you are not against gay marriage then how can you sit there and argue on the other side? Why not stand up for what you believe in?

~Amanda

When the issue comes up for vote in my state, I will vote FOR it? Satisfied. I have no interest, however, on working to get it on the ballot. Because, as you said, it does not affect me.

I'm not arguing the other side. I'm arguing the flaw in the logic of their debate.

 

[septbride2002]

That's not true. Voters in 11 states did just that back on election day.

Yes exactly. They imposed their values and beliefs on other people - I wonder how they sleep at night?

~Amanda

 

[minniepumpernickel]

I was addressing the issue of the apparent rise in AIDS among youth in the US that was raised.

I have actually read that the baby boomer generation had a rise in AIDS here. I guess because all of the divorced heterosexual people of that age group aren't used to using protection.

 

[Chuck S]

I didn't know "activist judges" were making "new" laws. I thought they were reviewing the equal protection of "old" laws. Or did I miss something when these same "activist judges" put someone in the White House in 2000?

 

[Laura]

That's not true. Voters in 11 states did just that back on election day.

They did in my state. However, the supporters of Issue 1 in Ohio are not planning to take to court the public universities who are granting gay employees domestic partner benefits, despite the fact that the universities said they plan to ignore Issue 1. Gosh, could it be because the issue was placed on the ballot to get out the conservative who'd vote for Bush? Or maybe, just maybe, the law won't hold up when brought before an "activist judge"?

 

[Laura]

I didn;t know "activist judges" were making "new" laws. I thought they were reviewing the equal protection of "old" laws. Or did I miss something when these same "activist judges" put someone in the White House in 2000?

LOL, y'know the whole "activist judge" phrase just cracks me up, like the judges go out and hold court proceedings against people's will.

 

[RoyalCanadian]

I think that if folks are concerned about protecting the sanctity of marriage, then they should be more concerned about outlawing divorce than trying to stop homosexuals from getting married.

I have no fears that two men getting married or two women getting married will have any impact on my marriage. It doesn't demean my marriage. It doesn't demean anyone's marriage. Nothing to worry about.