Laws and Discrimination

Good references I have to say that both were interesting in their scope. I particularly like the treatment of the purpose of marriage being family and taking care of children.

I have found myself wondering about same-sex unions previously when I had multiple discussions with a coworker at a previous job. I have been opposed to the desire for "gay marriage" on moral grounds definitely but for a long time I didn't have a non-religious argument for a long time. Thomas Sowell an economist and columnist treats the matter well in several columns this is an example. Others can be found at this listing of columns. One thing I ask people when they argue for "gay marriage" is what end goal they are trying to accomplish, and what there argument is for going this route.

I have seen multiple reasons for applying marriage to gay unions primarily centering around the benefits afforded the couples such as visitation rights in hospitals, beneficiary rights on death, and many other connective "rights". However, marriage is not only about rights it is also about responsibilities and the laws centering around marriage rights and responsibilities have been growing up and establishing precedents for hundreds of years under the structure of a man/woman union. To take all of those legal decisions and precedents and apply them to something fundamentally different wholesale is a poor practice. If homosexual people want all of the rights then I think they are afforded the opportunity to build those from the foundation and legally I wouldn't oppose the procedure. The actual relationships aren't something I would legally oppose under our current form of government, but taking something established and trying to get all of the "benefits" in a fell swoop is dangerous for our form of law.

One other thing I like to hear is people try to argue that gays not being able to marry is some form of discrimination. The reality is that a homosexual man has the exact same right that I do and that is to marry a woman. I can't marry a man any more than he can. The argument then could go, "you can marry the person you love". I can marry a woman I love true, but I can marry a woman I do not love. The fundamental action is forming a contract between two human beings in this case the contract has developed and grown between man and woman and there is no discrimination in maintaining the integrity of such contracts.

Well this isn't all that complete, but it will do for now.