In Bold are direct quotes from Apple's article, cited above:


Are homosexuals the only Americans permitted to change the definition of marriage, or do people with other sex orientations have that right as well?

Here's why I ask that question. Suppose a woman and a horse appeared before San Francisco County Clerk Nancy Alfaro applying for a marriage license, or it might be a man and a sheep. What argument might the County Clerk have for not issuing them a marriage license?

After all, the woman or man might say, "Our definition of marriage includes animals, plus my horse or my sheep will be eligible for my employee health care benefits and my inheritance at my death." It would appear that a denial of a marriage license would be sufficient grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. After all, animals have rights as well as humans.

Yeah, animals have rights, but they are not people, and don't have the same rights as people do. Denying an animal the right to marry a human, and then saying that it's grounds for a lawsuit because we've violated the animal's rights is just plain ridiculous. Animals don't have the right to vote, do they?

And, guess what? If someone decided thay wanted to marry a horse, or the previously mentioned duck, why should anyone care? If someone chooses to spend their life married to a non-human partner, it doesn't affect me or my life one iota, so I really don't care.

But there are other possibilities. Some people might feel that the definition of marriage should be expanded so as to include group marriage. What argument would the San Francisco County Clerk have against the issuance of a marriage license to three, four or 10 men or the like number of women who wanted to marry?

Again, as mentioned in a previous post, the Mormons believe in Polygamy. Christians don't. Why shouldn't consenting Mormons, or anyone else for that matter, be permitted to enter into a polygamus relationship? That's their religious belief. Sure, it's not Christian, but so what? They are consenting among themselves to live their life that way. Why should anyone care?

....the tobacco zealot's agenda whereby they started out demanding non-smoking sections on airplanes -- then no smoking altogether, then no smoking in airports, then no smoking in restaurants and so forth, until what we have today.

Had the anti-smoking zealots revealed their full agenda upfront, they might not have even been successful in getting no smoking sections on airplanes.

No smoking rules are fine with me.

The difference, and it's a big one, is that smokers, unlike people who marry ducks or horses, do affect my life and infringe upon my right to breathe fresh air when I'm on a public conveyance such as an airplane, or in a public place like a restaurant.

And I'm a smoker, too.

The argument that same-sex couples can't enjoy benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy is an issue that can be readily resolved. For example, if employers provide $200 worth of medical insurance a month, they can simply add $200 in cash to their employees' paychecks and let them decide how it's spent. Other rights same-sex couples claim they're denied can be achieved through contracts.

It's about more than legal rights and benefits and contracts.

It's my personal preference that people be able to conduct their lives in any manner they please. Tolerance doesn't require approval, only non-interference. Tolerance also doesn't require recognition of what one might call himself. A man and a man might call themselves married, but I'm not obliged to recognize it as such anymore than my calling myself the King of Siam should require that you recognize me as such.

Finally...something I agree with.