In article , dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA
says...
>
> Mr. F. Le Mur (flemur13013{at}yahoo.com) writes:
> > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:23:02 -0800, "Society"
> >  wrote:
> >
> >>"Casey"  wrote in message
> >>news:d_yNd.10964$gA4.3928{at}edtnps89...
> >
> >>> let alone a social benefit which equals or exceeds
> >>> the clear socially detrimental effects of perpetrating
> >>> such a restrictive bias against a portion of the general
> >>> population.
> >>
> >>What "clear socially detrimental effects" are you
> >>yammering about, Casey?  Were they so "clear"
> >>I'd see 'em at a glance but I don't.  However, the
> >>"social benefit" of cultural, social and political
> >>support for the majority heterosexual population
> >>is obvious to anyone -- just look around you.
> >
> > I'll worry about the "bias" when children can get married.
>
> 
>
> >>Yeah, YOU were born too, but as my libertarian
> >>friends say, "Utopia is not an option."  Heh heh heh.
> >
> > Sowell argues that marriage is not a "right," but
> > a voluntary loss of rights, and that...
>
> Well, of course, marriage isn't a right. A matter that is a
> right, you can, unilaterally, use your rights. You can vote,
> and you don't need anyone to be a part of your vote, you
> can move from one city to another, and you don't have to
> convince anyone to make the move with you, and so on.

Well, that's almost right---er correct.   The US Bill of
Rights defines and preserves the"right of the people peaceably to
assemble", but I'll be darned if I can figure out a way to
assemble without getting someone else to agree to it!  ;-)
>
> Marriage, since it starts with someone agreeing to marry you,
> cannot be a right, for you cannot partake of it, until you
> can convince someone to do it with you.

So if I call a political assembly,  it's not my right as
a US citizen, since I have to convince someone to do it
with me?   LOL!
>
> Lets concieve of a person, man or woman, it matters not,
> who goes through their life, and can't find a spouse. If
> marriage is a right, can that person then sue the state,
> or anyone else, for a denial of their right to marry ?
> Of course not. Thus, marriage is a privilige, much as
> driving ( not owning ) a car is. You have to pass specific
> qualifications.
>
> In the case of a driver's license, age, proof of ability/
> training ( Not a bad idea for marriages, these days... ),
> and a maintenance of said ability ( As in, testing for
> older drivers ).
>
> With marriage, qualifications include, someone who wants to
> marry you, the couple being one man, one woman ( For the logical
> reason of providing any children, born or adopted, with a
> mother *and* a father, a qualification that research of the
> last 40 years shows is far more crucial than many had thought ).
> being of age, not being married to anyone else, and so on.
>
> Wheras, most civil rights will kick in, solo, or not, by age 18-21.
>
> > http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041231.shtml
> >   "What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance
> >   on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle,
> >   which has become a death style in the era of AIDS."
>
> Andre
>
Mark Borgerson



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/9/05 2:42:10 PM ---