|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 7:01 am Post subject: Marriage is not an inalienable right--it is a privilege |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Marriage is not an inalienable right; it is a privilege, a license granted by government conferring certain governmental benefits.
There is a constitutional right that is under threat: the free exercise of religion.
Let me go out on another limb here and make another crazy prediction. Within 10 years, clergy will be sued or indicted for preaching on certain Bible passages dealing with homosexuality and churches, and church-related organizations will lose government contracts and even their tax-exempt status.
|
It seems to me this guy has been sneaking too much communion wine.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080522_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__A_wake-up_call_on_gay_marriage_after__03_alarm_went_unheeded.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually, he doesn't seem too far off! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not a convincing argument. He claims that the out-of-wedlock firstborn rate skyrocketed to 80% after allowing homosexual marriage? First, what was it before? 79%? Second, were it some other number which would be alarming, he did not establish a causal link. The cause of the increase in all likelihood is caused by some other factor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: "The California judges also ruled, for the first time in American legal history, that sexual orientation is just like race.
The California court just declared that those of us who see marriage as the union of husband and wife are the legal equivalent of racists. And openly racist groups and individuals can be denied government benefits because of their views, including professional licenses (attorney, physicians, psychiatrists, marriage counselors), accredited schools, and tax-exempt status for charities."
This is great! I hope he's right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta, do you think he's wrong? Do you disagree that it might not be so bad if his doomsaying turned out to be accurate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I do think he is wrong.
I do not see how he interprets it as a threat to freedom of religion. Santorum is a source for that argument that the Religious Right uses to play the victim card when their view isn't upheld.
I see no good reason why two adults of legal age don't have the same right to form a legal union. Protection of property should be universal. No reason why a man and a woman get special advantages over 2 men or 2 women. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone ever see "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry"? If not, don't bother. It is Sandler's worst movie by far, and he has a couple stinkers under his belt.
The concept being, New York City allows gay marriage/civil union for public servants. The two firefighters get married so one can change his death benefits due to ridiculous insurance rules on 'major events'. (That's the only believable part.) These two guys have to pretended to be gay, and in a commit relationship as the city will fire them for fraud if they find out that they're not really a couple in the romantic sense. It was a crap idea as legally I don't think you could enforce that standard unless you clearly define marriage between the same sexes as having some higher standard than man/woman marriage. I've never looked to see if it was based on reality, but I doubt it. The city would have to investigate all married couples to ensure their relationship was 'real'. Assinine.
But, I wonder if that has been considered as a con, or pro, to same sex marriage. I totally would have 'married' one of my buddies in college to get the accompanying social/economic benefits. The married housing at my school was phenomenal. And I worked and had benefits that could have easily been shared. I hope platonic marriage takes off once the gay marriage issue has been addressed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: Re: Marriage is not an inalienable right--it is a privilege |
|
|
| Quote: |
Marriage is not an inalienable right; it is a privilege, a license granted by government conferring certain governmental benefits.
There is a constitutional right that is under threat: the free exercise of religion.
Let me go out on another limb here and make another crazy prediction. Within 10 years, clergy will be sued or indicted for preaching on certain Bible passages dealing with homosexuality and churches, and church-related organizations will lose government contracts and even their tax-exempt status.
|
"... and even their tax exempt status." This is, of course, at the crux of his fear. From where I see it, tax exempt status of churches should be the first thing on the chopping block. I'm willing to compromise on this. A church/temple/mosque can claim an exemption on its own property, its own tithes garnered on that very property under exemption, but TeleChurhces? Oh no. The point at which a church becomes a business, the exact point at which a pastor recommends a candidate or even a party, that's when they should lose tax exemption.
Just as the free exercise of speech ends at yelling fire in a theatre, the free exercise of religion ends at being able to dictate/legislate which citizens are fully enfranchised and which aren't.
A right to religious beliefs doesn't include the right to impose those beliefs on other people. Opening up the benefits of marriage to previously disenfranchised people doesn't impose on you the duty to get gay married, it just imposes on you the duty to accept that not everyone believes as you do.
No same-sex marriage law applies to any ceremony conducted in a church. In America, marriage is a civil, legally binding contract that the state allows religious institutions to officiate, if they wish to, but no state demands that a marriage must be conducted in a church. A gay marriage law will not force the Catholic church to marry two men. It will, or should, compel a clerk of the state who happens to be Catholic or Pentacostal to officiate at a marriage at city hall.
Any clerk of the state whose conscience forbids this needs to find another line of work - you don't work for the church, you word for the state. You do not have a right to impose your bigotry on anyone, even if your bigotry flows from your religious beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogshed
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Get rid of all marriage laws. Marriage belongs in the church. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| From where I see it, tax exempt status of churches should be the first thing on the chopping block. I'm willing to compromise on this. |
I am too--right after the to-be-established Commission on Politics Free of Religious Propaganda sets up a board to check on weekly sermons. Any preacher can pontificate all he wants about political issues, but his church loses its tax exemptions for the next week. I think that's a fair compromise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Anyone ever see "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry"? If not, don't bother. It is Sandler's worst movie by far, |
Not even close. Little Nicky will never be beat for sheer awfulness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject: Re: Marriage is not an inalienable right--it is a privilege |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy's link wrote: |
Marriage is not an inalienable right; it is a privilege, a license granted by government conferring certain governmental benefits.
There is a constitutional right that is under threat: the free exercise of religion.
Let me go out on another limb here and make another crazy prediction. Within 10 years, clergy will be sued or indicted for preaching on certain Bible passages dealing with homosexuality and churches, and church-related organizations will lose government contracts and even their tax-exempt status.
|
Clergy should indeed be dealt with via criminal or civil law if they preach homophobia based on the Bible. Homophobia should go the same way as racism - become totally, totally unacceptable. Church-related organizations should indeed lose tax-exempt status.
The religious folks in question are the most inferior and retarded of Americans and that's really saying something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Insidejohnmalkovich
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Location: Pusan
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dogshed wrote: |
| Get rid of all marriage laws. Marriage belongs in the church. |
Hear, hear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dogshed wrote: |
| Get rid of all marriage laws. Marriage belongs in the church. |
And since churches don't allow divorce, I guess that solves that problem, too. 
Churches can have marriages. I'll just go to city hall and get hitched (gov't is welcome to call it a civil union) by a justice of the peace anyway. or a ship captain.
Civil unions can get all the gov't goodies and protections. Church "marriages" can have the blessing of the church. I don't need the church's blessing to get married to my gf. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dogshed wrote: |
| Get rid of all marriage laws. Marriage belongs in the church. |
Absolutely. Make "marriage" a purely religiious act. Which would mean, of course, that "marriage" confers no legal, financial or social "rights."
That is, when you die, your "spouse" has no more legal right to your assets than any stranger on the street; since there is no legal contract involved, there is no such thing as common property, unless the "married" couple has made separate, legally binding arrangements for this.
Your "spouse" has no hospital visitation rights should you fall ill.
You gain no tax advantage as a result of your church "marriage."
If you "marry" a foreign national, that person has no basis for immigration.
We can reserve all of these "benefits" of "marriage" to people who enter the legally binding contract of "civil union" and "marriage" can be a matter between you and your god(s).
I don't care what you call it, but a nation that claims to separate church from state should have no business discriminating between gay relationships and straight ones.
The truth of the matter is, however much we've dressed it up in religious terms, marriage is a contract mostly concerned with property rights.
If protecting the institution of marriage is your primary concern, leave aside gay marriage laws and focus instead on outlawing divorce.
One more bit about this whole topic: Three years ago I lived in a state that had gone back and forth, via voter referendums, on the subject of including gays in its equal rights laws. Much is made, on the part of anti-gay-rights groups, about the idea that this issue is not one that courts should decide upon; it's an issue the people should be able to decide.
That's a concept on which I call "bullshit." Equal rights for gays is exactly the kind of issue the US court system was created for.
I voted in favor of the referendum three years ago to grant almost full citizenship to gay people, but I decided then and there that it would be the last time I would deign to participate in such an election. The idea that a majority of people should be able to decide whether or not a minority of people should be considered to be actual Americans is beyond repugnant.
What puts it beyond repugnance for me is that those motherfuckers demanded that I participate in their scheme, demanded that I, too, should be expected to vote on the question of whether or not I considered myself to be an actual human being deserving of the rights, duties and benefits of full citizenship.
I voted. I voted because it was a close race, but I did so with the promise to myself that I would never again lower myself to their game, even if it meant losing. A voter referendum is not the place to achieve civil rights. The courts in America were created to protect the rights of the minority from the whim of the majority. The US court system has a rather spotty record in this, but eventually they catch up.
To wit, should Brown v. the Board of Education have been put to a popular vote? Should Loving v. Virginia have been voted on? Courts' desicions aren't supposed to be subject to review of what is popular. Courts' decisions often stand, by definition, in contrast to what the majority wants. It's what separates Democracy from Mob Rule.
So, fine, make "marriage" a purely religious function, just don't expect any secular benefit from it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
