How does same gender marriage hurt you?

[Steve Machol]

Here's another real life example - albeit one with a bit of irony.

In the 60s I went to one of the most prestigious Jesuit High Schools in the nation - Brophy College Prep in Phoenix (which to this day still sits on some prime real estate in uptown Phoenix.) Brophy was bequeathed a property on the corner of 24th and McDowell in someone's will. They paid no inheritance tax.

One of the tenants on that property had an ironclad lease that lasted several years. So for the next few years Brophy was the (not so) proud landlord of one of the most explicit strip clubs in Phoenix at that time. All the money they collected in rent was non-taxable. The income had nothing to do with 'charity' - unless you consider strip clubs a form of altruism. Nor did it have anything at all to do with any 'religious' enterprise. It was a business with business income. Yet none of it was taxed, nor was the land subject to property taxes.

After the lease expired, Brophy quickly sold off the property to U-Haul which I believe still has a facility there. The proceeds of that sale were not taxed either.

By the way, I had little luck with my drive to change the school mascot. ;)

[Spexvet]

...
I posted this because there is a danger involved in promoting one groups rights over another.

Like promoting Christian group's rights over gay group rights by prohibiting same gender marriages?

But can the government superimpose gay civil rights on religious-minded organizations as mentioned in the piece?

Can the government superimpose religious-minded organizations' rights on gay people by prohibiting them from marrying who they want?

Should there be protection for those who conscientiously object to certain actions as against their religion?

Sure.... they won't be forced to marry someone of their own gender.

...
What say you all to balancing sexual civil rights of Americans with religious civil rights of Americans?

One of our civil rights is the right to participate in a religion without interference from the government, so it's really the same thing - as long as ALL religions are treated equally and the exercising of one's religion doesn't interfere with someone else's civil rights (like marrying someone of the same gender).

I think we can all agree that homosexual couples in the United States have a right to live together and have all the civil rights and privileges of all Americans (because they are Americans, regardless of their behavior), including some marriage alternative.

How about this:
Any consenting adults can be married by the government, and get all the benefits that married people currently get. Those who want a religious ceremony to mark their wedding can have the wedding performed by a religious person, or can have a seperate religious ceremony.

Is everybody ok with that plan?

[Spexvet]

Tax them all. Fine by me. I still do not see why Churches and religions should be exempt, particularly when many of them run full fledged business in every way you look at it.
...

Absolutely!

[drk]

Like promoting Christian group's rights over gay group rights by prohibiting same gender marriages?


Can the government superimpose religious-minded organizations' rights on gay people by prohibiting them from marrying who they want?


Sure.... they won't be forced to marry someone of their own gender.


One of our civil rights is the right to participate in a religion without interference from the government, so it's really the same thing - as long as ALL religions are treated equally and the exercising of one's religion doesn't interfere with someone else's civil rights (like marrying someone of the same gender).


How about this:
Any consenting adults can be married by the government, and get all the benefits that married people currently get. Those who want a religious ceremony to mark their wedding can have the wedding performed by a religious person, or can have a seperate religious ceremony.

Is everybody ok with that plan?

You have a severe misunderstanding of the nature of this issue, Spex. You would do well to broaden your perspective a little.

[Grubendol]

I’m actually on the opposite side on the taxing issue. Since the beginning of this nation, churches have been exempt from taxation. That’s one of those things I don’t have a problem with, even though I’m decidedly areligious…with the one caveat that if they are to remain tax exempt, then they MUST REFRAIN from all political action, and profiteering. Churches, by their very nature, SHOULD be non-profit. NO ONE should be making money off of other people’s faith, IMHO

[For-Life]

I don't get the connection? Are you saying that "free speech" in the US, if contrary to administration foriegn policy, is going to be sanctioned by some quasi-governmental authority?

No, actually I haven't heard of it, but that's not necessarily a good indication of whether it's happened. Do you have a case in point?

DRK, I do not think you get it. There is not anti-freedom of speech policy in Canada. As I have pointed out several times there was someone who contended that the Minister in question was doing things that infringed on human rights. Thus, he was investigated.

I compared it to situations in the US where people reported their neighbours for saying things against the US war and they were investigated. One source of that was Farhenheit 9/11.

[Spexvet]

You have a severe misunderstanding of the nature of this issue, Spex. You would do well to broaden your perspective a little.

I think that you have a misperception that this issue is about good and evil. It's not. It's about differing points of view that should be treated equally. Prohibiting people of the same gender to marry is as wrong as forcing two people of the same gender to marry.

When you say things like

I posted this because there is a danger involved in promoting one groups rights over another.

and

But can the government superimpose gay civil rights on religious-minded organizations as mentioned in the piece?

you come across as though you beleive that reversing this discriminatory behavior is somehow discrimination against you, which is preposterous.

[chip anderson]

Turn it around: How does gay (not my choice of words) marriage help you?
What do you care one way or the other?

Chip

[Grubendol]

Whether or not it helps me is irrelevant. It does help individuals. Allowing gay marriage does not hurt anyone. No one is required to enter a gay marriage unless they choose to. If someone is allowed to marry, it does no harm to any individuals, or groups. It is a right which does not infringe upon anyone else’s rights.

It seems like such a silly and pointless thing to argue against.

[chip anderson]

Grubendol:
My point was it is also a silly and pointless thing to argue for!

[Grubendol]

And my point is that it is not something silly and pointless to argue for. There are rights and privileges associated with marriage unavailable, even in most domestic partner laws.

And if there is no harm and it is something that they desire, then why not allow them to have it?

[For-Life]

Turn it around: How does gay (not my choice of words) marriage help you?
What do you care one way or the other?

Chip

increasing freedoms help everyone

If the government decides to prevent what goes on in the bedroom or to put regulations on who you can or cannot marry, then how far can it go?

It also helps in a way that if one spouse loses his or her partner, who was the breadwinner in the marriage, then our tax dollars will not be used to support the widow through support services (welfare, low income housing, ect). Since without the legal marriage, there would be the loss of financial support to that partner.

[Spexvet]

Turn it around: How does gay (not my choice of words) marriage help you?
What do you care one way or the other?

Chip

It begins the slippery slope that leads to my wedding to my pet snake. :p

Someday, Chip, it might be you who is prohibited from doing something, just because that thing offends the tradition of those who are the majority. Maybe they want to outlaw the eating of craw daddies, because, the bible tells you not to eat shellfish.

[chip anderson]

Spex:

In the name of "political Correctness" Optiboards already forbids a number of things and traditions of mine.
There are times when I enjoy OFF END ING those that are prone to be easily offended.

You know what the said about Harry Callihan, he doesn't discriminate he hates everybody.

Chip

[braheem24]

I'm assuming that everyone ok with gay marriage is also by the same token automatically alright with polygamy in heterosexual and homosexual marriges?

If the pro-gay marriage members would each answer, thanks.

[Grubendol]

braheem that's been covered...it's a ludicrous slippery slope argument.

[Jacqui]

I'm assuming that everyone ok with gay marriage is also by the same token automatically alright with polygamy in heterosexual and homosexual marriges?

If the pro-gay marriage members would each answer, thanks.

Spexie started another thread about this.

[For-Life]

gay marriage is the gateway to communism. That is my big problem with it. The metric system and flourination of water were the first attempts by leninist. Now they are trying a new way.

[Icareforeyecare]

I am covered under my partner's insurance, as are our 2 children. We need the benefits of insurance as I just returned to work after being home with our children for 6 years. We were only able to offer the one-on-one time (with insurance) to our children because we have affordable group healthcare that recognized our partnership. My firstborn was in NICU at birth and we needed the insurance to protect his life.

Because we do not have many of the legal benefits, we spent a mini-fortune on legal agreements protecting our chidlren, protecting our assets, protecting our commitment. Even after all of this protection, I understand that my partner is not legally considered our child's parent. So, so sad. I have a $200,000 life insurance policy designed just for legal fees for my partner in case something happens to me.

We also have to plan extra for our retirement. Many benefits of marriage are not given to us - we have to duplicate it in as many forms as we can.

We are Christians, accepted into our church with a commitment ceremony and a family commitment ceremony. A marriage - in our typically quiet way - would help preserve our commitments in faith, in our children and as our family's future. I am not on a political agenda. I care about my family...and more than anything, about my children having access to the many, many benefits of the "system" of marriage. Our "marriage" commitment is already there!

[Jacqui]

gay marriage is the gateway to communism. That is my big problem with it. The metric system and flourination of water were the first attempts by leninist. Now they are trying a new way.

and they are trying to keep us from organizing by raising the prices of gasoline and beer.

[drk]

DRK, I do not think you get it. There is not anti-freedom of speech policy in Canada. As I have pointed out several times there was someone who contended that the Minister in question was doing things that infringed on human rights. Thus, he was investigated.

I compared it to situations in the US where people reported their neighbours for saying things against the US war and they were investigated. One source of that was Farhenheit 9/11.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._fighting.html

Excerpt:

"I have mentioned only the current cases in which periodical publications have been prosecuted, in the strange new world of "Kafkanada" -- where you can be tried for the same imaginary "hate crimes" in any or all federal and provincial jurisdictions, simultaneously or sequentially. A single complaint by any reader anywhere is enough to launch a secret inquiry. The target has no right to confront his accuser, and will not at first even be told who he or she is.

Truth is no defence, the absence of harm is no defence, there are no rules of evidence -- due process is entirely subverted. The inquisitors of these kangaroo courts may ultimately reach any "judgement" they please, after months or years of playing cat-and-mouse with their selected victim.

A Protestant minister in Alberta was, for instance, recently ordered to publicly renounce his Christian beliefs, as well as pay a big lump sum to the anti-Christian activist who had prosecuted him, in a case I mentioned in a previous column, and which I am pleased to see is getting wide publicity in the United States even if not up here. "Re-education" programmes are frequently assigned, for which the victim must also pay.
All of the complainant's expenses are paid by the taxpayer, as well as all of the overheads and expenses of the jet-setting "human rights" bureaucrats, who do all the prosecutorial work, as well as providing both judge and jury. The system is, in principle, indistinguishable from that in place during the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China. It was perpetrated by leftwing activists on the Canadian people while they were sleeping. It is a system of the activists, by the activists, and for the activists."


Scary what some will do to trample everyone's free speech rights to promote some's sexual rights.

[KStraker]

I am covered under my partner's insurance, as are our 2 children. We need the benefits of insurance as I just returned to work after being home with our children for 6 years. We were only able to offer the one-on-one time (with insurance) to our children because we have affordable group healthcare that recognized our partnership. My firstborn was in NICU at birth and we needed the insurance to protect his life.

Because we do not have many of the legal benefits, we spent a mini-fortune on legal agreements protecting our chidlren, protecting our assets, protecting our commitment. Even after all of this protection, I understand that my partner is not legally considered our child's parent. So, so sad. I have a $200,000 life insurance policy designed just for legal fees for my partner in case something happens to me.

We also have to plan extra for our retirement. Many benefits of marriage are not given to us - we have to duplicate it in as many forms as we can.

We are Christians, accepted into our church with a commitment ceremony and a family commitment ceremony. A marriage - in our typically quiet way - would help preserve our commitments in faith, in our children and as our family's future. I am not on a political agenda. I care about my family...and more than anything, about my children having access to the many, many benefits of the "system" of marriage. Our "marriage" commitment is already there!

Frist of all , I am a Christian and I am a member of a non-denominational church. I am curious about your commitment ceremony. Do you mean that you were committed to each other in a ceremony at your church, or were committed as members of the church? As a Christian I beleive that the Bible is the infallable word of God. If your pastor and your church endorsed, provided venue, or conducted a same sex ceremony, then they stand in direct oppostition to God's word. This would seem a difficult position for a Christian church. I support your right to love whomever you please and be happy. I support your right to provide for the stability of your family. I do not support the dilution of very concrete Christian mandates to appease the needs of the world.

with respect-kevin

[Icareforeyecare]

Actually, both. We are members and our church recognized the commitment. I will add that we wanted it to be more of a family commitment - as in to care and honor our family as a Christian unity. My children are always my priority.

I am quite familiar with all ends of the Christian (and other) response and we are welcomed and completely accepted within the UCC church.

I just simply wanted to share how we could benefit---more importantly, my children could benefit from legislative support and recognition of our family unit.

I am not one to be in the spotlight on my personal beliefs, spiritual beliefs or otherwise. And I am sorry, but I will always gracefully "bow out" of this conversation. If anything, I just hoped that someone, somewhere, would consider the possible benefits.

I appreciate your question, though.

[For-Life]

Frist of all , I am a Christian and I am a member of a non-denominational church. I am curious about your commitment ceremony. Do you mean that you were committed to each other in a ceremony at your church, or were committed as members of the church? As a Christian I beleive that the Bible is the infallable word of God. If your pastor and your church endorsed, provided venue, or conducted a same sex ceremony, then they stand in direct oppostition to God's word. This would seem a difficult position for a Christian church. I support your right to love whomever you please and be happy. I support your right to provide for the stability of your family. I do not support the dilution of very concrete Christian mandates to appease the needs of the world.

with respect-kevin

There are several Churches that perform gay marriages. Many of these include Christian scholars who have studied the bible from front to back. They know what they are doing.

[For-Life]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._fighting.html

Excerpt:

"I have mentioned only the current cases in which periodical publications have been prosecuted, in the strange new world of "Kafkanada" -- where you can be tried for the same imaginary "hate crimes" in any or all federal and provincial jurisdictions, simultaneously or sequentially. A single complaint by any reader anywhere is enough to launch a secret inquiry. The target has no right to confront his accuser, and will not at first even be told who he or she is.

Truth is no defence, the absence of harm is no defence, there are no rules of evidence -- due process is entirely subverted. The inquisitors of these kangaroo courts may ultimately reach any "judgement" they please, after months or years of playing cat-and-mouse with their selected victim.

A Protestant minister in Alberta was, for instance, recently ordered to publicly renounce his Christian beliefs, as well as pay a big lump sum to the anti-Christian activist who had prosecuted him, in a case I mentioned in a previous column, and which I am pleased to see is getting wide publicity in the United States even if not up here. "Re-education" programmes are frequently assigned, for which the victim must also pay.
All of the complainant's expenses are paid by the taxpayer, as well as all of the overheads and expenses of the jet-setting "human rights" bureaucrats, who do all the prosecutorial work, as well as providing both judge and jury. The system is, in principle, indistinguishable from that in place during the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China. It was perpetrated by leftwing activists on the Canadian people while they were sleeping. It is a system of the activists, by the activists, and for the activists."


Scary what some will do to trample everyone's free speech rights to promote some's sexual rights.

What is scary are some of these right winged columns. Truth is, if the Human Rights Board feels that any accusation is false, then they can turn it down. People have to have the right to have a formal board to complain to. While some will make false claims and take advantage of the process, the consequences of not having a source has its own flaws.

This is why the US has a similar process where you can claim that people are being unAmerican.