detlef Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 He referenced something that the church was getting involved in in NC, but that wasn't clear, so I didn't know specifically what he was talking about. However his typing DIO for a payment regularly and it bringing up some group he doensn't like is apparently what is setting him off. I know ther religious zealots are often involved in these gay marriage bans, and I disagree with them. (Heck one of them done in Ohio basically gave the state and election to Bush.) But I don't think that's a reason to revoke tax exempt status from churches (and every other non-profit group). Since the state has jurisdiction for providing marriage licenes, it is actually their job to decide what is a legal marriage. I agree that marriage between same sex couples should be allowed everywhere. They should have all the same rights allowed to any other married couple. If churches don't want to perform the marriage, that is their right, completely agree. The Diocese auto-fill is not what is setting me off. That's just an annoying little reminder considering that their name showed up prominently in support of what I find to be a horribly un-American act. None the less, I could give a rat's ass how long we've been letting churches operate their businesses tax free in this country, that doesn't make it right. Just like it doesn't make the bible true just because a bunch of people have been regurgitating the fairy tales in it for 1000s of years. And, like SEC said, slavery went on for some time before we fixed that. I'm also not looking to abolish all non-profit, but rather begin to carefully examine whether tax-free dollars should be able to be used for lobbying. Speaking of slavery. Slave owners brandished bibles when their way of business was under attack because, just like it mentions the whole man/woman thing with marriage (along, of course, with plenty of other versions of marriage), the bible had the slave owners backs. And, if the bible got slavery, something just behind marching Jews into gas chambers on the list of things that virtually everyone realizes is effed up, I'm not sure why it should be an authorative on something as hard to define as sexual orientation. (of course, that last part of the rant was not directed at you, just on a roll) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 They absolutely have the same right: I can not marry a dude. Neither can a gay dude. My wife could not marry a wommen. Neither can a Lesbian. People under the age of 18 can't marry... Actually, part of the irony here in NC is that apparently you can still marry your 16 year old cousin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Actually, part of the irony here in NC is that apparently you can still marry your 16 year old cousin. that is in the bible as OK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 None the less, I could give a rat's ass how long we've been letting churches operate their businesses tax free in this country, that doesn't make it right. Just like it doesn't make the bible true just because a bunch of people have been regurgitating the fairy tales in it for 1000s of years. And, like SEC said, slavery went on for some time before we fixed that. Why do people who are anti-religion always have to resort to these kind of statements. Its like calling religious people idiots. And then you want to have a rationale discussion. I'm not that religious, but this has always bothered me. If you don't want to believe in something that others do that's fine, but don't ridicule it or them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Why do people who are anti-religion always have to resort to these kind of statements. Its like calling religious people idiots. And then you want to have a rationale discussion. I'm not that religious, but this has always bothered me. If you don't want to believe in something that others do that's fine, but don't ridicule it or them. Religious types have had a several thousand year head start on doing damage towards non-believers. A handful of pokes and jabs isn't really much of anything in comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 Why do people who are anti-religion always have to resort to these kind of statements. Its like calling religious people idiots. And then you want to have a rationale discussion. I'm not that religious, but this has always bothered me. If you don't want to believe in something that others do that's fine, but don't ridicule it or them. Because it's a book, written by men. That has been altered and interpreted and reinterpreted and ignored when convienient and used as the unwavering truth when convenenient. But it's still a bunch of stories. If you want to use the bible as a guide for your life, that doesn't make you an idiot. But it's still a bunch of stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Why do people who are anti-religion always have to resort to these kind of statements. Its like calling religious people idiots. And then you want to have a rationale discussion. I'm not that religious, but this has always bothered me. If you don't want to believe in something that others do that's fine, but don't ridicule it or them. Thats why I dont take Detlefs religious rants serious . If you are going to dismiss the bible as a book of fairy tales then I wont give a rats ass about how backwards your state looks right now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Thats why I dont take Detlefs religious rants serious . If you are going to dismiss the bible as a book of fairy tales then I wont give a rats ass about how backwards your state looks right now Meh. my bad. This is a dumb statement. You are entitled to your opinion. I think you crowbar it in whenever you get a chance but its a free country and you are entitled to. I apologize Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I really don't care if gays are allowed to marry. I think there are other avenues they can take for inheritance, hospital visitation, etc... Really the only thing that they seem to be missing out on is the abiltiy to cash in on their spouses social security, but whatever. Let 'em marry and have fun with that. Now, what I do have a problem with is when things are put on a ballot, people are allowed to vote for it in the form of a referendum and when the referendum is defeated or approved the losing side comes out with vitriol denouncing the "ignorance", "intloerance", "backwardness", etc... of the side that won. This cuts both ways across political lines. Recently GA passed a referendum allowing for alcohol to be sold on Sunday in package stores. The evangelical right came out denouncing all of the heathens, derelicts and idiots who voted for this. Guess what, fu(k them, it was put on a ballot, it passed, get over yerself and find something else to do... Much like with the gay marriage bill in NC, it was defeated by the voters and it was defeated even after college students and gay rights groups marshalled their troops to the polls to pass it. They lost, get over it. This will most certainly be challenged in court and this process will be dragged out and I can assure you that these people who are for gay marriage will bleet from the top of their lungs about how backward and ignorant the population of NC is. Well, if it is that bad of a state, if the people are that nasty and ignorant, if you don't want to be associated with them, pack yer sh!t up and move to MD, DC, Washington, or wherever the people are more progressive and intelligent. At the end of the day, I guess what I have a problem with is all of the name calling and derision that comes from which ever side loses. You lost, take it in stride. Instead of being a dick about it, pull up your skirt and go about educating people about why you feel the resolution should have passed. Inform your detractors don't criticize them. Go about affecting a positive change don't dengrate people because they believe differently than you. In a long battle like this, the battle for gay marriage, losing with grace goes a long way toward eventually accomplishing your goal. Also, gay rights groups scored a big win with even getting this referendum on the ballot in NC, they should be happy at making it that far. I bet in another decade the referendum will pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Also, gay rights groups scored a big win with even getting this referendum on the ballot in NC, they should be happy at making it that far. I bet in another decade the referendum will pass. Gay weddings were already illegal in NC and the referendum put that ban into the state constitution and also forbade civil unions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) I really don't care if gays are allowed to marry. I think there are other avenues they can take for inheritance, hospital visitation, etc... Really the only thing that they seem to be missing out on is the abiltiy to cash in on their spouses social security, but whatever. Let 'em marry and have fun with that. Now, what I do have a problem with is when things are put on a ballot, people are allowed to vote for it in the form of a referendum and when the referendum is defeated or approved the losing side comes out with vitriol denouncing the "ignorance", "intloerance", "backwardness", etc... of the side that won. This cuts both ways across political lines. Recently GA passed a referendum allowing for alcohol to be sold on Sunday in package stores. The evangelical right came out denouncing all of the heathens, derelicts and idiots who voted for this. Guess what, fu(k them, it was put on a ballot, it passed, get over yerself and find something else to do... Much like with the gay marriage bill in NC, it was defeated by the voters and it was defeated even after college students and gay rights groups marshalled their troops to the polls to pass it. They lost, get over it. This will most certainly be challenged in court and this process will be dragged out and I can assure you that these people who are for gay marriage will bleet from the top of their lungs about how backward and ignorant the population of NC is. Well, if it is that bad of a state, if the people are that nasty and ignorant, if you don't want to be associated with them, pack yer sh!t up and move to MD, DC, Washington, or wherever the people are more progressive and intelligent. At the end of the day, I guess what I have a problem with is all of the name calling and derision that comes from which ever side loses. You lost, take it in stride. Instead of being a dick about it, pull up your skirt and go about educating people about why you feel the resolution should have passed. Inform your detractors don't criticize them. Go about affecting a positive change don't dengrate people because they believe differently than you. In a long battle like this, the battle for gay marriage, losing with grace goes a long way toward eventually accomplishing your goal. Also, gay rights groups scored a big win with even getting this referendum on the ballot in NC, they should be happy at making it that far. I bet in another decade the referendum will pass. You really don't know what we were voting on. Gay Marriage was already illegal in this state. This was about making an amendment to the constituion to make sure no judge could ever change that and also to make it so that the only legal unions be between a man and a woman. That affects childcare, health benefits and other things. Counties are already using the vote as an excuse to cut partner health benefits for employees with same sex partners. We did something horrible yesterday. We voted on the rights of a minority and used the constitution as a tool to do so. None the less, yours is an interesting perspective, too bad it was based on not having any effing clue what was going on. Edited May 9, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) Thats why I dont take Detlefs religious rants serious . If you are going to dismiss the bible as a book of fairy tales then I wont give a rats ass about how backwards your state looks right now So, are you saying the bible is the word of god? Not stories written by men? And the other religious texts that don't follow the same story-line? Who wrote those? Edited May 9, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 With regard to the idea of not taxing churches, I will uphold their right to be exempt from Income taxes. With regard to income taxes they should be treated as any other non-profit group. However, I disagree with their not having to pay property taxes or ad valorem on vehicles. this is a pretty reasonable position. I think many people forget the fact that most of their tax exemption simply comes by virtue of their being a non-profit 501©(3) organization. the property tax exemption is interesting. I think in some way it dates back to many historical squabbles between kings and popes. in practice today, it has the effect of many old church buildings with sparse incomes sitting on prime multi-million dollar real estate. it's inefficient from an economic standpoint. one thing about property taxes are they encourage property owners who are motivated to improve the property. but from a cultural standpoint, think of how many more old church buildings would have met the wrecking ball. unless of course the government makes it impossible for the church to sell its primary asset (which they can no longer afford to maintain) and move to a more suitable location by declaring the building an historical landmark -- something that I know actually happens a LOT. so in strange ways it actually often cuts both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh B Tool Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I think everyone should have faith in something, don't have a problem with that at all. It is when these faiths try to tell me how I should perform my faith the proper way or I will burn in hades that chaps my hide. **** RELIGOUS DOGMA and the cayoose it rode in on. And yes churches should pay taxes like any other biz making a buck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Was every person that voted for the amendment religious and influenced by the Church ? While I am sure most staunch religious types voted for it, did they get it passed by themselves ? I read an article today, for example, that said African Americans are 50/50 on gay marriage. I am sure you would find a fair amount of people that were uninfluenced by religion that voted for it. Det, I think you are embarrassed about your states non progressive decision and doing a pretty nice spin, deflect here with the taxes thing to lump the full blame of this decision on the church. As far as the topic on hand. I have no problem with gay marriage. I was raised in a Catholic household. I think it should be legal . If I have the right to marry the person that I love than why shouldn't Hugh one ? We have said it millions of times on here. There are people that jam religion down your throat and there are people that love to play the victim of religion being jammed down their throats. Both are equally as annoying. Edited May 10, 2012 by whomper 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Was every person that voted for the amendment religious and influenced by the Church ? While I am sure most staunch religious types voted for it, did they get it passed by themselves ? I read an article today, for example, that said African Americans are 50/50 on gay marriage. I am sure you would find a fair amount of people that were uninfluenced by religion that voted for it. Det, I think you are embarrassed about your states non progressive decision and doing a pretty nice spin, deflect here with the taxes thing to lump the full blame of this decision on the church. As far as the topic on hand. I have no problem with gay marriage. I was raised in a Catholic household. I think it should be legal . If I have the right to marry the person that I love than why shouldn't Hugh one ? We have said it millions of times on here. There are people that jam religion down your throat and there are people that love to play the victim of religion being jammed down their throats. Both are equally as annoying. It is very safe to say that there were some who voted for the amendment who aren't affiliated with the church per se. That said, as someone who lived here for the last 6 months, I can assure you that 100% of the ads and speeches in favor of the amendment invoked god and/or the bible. So, to distance "the church" in any meaningful way from this passing is rather disingenious. Now, that said, there were plenty in "the church" who spoke out against it and they should be commended, but, again, this was a church-based agenda from the start. That much is not debatable. Just listen to or read the speeches at the victory party. God-this, the bible-that. And so on. So, I don't think this is unfairly calling out "the church" nor crying wolf. Sure, there are plenty of good people involved in the church who don't want run around sticking their nose in other people's affairs, but, apparently, nowhere near as many as there are those who do. Well, either that or the "good" ones are just staying out of the fray and leting the bible-thumpers and godless sodomites duke it out. Otherwise, 30 of our 50 states wouldn't have amendments like this. In NC, it wouldn't have won by the landslide that it did. Or, just follow the money... The pro-amendment committee received about 75 percent of its $1.2 million from three contributors. The state’s Catholic dioceses added $100,000. The largest donor identified in the first-quarter reports, through April 20, is the Christian Action League, which gave $312,000 to help the amendment. Rev. Mark Creech, leader of the Raleigh-based group, said he considered marriage a “special institution created by God to protect children and families.” The pro-amendment campaign also received a $250,000 boost from Franklin tax software developer Phil Drake, the largest contribution from an individual. Drake said he is a longtime supporter of Christian conservative causes. It’s about creating “ideal families” and producing children, he said. I believe, though I couldn't find it but recall seeing it before, that the other big money came from NOM, a group that is certainly fath-based and says so in the first line of its mission statement. Read more here: http://www.newsobser...l#storylink=cpy Edited May 10, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 You really don't know what we were voting on. Gay Marriage was already illegal in this state. This was about making an amendment to the constituion to make sure no judge could ever change that and also to make it so that the only legal unions be between a man and a woman. That affects childcare, health benefits and other things. Counties are already using the vote as an excuse to cut partner health benefits for employees with same sex partners. We did something horrible yesterday. We voted on the rights of a minority and used the constitution as a tool to do so. None the less, yours is an interesting perspective, too bad it was based on not having any effing clue what was going on. Allow me to apologize for not following each of the past 30 or so state referendum on gay marriage closely enough to know the exact verbiage of what each referendum stated. The essence of each of these bills is the same, however: does the populace of the state want to limit marriage to heterosexual people? NC overwhelming said, yes, we want marriage to be solely between a man and a woman. While you may disagree with the scope of the law and you may disagree with the way it was written on the ballot, from what I can gather on the innernets, close to 60% of North Carolinians disagree with you. I will revert to aspects of my previous post, stop the vitriol, stop the name calling, cease with the demeaning verbiage. Educate the public on your position, tell them why you view the referendum as unfair, logically debate the topic. By attacking ones core beliefs, one's intelligence, you are going to retrench their stance against what you are fighting for and ultimately create more strident opponents than what you were intially facing. Seemingly this is an emotional issue for you (no, I'm not implying that you are gay) and when you allow your emotions to run too rampant you are going to turn people off. Case in point, your somewhat heated comment toward me, a person who, overall, agrees with what you are fighting for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 Allow me to apologize for not following each of the past 30 or so state referendum on gay marriage closely enough to know the exact verbiage of what each referendum stated. The essence of each of these bills is the same, however: does the populace of the state want to limit marriage to heterosexual people? NC overwhelming said, yes, we want marriage to be solely between a man and a woman. While you may disagree with the scope of the law and you may disagree with the way it was written on the ballot, from what I can gather on the innernets, close to 60% of North Carolinians disagree with you. I will revert to aspects of my previous post, stop the vitriol, stop the name calling, cease with the demeaning verbiage. Educate the public on your position, tell them why you view the referendum as unfair, logically debate the topic. By attacking ones core beliefs, one's intelligence, you are going to retrench their stance against what you are fighting for and ultimately create more strident opponents than what you were intially facing. Seemingly this is an emotional issue for you (no, I'm not implying that you are gay) and when you allow your emotions to run too rampant you are going to turn people off. Case in point, your somewhat heated comment toward me, a person who, overall, agrees with what you are fighting for. First off, it appeared that much of your smug, BS post was based on, "what are you complaining about, you should feel lucky that your state is cool enough to even be considering legalizing all marriage". My heated comment to you had more to do with your inclination to step and and say, "let me break it down for you young man". Which is fine, provided, again, that you've got your facts straight. Which, you didn't and, as I expected "backtracked" with some BS about "excuse me for not knowing every ballot measure". Which, of course, you don't need to, that is, unless you plan to cop some, "let me break it down for you" trip, like you did. Secondly, there are things one can agree to disagree on. I am prepared to agree to disagree with anyone in terms of what they think marriage should be. If a specific chuch does not want to recognize gay marriage, so be it. That's their choice. But one does not "agree to disagree" over the tyranny of the majority. The religous right picked this fight, not me. They stand there now saying, "I hope we can mend the broken bonds in our community and move forward together." A day after their campaign to hurt some families succeeded. This is where one typically quotes Neimoller... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 As far as the topic on hand. I have no problem with gay marriage. I was raised in a Catholic household. I think it should be legal . If I have the right to marry the person that I love than why shouldn't Hugh one ? We have said it millions of times on here. There are people that jam religion down your throat and there are people that love to play the victim of religion being jammed down their throats. Both are equally as annoying. Agreed. The one caveat IMO is that a church should not have to conduct a wedding that is not in accordance with the tenets of the religion practiced there. Gay couple wants to get married in a Catholic church. The church is absolutely within it's rights to refuse, backwards thinking or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) First off, it appeared that much of your smug, BS post was based on, "what are you complaining about, you should feel lucky that your state is cool enough to even be considering legalizing all marriage". My heated comment to you had more to do with your inclination to step and and say, "let me break it down for you young man". Which is fine, provided, again, that you've got your facts straight. Which, you didn't and, as I expected "backtracked" with some BS about "excuse me for not knowing every ballot measure". Which, of course, you don't need to, that is, unless you plan to cop some, "let me break it down for you" trip, like you did. Secondly, there are things one can agree to disagree on. I am prepared to agree to disagree with anyone in terms of what they think marriage should be. If a specific chuch does not want to recognize gay marriage, so be it. That's their choice. But one does not "agree to disagree" over the tyranny of the majority. The religous right picked this fight, not me. They stand there now saying, "I hope we can mend the broken bonds in our community and move forward together." A day after their campaign to hurt some families succeeded. This is where one typically quotes Neimoller... I'm simply pointing out a fact that by you attacking the church with regard to this referendum you are going to do more damage to your cause than you are going to help. If the gay community and its supporters think that it is a benefit to them to attack the church, deman the intellect of its members and deride their beliefs, you are sorely mistaken. Continue with your crusade and your blustery rhetoric and NC will never repeal what just passed. With regard to my smug, BS post, I will state again, that I was wrong with regard to the verbiage of the NC referendum... It was my assunption that it would have been the same type referendum, an up or down vote on gay marriage, as we have witnessed in other states (BTW, feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong with regard to the verbiage of the refernums from the other states as you seemingly know how each one was individually written.) But, in the end, there is very little difference between the NC referendum and others regarding gay marriage. In the states where the referendum was not supportive of gay marriage it is now illegal for same sex couple to be married, much like is the current situation in NC. ETA: I ask this, had the referendum failed to pass, what would have happened next? Edited May 10, 2012 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 I'm simply pointing out a fact that by you attacking the church with regard to this referendum you are going to do more damage to your cause than you are going to help. If the gay community and its supporters think that it is a benefit to them to attack the church, deman the intellect of its members and deride their beliefs, you are sorely mistaken. Continue with your crusade and your blustery rhetoric and NC will never repeal what just passed. With regard to my smug, BS post, I will state again, that I was wrong with regard to the verbiage of the NC referendum... It was my assunption that it would have been the same type referendum, an up or down vote on gay marriage, as we have witnessed in other states (BTW, feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong with regard to the verbiage of the refernums from the other states as you seemingly know how each one was individually written.) But, in the end, there is very little difference between the NC referendum and others regarding gay marriage. In the states where the referendum was not supportive of gay marriage it is now illegal for same sex couple to be married, much like is the current situation in NC. ETA: I ask this, had the referendum failed to pass, what would have happened next? I don't pretend to know precisely what the other state amendments say, but I do know that the new one in NC goes far beyond defining the word marriage as only between a man and a woman. It does very much restrict the rights of any non-married couple. And let me make it clear that this is why your confusion of the actual bill matters. If it was as you thought, then your whole, "don't be such a dick" bit would be spot on. If, in fact, the rights of law-abiding citizens who happened to live their lives in a manner not consistent with what many feel the bible says were not under attack and it was simply about what they get to call their union, then I'd agree with you 100%. I, of course, would have voted in favor of letting gays call their union a marriage, but if that didn't pass and they merely had to live among us with equal rights but not get to use that title, then the appropraite response would be, "Oh well, not this time. We'll get 'em next time." And move forward. But that isn't what happened. Further, the por-amendment side is trying to frame the consequences of their actions in terms convenient to them. "We're not antt-gay, we're pro marriage!" That was verbatem from one of the heads of the movement. But here's the thing, this hurts gay people. Plain and simple. Not "hurts their feelings because they don't get to call themselves marriage" but hurts gay people as in negatively impacts thair ability to look out for their partner and children. Further, look up the data, the church is losing the youth. And they're losing the youth because of attacks like this that "the church" is making. They're either leaving it or finding more progressive churches. So, you're right in a sense, perhaps attacking the chuch for its support of things like this is going to piss off plenty, but I doubt many who would ever be swayed. But I think you're making a bold assumption that attacking the church will make it so this sort of thing never gets overturned. Regardless, I already tried the cool approach, I sent the following letter to all churches in my area that displayed signage in favor of the amendment: Let me say that, first and foremost, I believe strongly that you should be able to define what sort of marriage you want to recognize in your church. That, were any legislature ever proposed that would require yours or any church to recognize or celebrate any union you found unholy, you would have an ally in me. I would find such a law to be every bit as wrong as the Amendment currently up for vote on May 8th. As a straight man, married to a woman, I would, however, urge you to reconsider trying to "protect" my union from an outside threat that I don't believe actually exists. Almost 12 years ago, my wife and I made vows to one another before a collection of people whom we love and respect. And the only person who matters to me in those vows is my wife. It is up to us and nobody else to make sure our marriage is pure and vital. If we were in your church, then you would certainly have something to say about it, provided we wanted our marriage to remain in good standing with you. But here's the thing, we're not. We're just a man and a woman who have pledged to honor and support one another. That is all. And if my next door neighbors want to define their union however they feel, well that's their business. It will never change the love I have for my wife nor the commitment I have made to her as her husband. It is true, traditional marriages are failing more than they ever were before, and that is a very sad state. But we don't need to find a common enemy to fight or put down in order to preserve what we have. We need to look inward and make sure that we are honoring the love and commitment that we have made to our loved ones. I am certain you do realize that marriage is already defined as a man and a woman in this state and that the proposed amendment would do far more than simply preserve that status. It would, in fact, have far reaching consequences, limiting the access to shared health benefits to both adults and children. Do you really want to do that? I welcome the opportunity to discuss this further. Respectfully, Charlie Deal Neighbor I sent 5 of these and got zero responses. In terms of what would have happened next had it not passed? Well, what wouldn't have happened next was that right-leaning county commisioners wouldn't have immediately sent out e-mails reminding counties to stop with all, now illegal, partner benefits. Gay couples would have at least continued to live as they were and a state looking to lure businesses here would look like a bunch of ass-backward rednecks. For the record, I do have faith that, despite the poor wording of the bill, judges and courts will likely strike from it the worst things that could happen. But it is still shameful that people either voted without knowing the extent of the bill or were prepared to marginalize the rights of their neighbor just to prove a point about what they thought marriage should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Agreed. The one caveat IMO is that a church should not have to conduct a wedding that is not in accordance with the tenets of the religion practiced there. Gay couple wants to get married in a Catholic church. The church is absolutely within it's rights to refuse, backwards thinking or not. I agree with this 100%. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone gay or straight whom I've worked with in the campaign against the amendment who did not share this opinion. Edited May 10, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 wouldn't you basically be taxing donations, being that is the only way a church recieves money? and hasn't that money earned by the donor already been taxed? sounds like double taxation to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I think that the church as an organization should stay out of politics. If individuals in the church feel strongly about it (and depending on thier level of devotion, they would on this subject) then have the individuals take care of ghe lobbying. By the church contributing to this, ghey are taking their tax free donations and trying to influence a political process where the other side does not enjoy the same tax free advantage. This goes for any issue. Keep it to the pulpit and let your congregation do the heavy lifting and keep the church out of it. :2xents: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) wouldn't you basically be taxing donations, being that is the only way a church recieves money? and hasn't that money earned by the donor already been taxed? sounds like double taxation to me. Nearly every time money exchanges hands it is subject to taxation. In fact, if you buy something, that money that you paid taxes on, is levied a sales tax and then, ultimately, contributes to profits that the merchant who sold you whatever you bought pays taxes on. Take my country club example I made earlier. That club pays taxes on the land their club is on and the income they derive from the dues you pay with money that you were already taxed on. Edited May 10, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.