Lol

mature much?

EDIT: I was just reciting what I've read over the past week around the internet, and comparing to what historically has happened. I'm just saying that whatever you guys try to do to our church, it probably won't succeed.

Honestly, I can see removal of the tax-exempt status being successful at some point.

As long as a religious institution is being a religious institution, it should not be taxed. However, once it starts (as an organization) forcing its way into politics / law... it really cannot be considered "separate". There is a significant difference between teachings that followers want to live by / advance, and the institution as a whole pushing adherents to vote a certain way (and pouring millions of dollars into the campaign).

Well in this case, no law was actually violated. IRS tax code in relation this matter states that a church can not get involved in the campaign of a political CANDIDATE. However, it says they can contribute and participate in things like ballot initiatives and advocacy issues, so long as the donations do not comprise a major component of church operations. I can tell you that the amount that actualy came from the church and not from direct donations from church members to the issue do not constitute much in the big picture of the church's financial operations. Much of the money is spent in church administration, maintaining buildings, and humanitarian aid.

WTF???

Political groups are tax exempt also....


But I'd just like to back up for a second.

Shiri asked why it was that at this point in history, (NOT IN AMERICA, BUT IN THE WORLD) is the first time that gays are looking for marriage.

I suggested, that the reason why at this point in history they are doing so, is because the clearly demarcated line between homosexual marraiges, and non homosexual marriages has been removed with the invention of the test tube baby. (And no, nobody would ever suggest doing a person by person inspection to decide the legitamcy of a particular marriage for the state's interests, just like you can't opt out of some amount of taxes, if you don't benefit from a specific government program. Atleast in America where privacy is the most important, you arn't going to subject people to medical examinations to get married. (well, they used to, but now thats inconstitutional)

I guess, just because I'm a religious person, and just because you hate me, you decided to take this statement to be some sort of affront to your personhood, and somehow decided taht this was a bunch of BS. (despite the fact that this connection was taught to me by a liberal arts college sociology professor, but who cares about that right?) Its more important to dissagree with anything I write, then to actually think and read.

Lets just make this clear. Organizations that are NOT FOR PROFIT, are tax exempt. They are called 501c organizations. 501cs can be one of any of the following:

What do Test tube babys have to do with gay people at all. There are single mothers as well as otherwise unable to concieve naturally pairs. You want to tell me the only thing that decides if a marriage is a marriage is a kid or what are you saying?



And who are you actually refering to with the "You"?

this is for my people. Actually only desitrus since he asked for it.

Scope

As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:

* Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
* Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
* Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
* Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
* Sick care and similar family leave
* Stepparent adoption procedures
* Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
* Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
* Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
* The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
* Access to some survivor pension benefits
* Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
* The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
* The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration
* Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
* The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
* The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage

Personally, I don't really think that the invention of the test tube baby was solely responsible for the decision by thousands to stand up for themselves and their rights. But you never know.

And it couldn't at ALL be related to the fact that this is the first time in history the concept of homosexual love has been considered legitimate. Nor could it stem from the general acceptance of homosexuals amongst people who know them as people being contrasted so wildly with the legal measures being taken against them. It absolutely has to be due to the scientific discovery of a way to help women with damaged fallopian tubes, or men with low sperm counts, or couples with bad timing, have children. It also can't possibly come from the fact that we've been fighting for every other right heterosexuals enjoy, since the 1960's, and we've been gaining ground slowly but surely. Nope, definitely caused by in vitro fertilization.

Let's face it, half of this is people thinking deep down that two guys (or girls, I suppose) getting it on is DIRRRTY. Go look at Daganev's posts and you can see it peeking it's adorable little head through. Just glimmers, but it's there. Of course, if you can't find it, go read Stangmar. He's almost as subtle as being run over by a bus.

That said - it's something a lot of people can accept intellectually, but it's another bag of chips entirely when it is right in front of you.

Guuuyyyys, all is good, you got a civil union. Jst make up your own word for it and disallow straight people from using it. Katching, cash in.

I find trying to use the past in this particular argument amusing, primarily because I don't know how many people in ancient... uuh egypt? had to worry about fighting within a legal system for their rights.

It seems like it was pretty much do what the Pharoh wants or die. Also this was likely a time when marriage was just a religious ceremony that preceeded living together, and unfortunately for "religion" the second it started to be included in legal documents they lost their right to control it beyond who their priests will marry in their church. (i.e I don't need a priest for my wedding to Eric Millegan just someone that the courts will allow to officiate the ceremony)

So... make all the wedding planners convert and become solely "civil union ceremony planners"

There are also levels of tolerance, the idea of gay couples raising kids certainly doesn't sit well with me.

Well, if we're going to bring the suitability of child-rearing into it, I can point out plenty of straight people who should never be allowed/have been allowed to reproduce. I don't really think your particular brand of sexuality (barring the variety that involves small children, of course) has any bearing on your ability to raise happy, healthy, intelligent children.

Are you fighting for the right or the word?

Why, are guy couples naturally perverts?

Are they more likely to molest their children?

Who is less likely to be physically abusive than a pair of gay men?

Learn to read?

While I agree in principle ya can't do that. We'd be Nazis. Al la The Lebensborn.

Pro Tip for everyone: Don't be Nazis.