Marriage

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Until very recently I was a pretty big supporter of legalizing gay marriage. I always asked "well how on earth does giving them a piece of paper that says they love eachother hurt anyone?" Now though I take a different stance. When it comes to the word marriage the government should just fuck off.

I had a change of heart when I heard about how gay marriage legislation would be enforced. Any church that decides not to perform or recognize a gay marriage would lose it's tax exempt status. Realistically this is doing two things. It will either violate a group's right to freedom of religion or it will bankrupt the church. I now understand who's being hurt.

At the same time though, the government should not be allowed to define what marriage is for a religious group. In other words, they shouldn't be able to stop a church from recognizing a gay marriage.

In short, the government should stay out of marriage. If a religion chooses to recognize and perform gay marriages good for them. If not, that is their right. In the end it simply comes down to the choice of the gay individual. I don't see why they would want to be a part of an organization that doesn't respect them anyways.

[LouBerry]

Fucking right.

I'm all for my gay friends getting married, Hell, I wish that mine could here in Arkansas, but my church is extremely against gay marriage, and if they don't want to preform the marriage, they shouldn't have to.

[Cygnus]

Why do you have to marry by church anyways? You can just sign some papers and you are married!

Oh, and all churches should be taxed no matter what.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Oh, and all churches should be taxed no matter what.

Another time, another thread.

[LouBerry]

Why do you have to marry by church anyways? You can just sign some papers and you are married!

Right? Do your shit, and let us do our shit, and we'll all just be happy.

[Origami]

Can you provide a source, please?

[CharlieHorse]

Marriage should be completely separate from both government and the church.

The fact that religion still exists in today's developed countries boggles me.

[LouBerry]

Can you provide a source, please?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/26/IRS-could-revoke-non-profit-for-religious-institutions

[Origami]

Marriage should be completely separate from both government and the church.

The fact that religion still exists in today's developed countries boggles me.

If marriage should be separated from the church (a body that holds no legal authority outside of it's property) then you're in favor of this recent action (assuming it's true without a proper source)? Do you believe that people should have their beliefs imposed on in such a manner?

And it still exists because most developed countries allow people to freely believe what they wish. It shouldn't come as a shocker to anyone, really.

[TapDancer]

Until very recently I was a pretty big supporter of legalizing gay marriage. I always asked "well how on earth does giving them a piece of paper that says they love eachother hurt anyone?" Now though I take a different stance. When it comes to the word marriage the government should just fuck off.

I had a change of heart when I heard about how gay marriage legislation would be enforced. Any church that decides not to perform or recognize a gay marriage would lose it's tax exempt status. Realistically this is doing two things. It will either violate a group's right to freedom of religion or it will bankrupt the church. I now understand who's being hurt.

At the same time though, the government should not be allowed to define what marriage is for a religious group. In other words, they shouldn't be able to stop a church from recognizing a gay marriage.

In short, the government should stay out of marriage. If a religion chooses to recognize and perform gay marriages good for them. If not, that is their right. In the end it simply comes down to the choice of the gay individual. I don't see why they would want to be a part of an organization that doesn't respect them anyways.

I agree. However, I still believe that Gay Marriage should be legalised, for equality in terms of certain legal bindings. (Insurances, and so forth. It's not completely equal everywhere. Also, certain things, like, next-of-kin for hospitals and so forth). But definitely, as much as I believe churchs shouldn't discriminate (That debate should be for another thread), it is their religious belief and I have no right to force them to believe otherwise, and in all honestly, I wouldn't try to force my beliefs on anyone, I think it is wrong. But, I realise that laws and legislation differ between countries, certainly in Australia there is no way churches would be affected in that way, but where in America has that kind of legislation been introduced? I think you will find a lot gay people will not want to get married in an unwilling church. I mean, on your wedding day you don't want the ceremony overseen by a grumpy priest? If that kind of legislation exists, surely it's a trap by which ever politician that introduced it. Besides, churches don't have to marry everyone, certainly in the Roman Catholic church the priest will not marry you if he is not sure that the couple will lead religious and faithful lives to each other. So, this legislation dos not make a great deal of sense to me, could you elaborate please? :)

[Origami]

Just noticed the quoted source.

Kind of pathetic that I was able to call something as stupid as this. Advocates of gay marriage loved to cling onto Separation of Church and State while demanding equality. They wanted that separation and now they should get it across the entire spectrum. Thanks to Separation of Church and State the government has no right to force a church to marry anyone regardless of their race, religion, or sexuality. The church has always had the right to deny whoever it so pleased and that should not change. Churches are a non-profit organization that is a truth, with the exception of some of the larger churches. Why revoke them a right to something that they genuinely are?

Most religious groups are opposed to gay marriage so why should they be forced to marry people they don't want to?

[TapDancer]

Yeah, I just noticed that source too. This is completely ridiculous. That needs to be amended. I am for Gay Marriage, but not for that. it needs to be changed.

[Walter Powers]

I agree. Just get the government out of regulating marriage and then we can focus on more important things that our politicians really need to be worrying about, like the national debt.

[CharlieHorse]

i dont honestly know what to think of this whole issue. How about anyone get married if they want to and make more love in the world. k?

[Walter Powers]

Marriage should be completely separate from both government and the church.

The fact that religion still exists in today's developed countries boggles me.

Okay, that's just downright insulting.

[LouBerry]

I agree. Just get the government out of regulating marriage and then we can focus on more important things that our politicians really need to be worrying about, like the national debt.

This exactly.

[Jess]

If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, they shouldn't have to.

A couple, gay or not, doesn't have to get married in a church.

[Kameraden]

Seeing as religion was made up as a way of making people behave, state atheism is the way to give. Religion doesn't give you power, titles and presidencies don't give you power: armies give you power, and the United States has the best army I existence right now. If a church refuse to accept someone else's choices, I say burn it. Let he worshippers run like mice to the next church.

[LouBerry]

Seeing as religion was made up as a way of making people behave, state atheism is the way to give. Religion doesn't give you power, titles and presidencies don't give you power: armies give you power, and the United States has the best army I existence right now. If a church refuse to accept someone else's choices, I say burn it. Let he worshippers run like mice to the next church.

Why do you even live in America? It's almost like we were built on the principal of Freedom or something.

[Origami]

Seeing as religion was made up as a way of making people behave, state atheism is the way to give. Religion doesn't give you power, titles and presidencies don't give you power: armies give you power, and the United States has the best army I existence right now. If a church refuse to accept someone else's choices, I say burn it. Let he worshippers run like mice to the next church.

Sorry but we don't burn churches in America. Sorry but we don't legally shove our beliefs on others in America. Sorry but you seem to have forgotten the freedoms of beliefs we are entitled.

[saea97]

I can't even comprehend the idea of marrying my eventual husband in a church given all the harm such institutions have done (and persist in doing) to gay rights in the past, but I suppose I'd be in favour of those that want to being able to do so in all institutions, not just those that opt-in. Freedom of belief doesn't transcend freedom of love, in my opinion.

As for losing their tax-exempt status, I'm not in favour of that anyway, so it'd be long overdue.

[Kameraden]

Why do you even live in America? It's almost like we were built on the principal of Freedom or something.

Sorry but we don't burn churches in America. Sorry but we don't legally shove our beliefs on others in America. Sorry but you seem to have forgotten the freedoms of beliefs we are entitled.

Freedom is too precious a thing to be given to everyone. When you give people freedom, all they do it abuse it. Want an example? The Westboro Baptist Church is a prime example -- they should be publicly hanged for their defeatist attitude, but freedom of speech saves them. Nothing beneficial comes from such frivolous ideologies except dissent, and when the time comes, I hope a leader finally figures out how to properly sit on a throne of bayonets.

[LouBerry]

Freedom is too precious a thing to be given to everyone. When you give people freedom, all they do it abuse it.

Like you?

What have I ever done to anyone to deserve my church to be burned?

[Origami]

I can't even comprehend the idea of marrying my eventual husband in a church given all the harm such institutions have done (and persist in doing) to gay rights in the past, but I suppose I'd be in favour of those that want to being able to do so in all institutions, not just those that opt-in. Freedom of belief doesn't transcend freedom of love, in my opinion.

As for losing their tax-exempt status, I'm not in favour of that anyway, so it'd be long overdue.

If you begin taxing the institution then it can demand representation and you subsequently give religious view more solid ground in legal matters. Besides that matter, why would you ever tax a non-profit organization? I can understand some of the massive churches. They actually make a profit and should be taxed, but what people forget is that there are churches with a congregation of less than ten people ran out of a gas station on the side of the road. Why on Earth would you tax a group that is that crippled already?

Freedom is too precious a thing to be given to everyone. When you give people freedom, all they do it abuse it. Want an example? The Westboro Baptist Church is a prime example -- they should be publicly hanged for their defeatist attitude, but freedom of speech saves them. Nothing beneficial comes from such frivolous ideologies except dissent, and when the time comes, I hope a leader finally figures out how to properly sit on a throne of bayonets.

Freedom is too precious a things to be given to everyone? And who do you suppose deserves it? You're nothing more than self proclaimed righteous and are in no way on this Earth entitled to anything more than anyone else is. No matter your race, gender, sexuality, social class, or religious beliefs we are all humans and should be treated on equal ground. If one does not deserve these basic freedoms then neither do you.

The Westboro Baptist Church is a hate group. Christians, Atheists, and other religious groups alike recognize this. I honestly don't know how no one has found a way to get them for hate speech by this point. Just because they abuse this freedom does not mean they should be denied it. There are ways to limit hate groups. Freedom of Speech, mind you, is not an unlimited freedom to say what you want. Eventually, some other group or a new law will put an end to stupid groups such as WBC. Hell, I'm waiting on an arsonist to handle them to be honest.

[Kameraden]

Like you?

Indeed.

What have I ever done to anyone to deserve my church to be burned?

You spread false vibes of creationism -- spreading lies into the minds of youths who, in this generation, need to focus on science rather than spiritualism.

[Kameraden]

*Double post due to server traffic lag, delete*

[LouBerry]

Indeed.



You spread false vibes of creationism -- spreading lies into the minds of youths who, in this generation, need to focus on science rather than spiritualism.

How do you know what I do. I'm not going to explain my view of my religion and how I choose to live it, but I have to right to "spread lies" the same as you do.

[Origami]

Indeed.



You spread false vibes of creationism -- spreading lies into the minds of youths who, in this generation, need to focus on science rather than spiritualism.

Aren't you cute for assuming. Isn't the old saying that when you assume you make an "ass out u and me?" I spread nothing to others who do not ask it. I support my beliefs with text from the scripture but do not impose my beliefs on any other person. However, here you are accusing others. Here you are trying to impose your own beliefs. Here you are doing virtually the same that you'd have us stand accused of. You act like WBC represents the whole Christian community. People like you are no better than those hate groups.

[saea97]

what people forget is that there are churches with a congregation of less than ten people ran out of a gas station on the side of the road. Why on Earth would you tax a group that is that crippled already?

There's some significant inequality with regards to how easy it is for churches (compared to secular organisations) to receive tax-exempt status; they both (technically) have to demonstrate they exist for the benefit of the public, but churches are pretty much given this assumption on a plate by the IRS while secular organisations face a lengthy application and a fee. It's my personal opinion that churches are not beneficial to the public, so I'm not in favour of them being tax-exempt, but I acknowledge that my opinion is just an opinion. As a more practical and fairer goal, I'd like to at least see an unbiased process of application for tax-exempt status.

So to directly answer your question: If it was solely down to me I'd tax the gas station church because I wouldn't view it as beneficial. However, it's not down to me, but I do think it's fair that at the very least they should have to apply for exemption and demonstrate their benefits just as secular organisations do.

[Origami]

There's some significant inequality with regards to how easy it is for churches (compared to secular organisations) to receive tax-exempt status; they both (technically) have to demonstrate they exist for the benefit of the public, but churches are pretty much given this assumption on a plate by the IRS while secular organisations face a lengthy application and a fee. It's my personal opinion that churches are not beneficial to the public, so I'm not in favour of them being tax-exempt, but I acknowledge that my opinion is just an opinion. As a more practical and fairer goal, I'd like to at least see an unbiased process of application for tax-exempt status.

So to directly answer your question: If it was solely down to me I'd tax the gas station church because I wouldn't view it as beneficial. However, it's not down to me, but I do think it's fair that they should have to apply for exemption and demonstrate their benefits just as secular organisations do.

The problem with being beneficial to the public is that it's completely opinionated. Nothing is useful to everyone, unfortunately.

An unbiased process of application for tax-exempt status.

This. All of this. I don't support churches receiving any special treatment beyond that of any other institution or organization. To be quite frank, I disagree with the sheer volume of churches but still feel giant churches should be avoided as they can be used to influence a larger group. God forbid WBC had been one of these monolith churches. Honestly though, I don't think there is a middle ground though seeing as how the idea of being "beneficial to the public" will almost always remain completely opinionated.

But again, yes, they should have to apply just as all other organizations have to.

Quite honestly, I'm not an advocate of gay marriage. I've never been against it but I've never done anything in support of it either. Should my personal taxes be raised simply because I don't like it as well? It's just stupid to think that people would fight for "equality" and then try to force beliefs onto someone else.

[saea97]

The problem with being beneficial to the public is that it's completely opinionated. Nothing is useful to everyone, unfortunately.

Very true. I fully accept that I'm more likely (than an average member of the populace) to take a harsh slant on the usefulness of religion. I'd be happy with a consistent reviewal process by an unbiased panel.



Quite honestly, I'm not an advocate of gay marriage. I've never been against it but I've never done anything in support of it either. Should my personal taxes be raised simply because I don't like it as well? It's just stupid to think that people would fight for "equality" and then try to force beliefs onto someone else.

I'm (personally, as a hellbound heretic) in favour of churches losing their tax-exempt statuses for other reasons than this debate (as implied by my first post). However, by refusing to approve of gay marriage, a church would add an extra mark against it's record of "beneficial to the public" with regard to the sheer utility (of officiating marriage to those gay couples who want to be married in a church) that they are denying, so there would be grounds for revoking exemption. I wouldn't be in favour of it as leverage or with the marriage issue as the sole grounds, but I do think it's a factor against them which should be accounted for in a cumulative review of tax-exemption.

[Origami]

Very true. I fully accept that I'm more likely (than an average member of the populace) to take a harsh slant on the usefulness of religion. I'd be happy with a consistent reviewal process by an unbiased panel.

Once again, yes. It's not like Christians will be going to Hell for worshiping in a taxed building if it were fairly decided they should be taxed.


I'm (personally, as a hellbound heretic) in favour of churches losing their tax-exempt statuses for other reasons than this debate (as implied by my first post). However, by refusing to approve of gay marriage, a church would add an extra mark against it's record of "beneficial to the public" with regard to the sheer utility (of officiating marriage to those gay couples who want to be married in a church) that they are denying, so there would be grounds for revoking exemption. I wouldn't be in favour of it as leverage or with the marriage issue as the sole grounds, but I do think it's a factor against them which should be accounted for in a cumulative review of tax-exemption.

The church can deny anyone to be married on their grounds. I think that is what people forget. Yes, the LGBT community will likely be denied more but it is against the beliefs of the congregation. You can't force them to accept it or otherwise punish them for having beliefs. There will be churches that will allow it, there will be some that don't.

Quite honestly, I don't see what the fuss about getting married in a church is about. As a Christian I hope my future wife doesn't want to use a church. Quite frankly, I'd rather be married elsewhere. I don't understand why someone would want to be married in a place that outspokenly disapproves of them. Unless, of course, they're doing it to be spiteful. I won't say that's why, it's just the only reason I could honestly think of an LGBT community wanting to be married in a church. I mean you have "tradition" but didn't "traditional marriage" just get redefined anyway?

[saea97]

The church can deny anyone to be married on their grounds. I think that is what people forget.

True. I guess this would just count even more against their benefit to the public. (Although as you note, those denied would be dominated by LGBT marriages.)

You can't force them to accept it or otherwise punish them for having beliefs. There will be churches that will allow it, there will be some that don't.

It's not a case of forcing it. If an objective committee, using a church's denunciation of gay marriage as a relevant factor, decides they're not beneficial to the public, they should pay taxes.

Quite honestly, I don't see what the fuss about getting married in a church is about. As a Christian I hope my future wife doesn't want to use a church. Quite frankly, I'd rather be married elsewhere. I don't understand why someone would want to be married in a place that outspokenly disapproves of them.

We agree yet again. It repulses me to think of (myself, not other gay people) getting married in a church. However, if a gay couple want the freedom to marry in their particular denomination, I'm all for their cause.

Unless, of course, they're doing it to be spiteful. I won't say that's why, it's just the only reason I could honestly think of an LGBT community wanting to be married in a church.

Simply the fact that it's possible to be both gay and religious is enough, isn't it?

[Origami]

It's not a case of forcing it. If an objective committee, using a church's denunciation of gay marriage as a relevant factor, decides they're not beneficial to the public, they should pay taxes.

"The public" is a loose term though. You could argue somethings worth to numerous different groups. Most other non-profit organizations prove little if any worth to me. Should they be taxed? In a heavily dense LGBT area, churches have less and less worth. In a highly religious area with very few LGBT persons, it's worth goes back up as that becomes a smaller factor.

The way it is now, it's nothing short of saying, "well, okay. You don't have to accept this but we're just going to take this away if you don't." That actually is forcing it on someone.

Simply the fact that it's possible to be both gay and religious is enough, isn't it?

That is a very gray area for me and an entire topic onto itself. I honestly believe as equal marriage and acceptance of the LGBT community becomes more widespread, certain churches will open their doors to the LGBT Christians. Some already do, actually.

[saea97]

"The public" is a loose term though. You could argue somethings worth to numerous different groups. Most other non-profit organizations prove little if any worth to me. Should they be taxed? In a heavily dense LGBT area, churches have less and less worth. In a highly religious area with very few LGBT persons, it's worth goes back up as that becomes a smaller factor.

This would be why there should be an objective panel to decide on the benefit a church provides its catchment area. Some churches would make it, some wouldn't.

It's worth considering, though, if you subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is not a choice (as evidence seems to indicate), that there isn't really a place with less LGB people, merely more people suppressing it.

The way it is now, it's nothing short of saying, "well, okay. You don't have to accept this but we're just going to take this away if you don't." That actually is forcing it on someone.

I kiiiinda dispute that it "actually is" forcing it, although I do think it's a case of the government being overly aggressive with regard to the "usefulness to the public" idea. I think it would ideally be a factor taken into consideration when a church applies for tax-exemption, and not used as leverage.

[Origami]

This would be why there should be an objective panel to decide on the benefit a church provides its catchment area. Some churches would make it, some wouldn't.

Yes, relevancy to the area should be considered. But unfortunately some churches do far more than just marry people. My former church did bi-monthly food drives, they used their own money and manpower to build homes, feed, and provide homes for the homeless. They assisted the poor and needy all while the pastor himself struggled to get through the month himself. There really is a lot to consider with every organization. If all things are considered and it is justified that the individual church should be taxed, then I'm completely in favor of it.

It's worth considering, though, if you subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is not a choice (as evidence seems to indicate), that there isn't really a place with less LGB people, merely more people suppressing it.

Not exactly. By that argument you could say there are places with less people of specific races, social classes, and beliefs. That simply isn't so. Yes, the numbers would be higher for most areas if people weren't oppressed. But as acceptance becomes ever more common (albeit very slowly) that factor will become more and more irrelevant. The fact still remains, some areas will have more dense populations of LGBT members. Some places might have massive percentages exceeding 80%. Others could have less than 1%.

I kiiiinda dispute that it "actually is" forcing it, although I do think it's a case of the government being overly aggressive with regard to the "usefulness to the public" idea. I think it would ideally be a factor taken into consideration when a church applies for tax-exemption, and not used as leverage.

A factor, yes. But it is being used as not only leverage, but the ultimate deciding factor as the linked source implies. That is what I disagree on.

[saea97]

Not exactly. By that argument you could say there are places with less people of specific races, social classes, and beliefs. That simply isn't so.

I don't see how the three above are analogous. If we assume that homosexuality is not a choice, there'll be roughly the same percentage of people with a genetic predisposition to homosexuality in a liberal northern area as there are in a Bible Belt southern area, but vastly more people in the south are likely to try to suppress their own homosexual feelings due to shame induced by social stimuli. That doesn't change the fact that those people were born gay. The only way the figures could become weighted would be if pretty high numbers of gays were moving from the south to the north.

The fact still remains, some areas will have more dense populations of LGBT members. Some places might have massive percentages exceeding 80%. Others could have less than 1%.


Unless there's a factor other than the mass exodus mentioned above, I don't understand how this is true. Statistically speaking, all areas will have the same numbers of people born with a predisposition to homosexuality. I'm not denying that currently there are far more "out" LGBT people in some (aka liberal) areas than other (aka conservative) areas; I'm talking about the net percentages of all the people who would presumably be "out" if there was no social pressure.


We forged agreements on the other two points in your post, so I've left them there. This particular point is marginally off-topic though, imo.

[Origami]

I don't see how the three above are analogous. If we assume that homosexuality is not a choice, there'll be roughly the same percentage of people with a genetic predisposition to homosexuality in a liberal northern area as there are in a Bible Belt southern area, but vastly more people in the south are likely to try to suppress their own homosexual feelings due to shame induced by social stimuli. That doesn't change the fact that those people were born gay. The only way the figures could become weighted would be if pretty high numbers of gays were moving from the south to the north.

Unless there's a factor other than the mass exodus mentioned above, I don't understand how this is true. Statistically speaking, all areas will have the same numbers of people born with a predisposition to homosexuality. I'm not denying that currently there are far more "out" LGBT people in some (aka liberal) areas than other (aka conservative) areas; I'm talking about the net percentages of all the people who would presumably be "out" if there was no social pressure.


We forged agreements on the other two points in your post, so I've left them there. This particular point is marginally off-topic though, imo.

You're right, it is getting off-topic. We can continue via PM if you'd like or not. Either way.

[Harry Smith]

Fucking right.

I'm all for my gay friends getting married, Hell, I wish that mine could here in Arkansas, but my church is extremely against gay marriage, and if they don't want to preform the marriage, they shouldn't have to.

No, you can't go forcing an organisation like the church to do anything, the US politicians shouldn't do that because it's suicide.

The church can try and oppose it, but I really doubt it will last that long. It's like many things in life, as they progress they grow. Gay marriage is the same

[Jasperf]

Until very recently I was a pretty big supporter of legalizing gay marriage. I always asked "well how on earth does giving them a piece of paper that says they love eachother hurt anyone?" Now though I take a different stance. When it comes to the word marriage the government should just fuck off.

I had a change of heart when I heard about how gay marriage legislation would be enforced. Any church that decides not to perform or recognize a gay marriage would lose it's tax exempt status. Realistically this is doing two things. It will either violate a group's right to freedom of religion or it will bankrupt the church. I now understand who's being hurt.

At the same time though, the government should not be allowed to define what marriage is for a religious group. In other words, they shouldn't be able to stop a church from recognizing a gay marriage.

In short, the government should stay out of marriage. If a religion chooses to recognize and perform gay marriages good for them. If not, that is their right. In the end it simply comes down to the choice of the gay individual. I don't see why they would want to be a part of an organization that doesn't respect them anyways.

Here in New Zealand homosexual marriage has been legalised. No churches are being forced to marry homosexual couples, just like if they don't want to marry any other couples. It's not the governments right to step in or all over religion. This is just another American thing I don't agree with...

[Korashk]

This entire thread is hilarious. You're all making assumptions about the issue stated by the OP when it doesn't even actually exist. This whole thread is based around assumptions made by a FOX NEWS talking head. His supporting evidence is when a religious university had its tax-exempt status revoked because of rules against interracial relationships, and other virtually unrelated issues such as regulations for adoption agencies and fledgling legislation that hasn't even made the rounds through a state congress that doesn't involve same-sex marriage.

Let's also remember that people don't actually get married in churches. The "marriage" ceremony performed in the church is basically just a racket to make the church some money. It's a legally pointless endeavor.

Basically, the entire issue is fear-mongering on the part of those who think homosexuality is icky to get other people to also think that homosexuality is icky and make their lives suck more than they already do.