|
It Begins: Extremist Gays Attack Church (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| mindspin |
| civil unions, performed by a respective justice of the peace....done and done....what is so difficult about that? |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by amb_
Tax the churches. |
|
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Civil unions, with full rights and privileges equivalent to marriage, could easily be implemented. |
Provided that the option is available to EVERYONE, gay or straight, and that a "seprate but equal" catagory of "marriage" is not available only to a subset of the population (i.e. heterosexuals). |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Civil unions, with full rights and privileges equivalent to marriage, could easily be implemented. |
The definition of marriage being between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. By limiting it to a man and woman you exclude homosexuals therefore it is discriminatory. The only constitutional way around it is to have the state be completly uninvolved with regard to marriage. If you were to remove the state from the institution of marriage and make it a strictly a religious rite then you may be able to skirt the constitutional issue.
Essentially what you would have to do is remove all legal status linked to marriage and replace it with civil union. Thus the state would only recognize civil unions. What would result is that couples would be regarded as being in a civil union by the state and married by the religious institution that preformed the rite of marriage. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by mindspin
civil unions, performed by a respective justice of the peace....done and done....what is so difficult about that? |
as I mention in the above post, having civil unions does not solve the problem of marriage (as previously defined) being unconstitutional. |
|
|
| swilly |
| quote: | Originally posted by mindspin
did i miss the part on the front page where it said that the bible is to be taken litterally?? |
Apparently, everyone does over that part about homosexuality. As opposed to jesus's central message of loving thy nieghbour.
Selective reason at its best |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
A couple of points;
a) don't go putting something like "no offence" after using a term like "queers". The word queer means strange. Calling a group of people strange is an attempt to marginalize them. If you are trying to marganilize a person(s) what you are doing is trying to discount them, you're saying they aren't important or at least as important as the rest of society. Telling anyone that they don't count is offensive to that person so please, don't think everything is okay and no one will be upset because you make a lame assed attempt to cover your bigotry by saying "no offense". That's like hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat and saying "oh, I didn't mean to hurt you."
b) A challenge to the charitable status of churchs refusing to preform same sex marriages is not an attempt to force them to change their beliefs so much as it is a protest against the state subsidising a group that discriminates against citizens of the state. That being said, I do not believe that religious institutions that fail to preform same sex marriages should have their charitable status revoked as I believe their freedom of conscience and thought trumps the limitation this places on the homosexual couple challenging the status' freedom of expression.
I'm looking forward to this one hitting the courts. As someone who has spent significant time studying constitutional law I will be very interested to see how the court determines which freedom is paramount. |
well said.
Shadowolf would do well to note that this group of gays (not representative of the majority, btw) is not the first group to disagree with the tax-exempt status of Churches. Many people feel that Churches should not enjoy that status. Ask people who are aethiest or non-denominational if they agree with the tax exempt status...you'll find many who feel that status should be repealed...that's not exclusively a "gay" opinion.
that's not my personal opinion/position, but it exists and is not exclusively the opinion of this small group of gays.
btw...does the Catholic Church require tax exempt status when the Vatican owns one of the larget and richest art collections in the world, for example? LOL
Individual Churches here may not be "wealthy", but the Catholic Church is *hardly* in need of "charitable status", LMAO ;) again...I could care less...live and let live.
Mindspin would do well to realize that just because something is done in the name of religion or a church, and has been practised for hundreds of years, it does not make it "right"...and does not mean that it should never be challenged. We should always "challenge" the status quo...if it's "right", it should endure any challenges (that's my somewhat idealistic, Aristotilean (or Plato?) philosophy anyway).
Having said that, I feel the Churches should keep their tax status and I'm confident the courts will uphold that status.
and yes...Harper is talking a lot of .
1. He'll never be Prime Minister...he can't even gain ground on the Liberals in the midst of a scandal and accusations of "bribes" to MPs. Harper will be defeated in the next election, will be lucky to even be the official opposition if poll trends continue, and will (hopefully) go the way of his idiot predecessor, Stockwell Day (granting that the CPC is perceived to be more like the Alliance than the old Conservative party).
2. If Harper somehow did gain power and attempted to repeal the law, there would be a huge public outcry. While many people may not agree with homosexuality, or the new marriage laws, once something is in place and you try to take it away, you'll find more opposition than there is now, I suspect. Not granting something in the first place is one thing, but actually taking something away is quite another. In addition, heterosexual society will see, IMHO, that there is no negative social/moral/whatever consequence to these amended laws...so if Harper tried to repeal them, the public support will likely be lacking.
TrueToTheCrew...that's just idiotic...and a gross generalization since I'd wager that the *vast* majority of gays do not, and would not, support repealing the tax status currently enjoyed by religious organizations, whether they agree with that status or not.
Most gays (again, IMHO) are more open minded than the average person...or at least more conscious of concepts such as tollerance and diversity by virtue of their own personal experiences and collective experiences of gays in general. They may not personally care about any particular religious organization (although many are religious and practice their faith), but they also likely don't harbour such ill will towards them to the extent that they would mobilize against them.
When you've faced intollerance and seek to simply have a "live and let live" environment in the country...you tend to extend that feeling to all people as well. The tax status of churches is hardly at the forefront of my mind, for example, but I'd also never expend any energy on attacking that status. I don't agree with the positions held by many religious organizations, but I respect their right to practice their faith...just as I expect my rights as a Canadian citizen to be protected by the state if any Church challenged them.
live and let live... |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by swilly
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. |
Better ask a Jewish rabbi those questions, as OT laws don't apply to Christians. (If I'm allowed to put it very simply)
As for taking charitable status away from churches, consider the fact that how much humanitarian and charity are being done by the churches. Take that status away, and churches will have to cut back on charity and humanitarian works. With no other organization ready to take up the slack (or have the funds) to take up the slack if it does happen...
Yeah, the churches are biased. Then again, people in general are biased.
Just raising a point. :) |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ That's a major reason why I would not support repealing their tax status.
While I don't personally share all of the views of many religious organizations, I do recognize that they do a lot of good work in their communities and around the world. |
|
|
| musicsnob_NOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
What would result is that couples would be regarded as being in a civil union by the state and married by the religious institution that preformed the rite of marriage. |
That's basically what happens now. People are acutally married when they sign their marriage license and the whole church thing is just symbolic. Call it what ever you want, civil union, marriage, loss of freedom... the actual ceremony in a church is just symbolic.
We now all have the right to be as miserable as all of the married hetrosexuals.
Guess you can tell I won't be taking advantage of this wonderful new law. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
What you are overlooking is that it is unconstitutional to preven homosexual from being married. |
Please point me to where this is specified in our constitution... I must have missed it on the first pass. |
|
|
|
|
