I just learned what Proposition 8 was and...

[_JohnStuartMill]

Nor is there any compelling reason to grant tax-exempt status to the LDS Church.

Religion seems to be compelling enough.

What do you mean, "religion is compelling"? You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything.

But there are dozens of black democratic churches for example, that are actually close (in terms of the legal definition) to losing their status.

"Look over there!"? Not gonna do it.

[_bcspace]

Religion seems to be compelling enough.

What do you mean, "religion is compelling"? You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything.

I'm saying quite a bit but your inexperience keeps you from recognizing it. Do you believe the practice of religion or churches should be taxed?

But there are dozens of black democratic churches for example, that are actually close (in terms of the legal definition) to losing their status.

"Look over there!"? Not gonna do it.

You're the one who brought it up. Now you realize that it was a bad example.

I would be just as heartbroken if my gay uncle had died as I'd be if a grandparent had passed on.

No aunt to get remarried in that case. Next.

Would you, or does your bigotry extend even to your own family?

I don't have any bigotry but I do put my money where my mouth is.

[_JohnStuartMill]

What do you mean, "religion is compelling"? You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything.

I'm saying quite a bit but your inexperience keeps you from recognizing it. Do you believe the practice of religion or churches should be taxed?

Insofar as the church's activities are merely self-aggrandizing and serve no secular charitable purpose, then yeah. But this question is immaterial to the discussion at hand, so I'll answer the question you would have asked if you had any clue as to what would be relevant: I don't think the tax-exempt status of the Mormon Church serves a compelling state interest.

"Look over there!"? Not gonna do it.

You're the one who brought it up. Now you realize that it was a bad example.

False. Black churches aren't under IRS investigation merely for being tax-exempt churches. You are engaging in a red herring here, but are apparently too stupid to realize it, so I'll refrain from imputing ill-intent to it.

I would be just as heartbroken if my gay uncle had died as I'd be if a grandparent had passed on.

No aunt to get remarried in that case. Next.

No, but there would be a husband to get remarried in that case, if you weren't engaging in circular reasoning.

[_bcspace]

Insofar as the church's activities are merely self-aggrandizing and serve no secular charitable purpose, then yeah.

This marx (pun intended) you as a Euro socialist/secularist. Basically an enemy to basic freedoms enshrined in the US constitution.

But this question is immaterial to the discussion at hand,

It identified a key motive and therefore served it's purpose well.

so I'll answer the question you would have asked if you had any clue as to what would be relevant: I don't think the tax-exempt status of the Mormon Church serves a compelling state interest.

The constitution seems to imply that it is, being a religion. But you'll have better luck stripping the status from the NAACP run black churches who supported Obama often merely because he is "black".

You're the one who brought it up. Now you realize that it was a bad example.

False.

True.

Black churches aren't under IRS investigation merely for being tax-exempt churches.

Never said they were. But you could certain build a case against them with a realistic chance of success whereas the LDS Church operated within the law. Of course Obama could take a page from his friends Chavez and Zelaya and try to rewrite the constitution......

No aunt to get remarried in that case. Next.

No, but there would be a husband to get remarried in that case, if you weren't engaging in circular reasoning.

Since there is no compelling reason for the state to recognize gay mariages, there would be no such husband. The irrationality falls entirely upon you.

[_Dr. Shades]

bcspace, pretty much every response I've seen from you in this thread is completely and wholly divorced from the sentence to which you're responding. Case in point:

There are no compelling reasons for the state to recognize marriages among the elderly, either.

Tell that to a kid who's lost a grandfather or grandmother.

I just said "there are no compelling reasons for THE STATE to recognize marriages among the elderly." I did not say "there are no compelling reasons for A KID WHO'S LOST A GRANDFATHER OR GRANDMOTHER to recognize marriages among the elderly."

Focus, bcspace, focus.

The example that males and females should marry each other is compelling enough because that relationship is THE building block of society.

No it isn't. The division of labor is the bulding block of society.

Nor is there any compelling reason to grant tax-exempt status to the LDS Church.

Religion seems to be compelling enough.

To YOU, perhaps, but not to outside, objective observers.

But there are dozens of black democratic churches for example, that are actually close (in terms of the legal definition) to losing their status.

You see, bcspace? This is what I'm talking about. Whether or not there are any black churches close to losing their tax exempt status is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT to the question of there being any compelling reason to grant the LDS church tax-exempt status.

Focus, bscpace. Focus.

Do you believe the practice of religion or churches should be taxed?

Although you were addressing this question to JohnStuartMill, I'll jump in: The PRACTICE of religion shouldn't be taxed (simply because it's impossible to do). Organizations that bring in money for (some) purposes other than charitable work and the necessary administrative overhead thereof--religious or otherwise--should be taxed.

I would be just as heartbroken if my gay uncle had died as I'd be if a grandparent had passed on.

No aunt to get remarried in that case. Next.

So, you're saying that nobody left to get remarried is a GOOD thing--in other words, you're making a compelling argument against marriage in general, straight or otherwise?

Insofar as the church's activities are merely self-aggrandizing and serve no secular charitable purpose, then yeah.

This marx (pun intended) you as a Euro socialist/secularist. Basically an enemy to basic freedoms enshrined in the US constitution.

Holy cow, bcspace. Not even Evel Kenievel could've made that leap!

I'd be very, very interested in the sort of thought process that caused your response to appear in, uh, response to his statement. I simply can't decipher the connection--if any.

so I'll answer the question you would have asked if you had any clue as to what would be relevant: I don't think the tax-exempt status of the Mormon Church serves a compelling state interest.

The constitution seems to imply that it is, being a religion.

Can you tell me where in the Constitution it "seems to imply" that? I've read the Constitution, and I don't recall reading anything like what you're describing.

By the way, since we're at it, what's the "compelling reason" for the state to recognize STRAIGHT marriages?

[_bcspace]

bcspace, pretty much every response I've seen from you in this thread is completely and wholly divorced from the sentence to which you're responding. Case in point:

I've spoiled you in the past. But you seem not to have noticed that the divorce occured prior to my statement.

The example that males and females should marry each other is compelling enough because that relationship is THE building block of society.

No it isn't. The division of labor is the bulding block of society.

The division of labor is determined by the family unit which is based on said relationship.

Religion seems to be compelling enough.

To YOU, perhaps, but not to outside, objective observers.

I dunno <taps the Constitution>

But there are dozens of black democratic churches for example, that are actually close (in terms of the legal definition) to losing their status.

You see, bcspace? This is what I'm talking about. Whether or not there are any black churches close to losing their tax exempt status is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT to the question of there being any compelling reason to grant the LDS church tax-exempt status.

You failed again to notice that it was not me who brought up tax status in the first place. My example merely destroys that argument.

Do you believe the practice of religion or churches should be taxed?

Although you were addressing this question to JohnStuartMill, I'll jump in: The PRACTICE of religion shouldn't be taxed (simply because it's impossible to do). Organizations that bring in money for (some) purposes other than charitable work and the necessary administrative overhead thereof--religious or otherwise--should be taxed.

Why? Building a church etc. is the practice of religion.

No aunt to get remarried in that case. Next.

So, you're saying that nobody left to get remarried is a GOOD thing--in other words, you're making a compelling argument against marriage in general, straight or otherwise?

No. I'm saying that the gay uncle whose partner has died is not the equivalent to a Grandmother whose husband has died.

This marx (pun intended) you as a Euro socialist/secularist. Basically an enemy to basic freedoms enshrined in the US constitution.

Holy cow, bcspace. Not even Evel Kenievel could've made that leap!

I'd be very, very interested in the sort of thought process that caused your response to appear in, uh, response to his statement. I simply can't decipher the connection--if any.

You're not familiar with the tax many European countries (perhaps the whole EU now) place on churches (or membership therein)? The sentiments expressed by you and JSM about tax exempt status exactly mirror that tax.

By the way, since we're at it, what's the "compelling reason" for the state to recognize STRAIGHT marriages?

It is the ideal way to make and raise the next generation. Anything less than the ideal need not be encouraged/rewarded/aided by the state because the compelling interest for society is to have the ideal occur as much as possible.

[_Dr. Shades]

bcspace:

First off, you're butchering the quote feature (and have since you started posting here). The box containing the most recent quote should surround the box containing the least recent quote, not vice-versa. To do this, The beginning of such a section should be double-quoted; the end should NOT be double-unquoted.

For example, when you hard-coded the following:

____________________________________________

[ quote ]The example that males and females should marry each other is compelling enough because that relationship is THE building block of society.

[ quote ]No it isn't. The division of labor is the bulding block of society.[/ quote ][ /quote ]

____________________________________________

. . . you did it wrong. The way you should've formatted it is:

____________________________________________

[ quote ][ quote ]The example that males and females should marry each other is compelling enough because that relationship is THE building block of society.

[ quote ]No it isn't. The division of labor is the bulding block of society.[/ quote ]

____________________________________________

See how that works? Please observe that convention from this point forward. Thanks in advance.

bcspace, pretty much every response I've seen from you in this thread is completely and wholly divorced from the sentence to which you're responding. Case in point:

I've spoiled you in the past. But you seem not to have noticed that the divorce occured prior to my statement.

The divorce absolutely did NOT occur prior to your statement. YOUR STATEMENT ITSELF is logically divorced from the idea to which it responds.

No it isn't. The division of labor is the bulding block of society.

The division of labor is determined by the family unit which is based on said relationship.

No it isn't. The division of labor is determined by the skill set of each individual within that society. It is not determined by one member's relationship to any other.

To YOU, perhaps, but not to outside, objective observers.

I dunno <taps the Constitution>

Don't just "tap" the Constitution; show me the place wherein it says that religion is to be tax-exempted.

You see, bcspace? This is what I'm talking about. Whether or not there are any black churches close to losing their tax exempt status is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT to the question of there being any compelling reason to grant the LDS church tax-exempt status.

You failed again to notice that it was not me who brought up tax status in the first place. My example merely destroys that argument.

Your example doesn't DESTROY that argument; your example is merely IRRELEVANT to that argument. A church losing its tax-exempt status has nothing to do with the question of whether that tax-exempt status should've been granted in the first place.

Although you were addressing this question to JohnStuartMill, I'll jump in: The PRACTICE of religion shouldn't be taxed (simply because it's impossible to do). Organizations that bring in money for (some) purposes other than charitable work and the necessary administrative overhead thereof--religious or otherwise--should be taxed.

Why? Building a church etc. is the practice of religion.

But taking in money for profit isn't.

So, you're saying that nobody left to get remarried is a GOOD thing--in other words, you're making a compelling argument against marriage in general, straight or otherwise?

No. I'm saying that the gay uncle whose partner has died is not the equivalent to a Grandmother whose husband has died.

It would be, if only you people would grant all consenting adults the right to be married.

Holy cow, bcspace. Not even Evel Kenievel could've made that leap!

I'd be very, very interested in the sort of thought process that caused your response to appear in, uh, response to his statement. I simply can't decipher the connection--if any.

You're not familiar with the tax many European countries (perhaps the whole EU now) place on churches (or membership therein)? The sentiments expressed by you and JSM about tax exempt status exactly mirror that tax.

"Mirror[ing] that tax" does not a Marxist or an anti-Constitutionalist make.

By the way, since we're at it, what's the "compelling reason" for the state to recognize STRAIGHT marriages?

It is the ideal way to make and raise the next generation. Anything less than the ideal need not be encouraged/rewarded/aided by the state because the compelling interest for society is to have the ideal occur as much as possible.

The state doesn't need to encourage/reward/aid anything. The state merely needs to protect and/or grant rights.

For someone who keeps referring to the Constitution, you betray an appalling lack of understanding of it. The Constitution is not and was never intended to be an Orwellian tool of social engineering. It's underlying--and, arguably, only--purpose is to enumerate and enforce rights.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The bottom line is that there are no compelling reasons for the state to recognize gay marriages ....

The more proper query is whether the state has a compelling reason to discriminate when it comes to the fundamental right of marriage. The CA Supreme Court ruled that the state did not ... which led to Prop. H8.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The example that males and females should marry each other is compelling enough because that relationship is THE building block of society.

This statement could include gay marriage (i.e., males marrying each other and females marrying each other). Here's the irony: most (including many current Mormons) would claim that monogamy is THE building block of society, in contrast to early Mormons would believed that polygamy was better and right. And, under your analysis, barren elderly folks, who can not participate in the literal "building" of society, have no right to marry, either.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

WOW a thread I started got a promotion.

Well shades, my reasons are as follows...

I don't think allowing gays to marry has any effect on equality. Simply because Gays have equal state benefits and rights being living together partners as married couples and I know that in the Uk Married couples receive less state benefits than couples living together that aren't married. People here separate simply to get more benefits and rights. This is bad for the whole role of family. Children grow up seeing their parents separated just to get more money and it becomes acceptable and normal. In this world, such views are a bit screwed and twisted. One has to look at the purpose of marriage, where it came from.

Early marriage was borne of ancient societies' need to secure a safe environment in which to breed, handle the granting of property rights, and protect bloodlines. Ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.

But even in these early times, marriage was much about love and desire as it was social and economic stability. In its roundness, the engagement ring, a custom dating back to the Ancient Rome, is believed to represent eternity and everlasting union. It was once believed a vein or nerve ran directly from the 'ring' finger of the left hand to the heart.

I am quite sure gay people never considered marriage when they lived in caves. I once heard of how men would tie a piece of plant thing around the woman’s ring finger to show people that she is taken.

To me homosexuality just seems unnatural. But I have gay friends and don't have an issue with that. Homosexuals can't procreate. It is dangerous and unhealthy to have anal sex. Thus what is the point? I mean a man can sexually pleasure a woman in the exact same way and more than a woman can sexually pleasure a woman.

I think people are gay because they are allowed to be gay. When at a young age, people can often be confused as to who they are. We try to find our identity. If a person lived in an environment where homosexuality was never considered at all plausible then those people are less likely to become homosexual. I will admit there are very camp men in the world and very butch women and perhaps they are naturally gay, but most of it imho is just a fad.

Allowing same sex marriage can be damaging to the state. I don't think schools should be allowed to openly teach same sex marriage as a good thing. I think it could be mentioned that some people prefer to be gay and perhaps marry but to teach it like it is normal will result in more people thinking it is acceptable. I am not homophobic; I just think it will have a negative impact on the world. Perhaps it is nature’s way of cutting down the population.

in my opinion, education is corrupt, government is corrupt, and health care is corrupt. People are corrupt. The world we live is purposely destroying civilisation and the planet. The government know what they are doing. The people that make these decisions must know the implications of what they are doing. Perhaps it's just a thinning out process.

What’s worse is gays have more adoption rights than married couples simply because it would be considered unequal to give a married couple the option before a gay couple. A bit like racism, anyone of a race that isn't white can accuse a white person of racism and that person will get a lot of stick, but I know non white people that have been racist to white people and it has been ok and allowed to let slide. Because of equal rights. But actually equal rights aren't equal at all. I wouldn't be able to do anything if someone of a different race said something racially derogative to me, but those same people will pull the race card on themselves. I have seen it happen. I told a friend once that he was being racist to himself. He was. And the things he was saying were completely off the wall, but it's ok as long as someone else doesn't say anything apolitically correct to or about them.

The same applies.

There are lots of reasons, but personally I have an opinion of marriage that to me would just be a waste of money for same sex people. For them it’s a tag, it's cosmetic. Allowing gay marriage just destroys the whole meaning of marriage and family.

Sorry for any offense I may have caused, what I am saying is not aimed at anyone in particular and it is merely my opinion. I don't intend on proactively trying to change the world and people are free to do as they choose. If I loved in the US or was asked to vote my opinion, I'd either not vote or vote for prop 8. But most likely not vote. I don't have an issue with people being homosexual or marrying, but I wouldn't want any kids I have in the future being subjected to an education that taught that same sex marriage is normal or acceptable.

:/

ETA: Flip lots of typos!