NO on Prop 8
- Started
- Last post
- 85 Responses
- JazX0
- Meeklo0
tavin has a point.
But that doesn't mean its fair.
I was reading up, the mormons didn't actually payed %50 of the campaign, they actually put %70 of the total amount and every church was required to donate 30 hrs of volunteer work towards eliminating rights from gay people.
- Meeklo0
I think it's only natural that they try to eliminate the church's tax exempt status. But that will never happen.
- the same could be said for hospitals that make BILLIONS and pay NO taxJazX
- apples to oranges. also, for profit hospitals pay taxes. non profit ones dont make billionsthreadpost
- you're full of crap, go check out: http://www.upmc.com/… non-profit.JazX
- threadpost0
I agree, if you're going to contribute money to politics, you lose your tax exempt status. Simple enough.
- go tell that to the tithes that were donated by churches to the Obama campaignJazX
- Sing the petition here
http://www.mormonsst…
Meeklo - Actually is the other way around, obama is being investigated for donating to churchMeeklo
- Soler0
I think this is issue is cloudy because it's a mistake for the government to be in the business of recognizing marriage at all. It violates the separation of Church and State. Civil unions should be the only "legal" union, and then both gay and straight couples will have equal rights under the law. People can have religious marriages in addition all they want, but they would have no legal implications.
However, since the government IS in the marriage business, it should be open to all under equal protections.
- I agree with that. civil unions should be the only union the state recognizes.threadpost
- Meeklo0
Read this email from a mormon church coordinator:
...As mentioned in the broadcast, the coalition approached the Church about getting involved. With a mere difference of 400,000 votes, I am certain had the Church not been involved this proposition would not have passed...
More Here
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights…
- designbot0
The separation of church and state is vastly misunderstood. The intention was never to keep the church from getting involved in politics. It was to prevent the government from using the church as it's vehicle and puppet. The idea was to keep the government out of churches.
"The Puritans lived in a country where the government headed a state-sanctioned church. The church was a governmental puppet. If you were a member of another church (as the Puritans were), you were subject to discrimination, persecution and worse. This corruption was what the Puritans sought to escape as they traveled to the New World."
- So the fear of a theocracy was never present?!? Hardlylocustsloth
- Don't insult my intelligence. I've read the 1st amendment. It creates religious freedom and tolerance, not sponsorshipSoler
- show me anywhere in the constitution where the church doesn't have a right to be involved?designbot
- desigbot, please read my comment below, what you just said here, might confuse a lot of peopleMeeklo
- they have the right to do whatever they want—but the State isn't allowed to favor/sponsor religion: ie benefits resulting from marriageSoler
- you have to be careful when you post things like these.Meeklo
- resulting from religionSoler
- ukit0
Ironic that a group that is so heavily discriminated against (Mormons) would put so much effort into discriminating others.
- if that's that way discrimination always ebbs and flows, is it really ironic anymore?7point34
- irony at its best indeed.
But that's the way humans behave. not just them, we all forget our history.Meeklo - you could turn that around the other way if you wanted to do thatJazX
- Yeah..but those Mormons creep me out.TheBlueOne
- it's not just mormons, it's catholics etc as well...cuke426
- the mormons were responding to the catholic's invitation to helpcuke426
- Meeklo0
I disagree.
The church has an incredible power to influence people on every decision they aim to. Religion is first cause of wars of all kinds since the beginning. The sepparation of church and state is in fact there to prevent churches to dive into politics, if they do so, they loose their Tax exempt status.designbot, please get your story straight as it may confuse other people.
here is a paragraph from the IRS website that proves that what you just said is incorrect:
ubstantial Lobbying Activity
In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.More on that document here:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p…ubstantial Lobbying Activity
In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.- Honestly I don't know what to say. I think you are just plain wrong and misinterpreting the constitution.designbot
- keep it in the context of its time. I just think this whole separation issue has been skewed badly.designbot
- btw, I respect your side and your demeanor :)designbot
- 'A substantial part..' i don't think it qualifiescuke426
- Mimio0
Ironies abound.
- gabe0
you can't have a majority (straight people) voting against a minority (gay people). it's unconstitutional, and it's why prop 8 will get shut down in the supreme court.
- well, that has been proved wrong w the majority voting for a black president, I think it can happen, it will take many years thoughMeeklo
- thoughMeeklo
- Absolutely. There is no separate but equal. our constitution is based on protection minority from majority rulethreadpost
- TheBlueOne0
My thoughts:
a) I think homosexuality is probably mostly biological and not choice, although I will fudge a bit and say there probably is a wide gradient of human behavior in the realm of sex.
b) I don't really give a flying fuck where people decide to put their private bits in private.
c) I don't really give a flying fuck who loves who and how they decide to express it, as long as their not groping each other and tongue-kissing in front of the children.
d) I would like to see same-sex couples get the same legal protections that married straight couples get. I also would like them subject to the penalties of seperation.
e) As much as it doesn't really bother me, I wish they could come up with another word other than "marriage". Those gay folks seem to be quite a creative bunch, couldn't they come up with a whole new fangled word other than "marriage" to mean a "committed life long relationship". It's a very gender role specific word and implies "wife" "husband", etc..which it seems to me they're looking to transcend in concept and fact anyway...so..come on..how about some new vocab...but fuck it, if they insist on calling it "marriage" I'll find it distasteful but I won't be against it.
- hahaha
"but fuck it"
Sorry, i'm apparently 11 yrs oldlocustsloth - LOL, to e)JazX
- I agree w everything except "e"
they are looking to be treated like equals, if they change the name, they are settling for something else.Meeklo - something else, so there is no point in going after all this then, is it?Meeklo
- hahaha
- Meeklo0
Designbot: read this paragraph carefully.
What is your interpretation of it, I'm curious. (and I'm saying this with the friendliest tone I can)Substantial Lobbying Activity
In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.- ughh, sorry I am off to lunch. I'll be back to post a reply :)designbot
- no worries!
it's all good, politics and religion man.. that leads to nowhere :)Meeklo - "if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation"cuke426
- probably eventually down the road, if conservative religious organizations continue to stand upcuke426
- for their beliefs then they will ultimately risk losing their statuscuke426
- Meeklo0
Blue one,
watch thisits pretty funny, but it makes a point
- Makes sense to me...but what about the lesbians?TheBlueOne
- hahahaMeeklo
- TheBlueOne0
"The separation of church and state is vastly misunderstood. The intention was never to keep the church from getting involved in politics. It was to prevent the government from using the church as it's vehicle and puppet. The idea was to keep the government out of churches."
- designbotFlawed. Nice try though. You seem to forget that America was a British colony, you know Britian, right? The one where the head of state and the head of the church where one and the same when good old king Henry VIII needed more sperm receptacles and that bastard the Pope wouldn't let him? You know that country that saw a century or two of bloodshed and hate between the Church of England and the Catholics by having the government and religion be one and the same? By insuring religious tests for positions of power? Yeah. That Britian. The Founders didn't like that so much. Because their was no way to tell who was puppet and who was master in that particular scenario.
The intention was to keep religion way over there and politics way over here and pray the twain wouldn't meet, other than the occasional generic "May god have mercy on our souls..." and other idle meaningless pleasantries.
- Sorry...don't want to get into the religious thing..back to homosexuals getting married.TheBlueOne
- threadpost0
Life is short, find love wherever you can.
- megE0
take 6 mins, watch this - or just listen to it in the background
- brilliant. and truly touching too, I've never heard the argument framed quite so eloquently before.threadpost
- man..
Why is a news reporter saying this? it should be a priest or someone high in church
Meeklo - I'm just glad someone is saying it, and all the better that this guy, unlike a minister, has a million+ person audiencethreadpost
- brilliant. made me tear up a bit.nadanada
- yeah this was powerfulmegE
- threadpost0
as of 1967, 16 states had laws that forbade white people from marrying black people.
How does the state look at its populous with a straight face and tell them who they can or cant marry. It's fundamentally wrong.
People with love in their hearts, god knows there isn't enough of it in the world, just want the SAME rights as everyone else. Not special rights, not special treatment. But merely the opportunity to enjoy some of lifes greatest pleasures. true love. what could possibly be wrong with that?
I dont like the image of two men having sex as much as anyone else, but what I do like, ney love, is the idea that two people can find one another and overcome what must be unthinkably hard obstacles along the way and yet still persevere and share their lives with someone.
Not to mention the real fundamental problem here isnt gay marriage, its gay sex. But as anyone married long enough will tell you, the best way to prevent 2 people from having sex with one another is to marry them.
Everyone can and will believe whatever they choose, I'm certainly not going to change minds. But lets just remember that this is about people. and love. and rights.
The state cannot make a law for some, while excluding others, its the 14th amendment. there is no "separate but equal" it is all just equal.
- JazX0
Moonbeam tells voters: Drop dead
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar…- I cant change you. you cant change me or anyone else. why act 9 years old? your inflammatory hatred is nothing but juvenilethreadpost
- nothing but juvenile.
I'm no hippie pussy. I would fuck you up if we ever met.threadpost - please please let me know the next time you happen to be in So. california. or I will when in philly. Just such catharsis to kick your fucking bigot teeth inthreadpost
- your bigot teeth inthreadpost