- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,967
- Reaction score
- 1,530
- Location
- Somewhere in Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
YOU made the claim, now back it up. I'm not going to do your research for you.
I’m simply illustrating a point.
I never said that was a “serious effort”. All I said was that “[t]here is already talk about removing church's tax exempt status. I suspect that some church's will ‘knuckle-under’ to keep thier tax exempt status by agreeing to marrying homosexual couples.”
That was my original comment and I still believe as much.
And yet not one Republican voted for it.
Pathetic.
I do hope you can do better than this.
I didn’t say anything about a “significant portion of people” and don’t believe that it will require that. Obamacare passed with a majority of Americans against it.
I never stated that.
You can find a lunatic who refuses to marry some arbitrary couple for any reason which is something far different from a religion as a whole not wanting to marry a homosexual couples due to religious objections.
See my post no. 296.
There have been serious suggestions by many more Christians to make Christianity the US's official religion ("we're a Christian nation, other people need to accept that fact"), execute or at least imprison homosexuals and others who are "sinning" (according to our beliefs), prevent women from voting/using birth control, and many other ridiculous notions that I don't think are very likely to happen despite the fact that many seriously suggest they should, certainly many more and with much more power than anyone you can show has "seriously suggested" that churches that refuse to perform marriages for same sex couples should lose their tax exempt status or even that all churches simply should lose tax exemption.
This is just two of those things I mentioned. Googling found many more results, some of which we have seen on here. (Heck we've had several posters who suggest pretty much all of these things.
Can you show me even similar results for removing tax exempt status for churches altogether let alone just for those churches who won't perform marriages for same sex couples? I want an actual link, not just that you can.
Oh, and as for no Republicans voting for Obamacare it is because of the additional things that Obama/Democrats included that Republicans didn't like, expanding Medicaid/Medicare and the regulations/rules insurance companies and employers had to follow. Republicans wanted individuals to be forced to simply have to get insurance even if their employers didn't offer it and it cost them an arm and a leg to purchase.
1. I’ve never heard anyone suggest that Christianity be a Federally sponsored religions. I’ve heard states say as much (historically) as all of the original 13 states had state-sponsored religions (all Christian). Even the Northwest Ordinance (what you had to follow to become a state) required that “religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged” (Article III)--and that “religion” they were talking about was Christianity.
2. I’ve never heard of any Christian say they wanted to imprison or kill gay folks in this country. There are some horrible things being done in Uganda today with respect to gays and these folks that are tormenting them are not following the Bible and so they can’t defend their actions from a Christian view (even if they "wrap" themselves in Christianity or anything else for that matter). I’ve heard a lot of non-Christians say as much (Westboro Baptist) and I have no idea how they can call themselves “Christian”. Now left-wingers (nazis, communist and democrats like the Westboro Retards) want to jail and kill gays. History proves that.
All that proves is what we both already know to be true…stupid people are everywhere!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html?_r=0
Church loses tax-exempt status
Actually the individual mandate is what Republicans oppose as evidenced by the fact that not one single Republican voted for that unconstitutional bill.
I provided you with examples of both things you claim you never heard of...in some really small sects of the population...
Removing tax exempt status for churches who don't perform same sex marriages is so unpopular that it isn't even asked in any regular polls...
Westboro Baptist Church are Christians…
…whether you wish to claim them or not. They are also not liberals, despite your claims otherwise and they are most certainly antigay.
Nazis were not atheist...
Hitler was looking to establish himself as basically a God in Germany.
He was trying to establish the state as the new religion...Most atheists are no more interested in establishing such a thing than most theists.
History proves nothing of the sort you are claiming. More gays have been jailed and killed by theists and conservatives, especially Christians and Muslims, than ever killed by communists.
Interesting how you didn't include my links proving to you that there are a lot of Christians and conservatives/Republicans that are trying to…
a) make Christianity the national religion (something that violates the freedom of religion part of the Constitution) and…
b) wanting to kill/imprison gays. Look at Russia. Christianity, fundamental Christianity is what is leading to the laws there.
Definitely not communism, socialism, Nazism, or liberalism.
That group in your first link was not a church.
The second link was about a church that did something that violated the separation of church and state, involving themselves directly in politics, something churches agree not to do in order to maintain their tax exempt status as a church.
It can most certainly show exactly what I claimed, that it was the other parts of the ACA that they opposed, only claiming the individual mandate because they knew that was the part the majority of Americans opposed.
Uh...no
No I don't think it is likely or rational.
Why are you polling the obvious?
Even if they are just small sects of the population?
Once again, I just have an opinion. Once upon a time nobody ever thought there would be such a thing as “homosexual marriage”. It was simply a ludicrous thought and nobody took it seriously. Now it’s a reality.
Lots of people claim to be “Christian”. Even Jesus touched on this in Matthew 7:21-23.
Liberals? I have no idea but the Westboro bunch are Democrats. That’s a matter of record and not up for debate.
No they weren’t atheist but as you indicate they were occultist.
Yes, I was just watching something on TV about that this weekend. A propaganda video showed school children singing Hitler’s praises. Jeez! Let’s hope there’s never another megalomaniac psychopath that ever encourages that kind of thing again.
Well, which was it? Was he trying to establish himself as God or the state?
1. Notice the triangles? It means they're gay! (I have no idea what triangles and homosexuality have in common.)
2. I can’t speak for Muslims. They’re whako!
3. Please provide evidence and numbers of gay men and women killed by “theist and conservatives”.
You posted an irrelevant article that showed that a minority of Americans support a state religion. The same article showed that 58% of Americans (incorrectly) believed that it was unconstitutional (which it is at a federal level). So what?
I’ve no idea what is “leading to the laws there” but Christianity certainly does not require the imprisonment or killing of gay people.
Yea, Nazis, communists and other leftist have always been friendly to gay folks. I’ve not idea in what universe that may be true but it’s definitely not this one.
I’m also a little disappointed in your grasp on history. I’ve debated you before and you’re not stupid. You should know better.
I provided you with examples of both things you claim you never heard of. Showing you that such things are popular at least to a degree, not just "discussed" in some really small sects of the population. Removing tax exempt status for churches who don't perform same sex marriages is so unpopular that it isn't even asked in any regular polls and even when it is asked it receives less than 10% of any vote, and most of those votes for it are not for the specific removal just for not performing same sex marriages, but rather because the people doing so think churches shouldn't be tax exempt to begin with.
First of all, your first comment was based on something I never said but rather you purposely deleting parts of my post and selecting certain phrases that make it much different than what I posted. You should not be doing that if you want to be considered in any way an honest poster. It is very dishonest to do such a thing. This is what I posted.
And while Nazis were imprisoning and killing gays…
…so was the US…
…and many other countries.
Our country had laws that put homosexuals to death and chemically castrated them long before the Nazis.
Even in the early part of the 20th Century, people could still be involuntarily committed and subjected to torturous treatments, including electroshock therapy and lobotomies because of being gay.
Some Christians currently run businesses that use techniques that can be considered torturous today to try to "convert" homosexuals.
There are countries run by Christians (and other religions) that currently put homosexuals to death. ISIS is throwing them off of buildings. My comments on this are more than accurate. Theists and governments with religion as a huge part of the way it runs have killed and imprisoned way more homosexuals than secular governments, including Nazis.
You don't get to disown Christians just because you don't approve of them or think they don't meet Jesus' definition. Plus, they would still be theists. And Southern Democrats are very different than the Democrats of today. If you don't know that phrase, look it up. In reality, WBC is socially conservative. That is a fact.
I was running out of room and was going to have to spread my reply over two post so I had to delete something. You weren’t saying anything coherent so I opted to delete your words instead of my own (it was, after all, my reply).
And I did nothing dishonest. You cited a poll that showed a minority of the population support state-sponsored religion. A minority is a “small sect of the population”.
At least you finally acknowledge that leftist murder homosexuals. Kinda makes you wonder why so many homosexuals are leftist, doesn’t it?
Oh? Do enlighten me! I’m not aware of any laws in the United States that required the death penalty for homosexuals.
No doubt! Most notably Islamic countries and Uganda.
Once again, what were these laws?
Which laws allowed this?
Yes, I’ve heard of them!
So exactly what did I say that you are trying to debunk?
1. What Christians do and what Christianity dictates are often, sadly, very different things. Try to be somewhat objective when making such sweeping and damning arguments. It may help to think of it this way…while some teachers molest their students not all teachers are child molesters.
2. Islam does kill homosexuals…and Jews…and Christians…and women…and children…and each other…so I’m not real sure what you’re point is about Islam killing people. Islam is a death cult that deifies a moon god and reveres a child molester.
3. If you think Christians or “Christian-dominated / influenced” governments have killed more gays (or anybody else for that matter) than the Nazis or communists then you are woefully ignorant of history. I can assure you that the 20th Century is not known as “the bloodiest century in history” because of Christians.
4. With respect to the Westboro Baptist Church, their leader, Fred Phelps, ran for public office several times…as a democrat. You can look it up for yourself.
One third of the population is not a...
How 'bout that?
I was right all along.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/west/207402-idaho-forcing-clergy-perform-gary-marriage.html
It was a for profit wedding chapel not a church, and the whole thing was a fabrication anyway. Anatomy of a Right-Wing Fabrication: No Threat to Idaho Wedding Chapel | Advocate.com
So you were still wrong.
Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/rational?
no
yes
other
Until equal rights was given to gays in large ways, personally, Ive never heard this argument which i consider to be completely irrational, a simple fear tactic and conspiracy theory.
I see no rational basis for this fear based on equal rights for gays since there are rights, laws, the constitution and countless court case precedences blocking something this stupid.
I havent met one person that thinks churches should be forced and the reality is churches already (before gay rights) legally discriminate on marriages probably in the 1000s a day in this country and always have.
They have against straight couples, gay couples, based on race, based on religion etc etc etc
why now, magically, will this change?
why was it not a fear when minority rights were granted? womans rights? and its never been a fear based on religious discrimination?
I see ZERO logic in something so absurd BUT, I'm very curious how many people fear this lunacy and thier reasonings . . . maybe im missing something completely logical. SO far I havent seen any, so please share if it happens youll get to do a big I TOLD YOU SO lol
anyway my vote is no . . HELL NO lol
also FYI if i ever did see it as a reasonable possibility i would fight my way to the front of the line to fight it tooth and nail!
Nobody should be forced to be nice. Let assholes be assholes and ignore them.
No, it is not an entire fabrication. In the evolved story, to qualify for government exemption for the CRIMINAL anti-discrimination law the religion/religious person must REGISTER with the government first, obtain government permission and then - and only then - did the jurisdiction opt not to prosecute.
Please cite the federal court decision that ruled anti-discrimination laws as "CRIMINAL".
1.) false
2.) also false
3.) government hasnt forced anybody to perform anything immoral
4.) since 1, 2, 3 are false and lies 4 also fails
5.) see #4
can you make a post that can ever be backed up with facts or anything even accurate and logical
lets look at some facts in the US:
number of businesses forced to participate in gay marriages . . . . ZERO
number of churches forced to do gay marriages . . . ZERO
1.)are you just trying to be a ass with this thread? i mean really?
2.)you can say no one was forced to "participate" but the definition of participation is where a lot of people would disagree with you.....yes?
3.) some of the population believes that any "participation" in a gay wedding goes against their beliefs? do you agree with that statement?
4.) instead of the customer taking their business elsewhere, either the customer or one of their "friends" starts the discrimination process
5.) so what happens to the shop owner? is he left alone? is he allowed to stay in business?
6.) or does the government in some form tell him either to participate, or else?
7.) not sure what your definition is of "force" or "coercion" but those meet mine
8.) maybe highly religious people shouldnt be in businesses that have marriages as part of their business
9.)florists, decorators, bakeries, rental halls, etc
10.) for some people it is no big deal.....and they welcome the business
11.) for others, it is a big deal.....and they would rather shut down their business than be "forced" to participate in something they find so repulsive
12.) it used to be that businesses were free to associate and do business with who they wanted
13.)for some, i understand the need for the change in the law......hospitals, public conveyance, inns & hotels, etc
14.)for the others, i dont.....there are more than one florist that can be used.....or one bakery
15.)end of rant...
It is the local law in the OP story.
1.) nope I was just curious to see if there were really that many people that could believe somethign so stupid and illogical
2.) no it wouldn't, in facts law, definitions and everything else is on my side.
3,) yes im sure they do, that doesnt give them any special privileges to break the law or infringe on others rights
4.) actually if you are referring to a business domino number one would be people stupid enough to CHOOSE to break the law and be criminals
5.) same thing that happens to anybody that break the law and infringe on the rights of others, there are consciousnesses
6.) government enforces ALL of our rights and law and this consensuses for breaking them, just like the rapist, embezzler, murder, assaulter, thier etc
7.) well your definition doesnt matter to law and facts, there those people CHOOSE to break the law so its there fault if there is consciousness. I mean fine then by your defintion murders and rapist are also "forced" or "coerced" then too LMAO
8.) there are lots of highly religious people in business that have marriage in their business they just arent stupid enough to break the law or dumb enough to think its allowed cause of their "feelings" and "belifes"
9.) yep plenty of those people are highly religions and do just fine cause they have somethign called civility and dont choose to break the law, they are able to live harmoniously in a society with laws and rights
10.) yes normal people
11.) then they are stupid fro opening up the business and thinking they get special treatment. Im a christian, i would never think that i get to run my business how ever i want simply because of my religion, thats moronic and i respect the law and my fellow Americans rights.
12.) they still are
13.) rights and laws are for some they are for us all
14.) nope I dont get special treatment based on my religion, i have to follow the same rules and laws as EVERYBODY lol
15.) well try again when you have somethign that actually matter to rights and laws
1.)so as i guessed, you did start this thread just to be an ass
2.) no problem
3.)we ALL understand the laws.....
4.)but some of us actually try to see the others perspective....and why something may be important to someone
5.)you apparently just want to rub salt in wounds.....nice for you.....glad you are having fun doing so
6.)i should have known better.....my bad
7.)i'm gone
How 'bout that?
I was right all along.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/west/207402-idaho-forcing-clergy-perform-gary-marriage.html
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?