Really can't say I was brain washed. Neither of my parents care one way or the other. I will admit that the biggest reason for my opposition is that I think this will embolden the movement to strip churches of tax status if they refuse to perform the marriages.

 

This may be a question for another thread, and I don't mean swing the discussion off topic, but what is the rationale for churches having tax-exempt status?

This may be a question for another thread, and I don't mean swing the discussion off topic, but what is the rationale for churches having tax-exempt status?

 

Not sure what the original reasoning is but our tax laws have always recognized them as similar to charities and other organizations which are seen as part of the public good so contributions to such organizations are deductible to the givers income taxes.

Maybe. But rights and liberties only exist in reality to the extent that there is a populace and government willing to enforce or protect them. Despite what the fella said, there's nothing inalienable about them. They require constant tending.

 

Exactly.

 

I see the movement to strip churches of their tax status should they refuse gay marriage similar to the no helmet movement. The no helmet movement is almost always in the minority yet through extreme perseverance, being very organized and simply wearing down legislators over time, they are very successful at getting their laws passed. This is primarily due to the fact that the majority who believe motorcyclists should wear helmets are not near as dedicated and don't fight as hard as the no helmet crew.

 

My guess is the idea of stripping churches of their tax status should they not allow gay marriage is not the majority view but the majority is not near as firm in this view as the minority and will not put up much of a fight and so the laws may go in the way of the minority similar to the no helmet example.

I do. I don't believe you or I or anyone else chose which direction our sexual attraction would go but we did chose our lifestyle ie how to live with that attraction. A priest I have known for over a decade dated girls when I met him before he felt called to the priesthood several years ago. He did not choose to be hetrosexual, that was who he was, but he did choose a lifestyle of celibacy.

 

Lifestyle is a choice, sexual attraction for (I would guess) 90% of us ingrained.

 

In your post you didn't address morality so hopefully my response isn't viewed that you did, but in responding to your post I will also add my particular views related to morality as it is an ever present factor related to this discussion.

 

I certainly agree that acting, or not acting on one's sexuality, gay or straight, is a choice, however placing it under a certain code of moral conduct and ethics is merely an opinion, and one that although everyone is entitled to, is a personal matter for those acting, and not really anyone's place to decide for others where they should stand on such topics of morality.

 

If others believe that acting on homosexual tendencies is immoral, they're certainly free to think that way, but I don't have to, and I most certainly don't.

 

My life is not, and will not be restricted by the confines of other's views on the matter, for I walking in my own shoes, have a firm grasp on my personal situation, and from where I stand, my view from at least my mid-teens is that religion and society has had grave misunderstandings, and that I could either live by their grave misunderstanding, or live by my personal perception that my view is clearly more accurate for my existence, and it's a no brainer to me that I would follow my own reality rather than follow a code of mere speculation fueled by misunderstanding.

 

At the end of the day, it's my life and If there's a God that will punish me for that like others claim he will, I'm willing to take that chance and take responsibility for the choices I make in life, but deep in my heart I have no fear because deep in my heart I am 100% content with following my true instincts, and that those fears that other have tried to teach me are unfounded.

 

If I end up in that hell that others have invented then I can say this without hesitation, I will be living in their eternal hell with absolutely no regrets of how I got there, but I'm pretty doggone certain that it's all a ridiculous made up lie anyhow.

 

I feel pretty confident too that others who have spent their lives being judgemental and pushing man made religious agendas also will escape the eternal fires of hell that they so warn about because I'm confident that it was designed to try to control the masses, and so many have bought into it.

 

Exactly.

 

I see the movement to strip churches of their tax status should they refuse gay marriage similar to the no helmet movement. The no helmet movement is almost always in the minority yet through extreme perseverance, being very organized and simply wearing down legislators over time, they are very successful at getting their laws passed. This is primarily due to the fact that the majority who believe motorcyclists should wear helmets are not near as dedicated and don't fight as hard as the no helmet crew.

 

My guess is the idea of stripping churches of their tax status should they not allow gay marriage is not the majority view but the majority is not near as firm in this view as the minority and will not put up much of a fight and so the laws may go in the way of the minority similar to the no helmet example.

 

I think you are wrong on the Church part.

 

With the helmet law I agree with your logic but on the churches I think the non-believers think of it as the Church is fortunate to have the tax exempt status but the Church does so much good for society that the non-believers give the Church a pass. However, the Church doesn't get to eat their cake and have it too. In other words, if the Church doesn't want to follow all the laws of the land then the Church does not deserve preferential tax exempt status.

I think you are wrong on the Church part.

 

With the helmet law I agree with your logic but on the churches I think the non-believers think of it as the Church is fortunate to have the tax exempt status but the Church does so much good for society that the non-believers give the Church a pass. However, the Church doesn't get to eat their cake and have it too. In other words, if the Church doesn't want to follow all the laws of the land then the Church does not deserve preferential tax exempt status.

Nothing says you have to get married in a church. I think you are gonna have the choose a different windmill on this one. Clerks and Chirches won't intertwine here. The justice of the peace or the drive thru wedding chapel can expect more traffic.

Nothing says you have to get married in a church. I think you are gonna have the choose a different windmill on this one. Clerks and Chirches won't intertwine here. The justice of the peace or the drive thru wedding chapel can expect more traffic.

 

You are on a tangent to my point.

 

And if we are going to get off on tangent it's like I said in a prior post, maybe the larger issue is the whole institution of marriage.

The under 30 crowd grew up with the Internet, of course they are less prone to brainwashing.

 

And what, exactly is this comment supposed to mean? I will reserve any further comment until you clarify. With that said, voted against it in 2004, still feel the same.

And what, exactly is this comment supposed to mean? I will reserve any further comment until you clarify. With that said, voted against it in 2004, still feel the same.

 

The Net gives nearly equal access/information to all sides of issues/topics/etc. which allows developing minds to make their own decisions in life.

The Net gives nearly equal access/information to all sides of issues/topics/etc. which allows developing minds to make their own decisions in life.

 

As if "the internet" has all the answers? Good luck with that. If someone thinks they will be any "less confused" by following what's on the internet, I'd argue THEY are the one's brainwashed. I also believe your comment was a not so thinly veiled dig at those of us who are believers in God/Christ. Maybe not, but it sure had that feel to it.

As if "the internet" has all the answers? Good luck with that. If someone thinks they will be any "less confused" by following what's on the internet, I'd argue THEY are the one's brainwashed. I also believe your comment was a not so thinly veiled dig at those of us who are believers in God/Christ. Maybe not, but it sure had that feel to it.

 

I don't think he was trying to hid that fact. :lol2:

As if "the internet" has all the answers? Good luck with that. If someone thinks they will be any "less confused" by following what's on the internet, I'd argue THEY are the one's brainwashed. I also believe your comment was a not so thinly veiled dig at those of us who are believers in God/Christ. Maybe not, but it sure had that feel to it.

 

I don't look at it as a shot, I look at it as fact.

The Net gives nearly equal access/information to all sides of issues/topics/etc. which allows developing minds to make their own decisions in life.

 

Kind of like on the walls of a bathroom stall in a strip club.

Kind of like on the walls of a bathroom stall in a strip club.

 

Pretty good analogy for someone that shouldn't even know about strip clubs. :bunny:

To G's point about the power of the internet:

 

There's no question that for centuries the church had less information to battle when giving/teaching its views. If my priest said something when I was 10 in 1973 it would be very difficult for me to get access to information that may disagree and then to form an opinion.

 

That's not true today. Yes, you have to sift through a lot of garbage but that's not difficult.

 

So G is correct. The access to alternative viewpoints does impact, for good and for bad, the teachings of the church.