PDA

View Full Version : Gays and God engage in whopper squabbles



SamSam
11-17-2009, 09:56 PM
A legal right for same sex marriage was overturned by Maine voters after preachers at the pulpit urged parishioners to vote against it. Now there is a national movement to have the tax exempt status of those churches abolished for crossing the line prohibiting churches from engaging in politics.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091113/gay-marriage-supporters-threaten-to-strip-churches-of-tax-exemption/index.html
At the same site is an article saying a majority of people agree churches should lose their exemption for mixing pulpits and politics.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080925/most-americans-say-churches-mixing-politics-should-lose-tax-exemption/index.html

In Washington, DC, a hotbed of sanity, a proposed same sex marriage law prompted the DC archdiocese to state that if the bill is passed, it may not be able to supply (government funded) social service programs that 68,000 of the cities sick, poor, women, children and homeless rely on.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/diocese-dc-city-same-sex-marriage-bill-111209

Flying Orca
11-17-2009, 10:59 PM
I don't quite understand why churches are tax-exempt in the first place. It's a business, and one I consider rather unsavoury at that.

ishmael
11-17-2009, 11:19 PM
"A legal right for same sex marriage was overturned by Maine voters after preachers at the pulpit urged parishioners to vote against it."

False premise.The people of Maine didn't vote against this out of religious conviction, they voted against because it didn't suit them out of common sense.

A man and woman, they get together and that's marriage. Get over it.

Upnorth1
11-18-2009, 12:26 AM
False premise.The people of Maine didn't vote against this out of religious conviction, they voted against because it didn't suit them out of common sense.


I'm sure it didn't suit them, but I doubt that common sense enters into it.

skuthorp
11-18-2009, 12:33 AM
Nevertheless, it seems that the churches strayed into politics just a tad too far. As for god, I don't think he/she/it has ventured an opinion either way, just his overpresumptive and self-appointed franchisees.

Another One
11-18-2009, 12:39 AM
I always find myself annoyed when churches claim to know the mind of God anyway.

S B
11-18-2009, 01:00 AM
Why does God have a problem with gays? He made them in his own image.

Upnorth1
11-18-2009, 01:50 AM
Why does God have a problem with gays? He made them in his own image.
and she even made some of them in her image. Is that far out or what!:)

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
11-18-2009, 02:32 AM
I suppose if I was Gay, I'd really care about this.

Chris Coose
11-18-2009, 06:43 AM
"A legal right for same sex marriage was overturned by Maine voters after preachers at the pulpit urged parishioners to vote against it."

False premise.The people of Maine didn't vote against this out of religious conviction, they voted against because it didn't suit them out of common sense.



And if it weren't for the churches, especially the large Catholic one and their money, the thing would have gone No.

They've placed their own balls into the vice.

Portland voted about 85% No. We've got a ton of tax exempt property in the city with the word Catholic on it. I'd love to see it go into the tax base. (Course they are closing stuff down every other day anyways because they are broke due to the pervert payout and loss of parishioners)

For 6 weeks they took 2nd collections at each mass to stomp the homos.

ishmael
11-18-2009, 06:51 AM
"And if it weren't for the churches, especially the large Catholic one and their money, the thing would have gone No."

The NO crowd outspent the YES two to one, much of it money from out of state. Go figure.

huisjen
11-18-2009, 06:54 AM
Maybe if the Catholics allowed their priests to have sex with men and women then they wouldn't be so repressed and twisted as a group. Maybe they could attract enough good applicants that they wouldn't have to settle for giving the priesthood to predators and others who are only power hungry.

Dan

LeeG
11-18-2009, 06:55 AM
Jack, do you have figures to back up your statement?

Pugwash
11-18-2009, 07:00 AM
I thought this thread was about burgers...

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/he/photo/movie_pix/paris_hilton/paris_hilton_burger_shoot_photos/paris_hilton/burgershoot3.jpg


Carry on chaps.

:)

ishmael
11-18-2009, 07:02 AM
Lee,

The figures were reported on our public radio repeatedly, and no, I'm not going to look them up.

Chris Coose
11-18-2009, 07:06 AM
Jack is probably pretty close. But that is not the point. If the Catholic Church focused a dime of specific collection toward their crusade they placed themselves at risk for their tax exempt status. And this won't be limited to the Catholics, though they were the backers of the organization for the Yes vote.
The Catholics were THE community organizers and by far the major donor to the Yes crusade.

The apologists will call it "not politica"l but there will be a ground swell which in the long term will drive this institution out of town on a rail. The back door is always as big as the front door.

We all knew this all along.

LeeG
11-18-2009, 07:21 AM
check, 2.5million Yes on 1, 4million No
As a percentage the Yes campaign had more of it's contributions from out of state than No.
The majority of Yes on 1 was Roman Catholic Church and NOM an out of state anti-gay organization which withholds it's donor list.
Marriage with 50% divorce rate is sacred.

Thanks for the reminder.

huisjen
11-18-2009, 07:30 AM
I keep having to remind people of this.

The question behind Measure 1 was not "gay marriage, yes or no". It was "when".
The answer is not no. The answer is "not yet, but very soon".

Dan

Tylerdurden
11-18-2009, 07:36 AM
I keep having to remind people of this.

The question behind Measure 1 was not "gay marriage, yes or no". It was "when".
The answer is not no. The answer is "not yet, but very soon".

Dan

Waiting patiently?

Chris Coose
11-18-2009, 07:58 AM
How many thousands of years has the Catholic church been messing about in people's lives? Like 2.
Well, in America they've got some rules to deal with and they took a strong stand on this one. Stuck their necks out.
Maine made a law. The church ran a crusade to overturn that law. Moral, immoral is irrelevent. The church went political on their moral quest amd you pay to play that game.
The medevil rules don't apply.

ishmael
11-18-2009, 08:15 AM
As the demography shifts, homosexuals probably will get "married" in Maine. I think it a mistake, not something handed on by god just a mistaken identity. But we've been through all that. I don't have the energy to argue it anymore. It matters very little in the grand scheme of it, but I still like semantics.

Keith Wilson
11-18-2009, 08:17 AM
Here's the law (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html), with links to elaborate and tedious explanations if anyone is interested. It appears obvious that several churches violated the law in this case. It would be unfortunate if they lost tax-exempt status, and it would probably harm their charitable work. They should have thought of that beforehand.
The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Tylerdurden
11-18-2009, 08:25 AM
Notice how liberals love using the IRS as a tool to enforce their morality?

That's the liberal mantra, "we don't have the balls to enforce our will on you so we will get someone else to do it for us."

Same goes for gay's, if you want it risk everything to fight for it.
Then you will have my respect. Neither will though.

john l
11-18-2009, 08:26 AM
i don't know the specifics of the vote in maine, but i do know that all faiths
get involved in politics. perhaps you can single out the catholic church on this issue, but if you looked at many issues, you'd see conflict in the church and state. and not just in the us, but world wide. various faiths have been instrumental in getting presidents elected and pushing other agenda. i'm always amazed at the hypocracy in the notion of "separation of church and state" particularly by the
very same folks that subscribe to strict interpretation of the constitution and claiming to be "real" americans.
in my little city there are several catholic churches and a few episcopalian churches and they are very involved in community building, social and cultural outreach and are a great benefit to the city. of course they don't pay taxes but still require services. they are on shaky financial ground as it is ( but perhaps less shaky than the city itself), so i doubt they could afford to pay taxes, but i think they should be charged a service fee. there are far more mail order ministry churches owning, dare i say warehousing property waiting for a real estate rebound. these are the quiet churches with storefront churches on the main commercial streets of a depressed but slowly reviving city. and it's costing the tax payers a lot of money. i believe the church and state thing need to be dealt with soon because the party is over for them. to survive this financial mess, to stop taxes from growing, it is but one of many steps to be taken to stop that "sucking sound." churches get all the benefits, can in reality say whatever they want, but they don't have to pay their way. time for an equitable adjustment - it's the moral thing to do!

LeeG
11-18-2009, 08:34 AM
Here's the law (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html), with links to elaborate and tedious explanations if anyone is interested. It appears obvious that several churches violated the law in this case. It would be unfortunate if they lost tax-exempt status, and it would probably harm their charitable work. They should have thought of that beforehand.

gotta have priorities

McMike
11-18-2009, 08:34 AM
Why does God have a problem with gays? He made them in his own image.


I agree,

If god made everything, and god is perfection, then everything is perfect, including homosexuals. But that also includes the misguided, hateful, Christians that really don't understand Jesus even though they claim to speak for him.

"Let those without sin cast the first stone." STFU:cool:

Keith Wilson
11-18-2009, 09:30 AM
The statute prohibits churches from endorsing a candidate.... but it doesn't say anything about endorsing or opposing an issue....IIRC it also applies to a referendum or any specific vote, not just one for a human candidate, but I'm not certain. I haven't found the exact reference; the IRS documents are reasonably clear but long.

Glen Longino
11-18-2009, 10:19 AM
Notice how liberals love using the IRS as a tool to enforce their morality?

That's the liberal mantra, "we don't have the balls to enforce our will on you so we will get someone else to do it for us."

Same goes for gay's, if you want it risk everything to fight for it.
Then you will have my respect. Neither will though.

Conservatives and Straights would never use a Government Agency to enforce their morality, would they? Hell No, Never!!:rolleyes:

Glen Longino
11-18-2009, 10:22 AM
why do gays want you to know how gay they are? why must they wear it on their sleeve like a badge? just questions....if I've said something politically incorrect, I don't really care.....

Nope, what you said is not politically incorrect, it's just plain ole everyday incorrect.
Gays don't flaunt their sexuality any more than straights do.

B_B
11-18-2009, 10:25 AM
A man and woman, they get together and that's marriage. Get over it.
in some States, yes, carnal knowledge between a man and a woman constitutes marriage by law - usually its just referred to as a "hook up" or some such.

B_B
11-18-2009, 10:32 AM
A legal right for same sex marriage was overturned by Maine voters after preachers at the pulpit urged parishioners to vote against it. Now there is a national movement to have the tax exempt status of those churches abolished for crossing the line prohibiting churches from engaging in politics.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091113/gay-marriage-supporters-threaten-to-strip-churches-of-tax-exemption/index.html
At the same site is an article saying a majority of people agree churches should lose their exemption for mixing pulpits and politics.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080925/most-americans-say-churches-mixing-politics-should-lose-tax-exemption/index.html


In Washington, DC, a hotbed of sanity, a proposed same sex marriage law prompted the DC archdiocese to state that if the bill is passed, it may not be able to supply (government funded) social service programs that 68,000 of the cities sick, poor, women, children and homeless rely on.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/diocese-dc-city-same-sex-marriage-bill-111209
the problem with the intent - i.e. the removal of tax exemption from a specific church which promoted a political position - is that the offending church can easily disband and then re-institute itself as a 'different' church thus regaining its exemption.

What needs to happen is that all religious organizations lose their tax exemption permanently.

Glen Longino
11-18-2009, 10:47 AM
"What needs to happen is that all religious organizations lose their tax exemption permanently."

Amen!!

Brian Palmer
11-18-2009, 11:03 AM
the problem with the intent - i.e. the removal of tax exemption from a specific church which promoted a political position - is that the offending church can easily disband and then re-institute itself as a 'different' church thus regaining its exemption.



I can certainly see this happening with the Roman Catholic Church.:rolleyes:

Brian

McMike
11-18-2009, 11:33 AM
If the tax exemption is truly at risk then I think churches will just filter their contributions through their parishioners. Either way their money will talk. Why is it still a state issue is my question. It is and always has been an issue of constitutionality. You cannot have unequal rights. The precedent has been set time and time again with women’s suffrage and the civil right movement. Didn’t we fight a war over the fact that the states didn’t have a right to keep slavery simply because the majority in those states were for it? Didn’t we already decide through the supreme courts that a state couldn’t segregate based on skin color? This is a no brainier, spiritual beliefs do not trump constitutional equality, done. Don’t be afraid of the gay folks, in my experience, their better citizens than most of the people I know who oppose them. Most, I said, not all.

Bob Cleek
11-18-2009, 11:38 AM
From the IRS's own website:

"The IRS has published Revenue Ruling 2007-41, which outlines how churches, and all 501(c)(3) organizations, can stay within the law regarding the ban on political activity. Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. See (linked) political and lobbying activities."

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html

The political activity everyone is railing about is COMPLETELY proper and permitted to tax-exempt charities of any sort, including churches. Organized groups with tax-exempt status have every right to throw their support to or their opposition against "ISSUES in the political arena." Established churches and their members have the same rights as anybody else to organize, band together and exercise their right to free speech on "issues," whether their churches, temples, ashrams or mosques are tax-exempt or not.

Apparently, there were also many tax-exempt churches and other charitable organizations that SUPPORTED retaining Maine's same-sex marriage statutes. Nobody's upset about that, are they?

Your anti-religious biases are showing. It seems attacking organized religions is about the only form of bigotry that's still "politically correct" in America.

Discuss among yourselves...

Keith Wilson
11-18-2009, 11:58 AM
"What needs to happen is that all religious organizations lose their tax exemption permanently."Maybe not such a good idea. Religious organizations are only one type of non-profit charitable organization, all of which are tax-exempt ("Organizations organized and operated for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.") If you want the Catholic Church or the Unitarian Church to lose their exempt status, then to be fair, you also have to say that the Red Cross, the Girl Scouts, and the SPCA have to pay taxes

It's currently not OK for a church to endorse or work in favor of a specific candidate - but there's a huge gray area involving elections such as the Maine referendum. Thanks for referencing the relevant IRS documents, Bob. I was wrong; as far as I can tell it's not obvious that advocating for a particular vote in the referendum breaks the law, although it might. The rules are written for ordinary elections about with candidates, not I&R ballot issues. Here's the IRS document. (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf)Some quotes follow (emphasis added).

Section 501(c)(3) provides for the exemption from federal income tax of organizations organized and operated exclusively for charitable or educational purposes, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section 501(h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
Issue Advocacy vs. Political Campaign Intervention.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention. Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate. A statement can identify a candidate not only by stating the candidate’s name but also by other means such as showing a picture of the candidate, referring to political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography. All the facts and circumstances need to be considered to determine if the advocacy is political campaign intervention.


Key factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:


• Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office;
• Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions;
• Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election;
• Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election;
• Whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office;
• Whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election; and
• Whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office.



A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election. Nevertheless, the communication must still be considered in context before arriving at any conclusions.

Bob Cleek
11-18-2009, 12:07 PM
Yep. And let's not forget all the political support that tax-exempt entities give issues like fair housing, child protection, victims' rights, medical research, education, and on and on and on. Look at the "abortion issue." There, the "battle standards" are carried by tax-exempt opposing sides, "Planned Parenthood" on the one hand and many church organizations on the other. It seems the only opposition to tax exemption for charitable organizations occurs when one of them supports an issue somebody else happens to oppose.

Chris Coose
11-18-2009, 12:21 PM
Not a great time to come to Maine Bob but you might be just the guy to make the defense.
Might not get to the court but the Maine church will have some serious mopping up to do in the court of public opinion.
Considered specalizing in church real estate? Already a ton of it in New England.
Can't say this mess will make anything better.

Keith Wilson
11-18-2009, 12:40 PM
It seems the only opposition to tax exemption for charitable organizations occurs when one of them supports an issue somebody else happens to oppose. Well, sorta . . . When one of them takes a position on an issue else happens to oppose, and does so in a way that violates the requirements of law, then there's a legitimate beef. It's not a left-right issue, although that's how it shook out in this particular case. If the death penalty were a major referendum issue, the Catholic Church would be on the other side. OTOH, there seem to be some fuzzy areas in the law, and some churches definitely try to get away with as much as they can. They probably should clarify the rules about trying to influence a referendum vote.

B_B
11-18-2009, 12:40 PM
Maybe not such a good idea. Religious organizations are only one type of non-profit charitable organization, all of which are tax-exempt ("Organizations organized and operated for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.") If you want the Catholic Church or the Unitarian Church to lose their exempt status, then to be fair, you also have to say that the Red Cross, the Girl Scouts, and the SPCA have to pay taxes..
no, it's very easy to separate the "charitable" aspect of a Church and the rest of it and its very easy to incorporate the charitable part as tax exempt - I'd be willing to bet, based on my experience, the % of church income spent on actual charitable deeds is so minuscule as to be irrelevant, I'd peg it at less than 5% of income is directed at what I would consider charitable endeavours (i.e. society is subsidizing a large part of an organization for its very little charitable work, I'm not saying the sum total of charitable deeds is minuscule).

Many organizations, 'for profits', do just that - incorporate a separate, tax exempt, charity (for example XYZ Widget Company will incorporate XYZ Widget Company Charitable Trust or Foundation). I'm not a tax attorney so don't even try to understand the tax logic, but do know that some of these charities, very well run ones as a matter of fact, use their charitable status to leverage additional funds from their employees, governments and other foundations.

Seneca
11-18-2009, 03:03 PM
What I don't understand, and what nobody seems able to explain, is why anyone cares who someone else marries? If you use the "God said..." argument, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with the state or anybody else. If you believe it, then don't participate in any marriages in which you don't believe. I'm not Catholic; why should I care what they think about my marriage or lack of it? For that matter, I'm not protestant either, so I don't care what they think. It's none of anyone's business actually.

capt jake
11-18-2009, 03:11 PM
What I don't understand, and what nobody seems able to explain, is why anyone cares who someone else marries? If you use the "God said..." argument, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with the state or anybody else. If you believe it, then don't participate in any marriages in which you don't believe. I'm not Catholic; why should I care what they think about my marriage or lack of it? For that matter, I'm not protestant either, so I don't care what they think. It's none of anyone's business actually.

Well said!

isla
11-18-2009, 03:23 PM
why do gays want you to know how gay they are? why must they wear it on their sleeve like a badge? just questions....if I've said something politically incorrect, I don't really care.....

Why is that any different to heterosexual males wanting to show how macho they are with big cars, guns, I can drink more beer than you without falling over etc. Same applies to hetero females, just a different set of display tactics.

BrianY
11-18-2009, 03:34 PM
I believe that churches and other non-profits are free to advocate general positions - i.e "Homosexuality is wrong", "gays shouldn't marry", etc. - but they cannot advocate voting for or against certian candidates or ballot issues (i.e. "Vote Yes on question 1"). In additon, the non-profit cannot disparage a candidate or candidates in an election to give the impression of bias against one or more candidates and in favor of another. Non-profits are free to advocate and discuss issues - just not particular candiates or ballot items.

BrianY
11-18-2009, 03:46 PM
why do gays want you to know how gay they are?

Are there varying degrees of "how gay" someone is? I thought it was like being pregnant - you either are or you're not, there' no "sorta pregnant"


why must they wear it on their sleeve like a badge?

pride in who and what they are in the face of a disapproving and repressive culture. If the heterosexuals didn't make such a big deal of homosexual behavior, I bet that the displays you find so objectionable would fade away. When we all get to the point where the sight of two guys hoding hands in public is not more interesting than a guy and a girl doing the same thing, people will stop feeling the need to express their identities so loudly.

Kaa
11-18-2009, 03:48 PM
Are there varying degrees of "how gay" someone is? I thought it was like being pregnant - you either are or you're not, there' no "sorta pregnant"

One can be bi :-)

Kaa

capt jake
11-18-2009, 03:52 PM
All of the gays I know don't outwardly show it in the fashion that you suggest. They are genuinly, the nicest people I know; maybe for the fact that they are very secure in themselves. And those same people, are far less judgmental of others (I think the Bible says something about passing judgment?).

If it offends you, don't look.

Bruce Hooke
11-18-2009, 04:04 PM
I believe that churches and other non-profits are free to advocate general positions - i.e "Homosexuality is wrong", "gays shouldn't marry", etc. - but they cannot advocate voting for or against certian candidates or ballot issues (i.e. "Vote Yes on question 1"). In additon, the non-profit cannot disparage a candidate or candidates in an election to give the impression of bias against one or more candidates and in favor of another. Non-profits are free to advocate and discuss issues - just not particular candiates or ballot items.

As a board member for three non-profit organizations, that certainly fits with my general understanding and approach. Granted, all three organizations are quite small so we are not in a position to bring in lawyers to help us hew very close to the line, so we are going to play it safe on issues related to our non-profit status!

BrianY
11-18-2009, 04:06 PM
why do gays want you to know how gay they are? why must they wear it on their sleeve like a badge? just questions....if I've said something politically incorrect, I don't really care.....

Why do Christians want you to know how Christian they are? Why must they wear it on their sleeve like a badge?

Why do Conservatives want you to know how Conservative they are? Why must they wear it on their sleeve like a badge?

Why do Liberals want you to know how Liberal they are? Why must they wear it on their sleeve like a badge?

Why do Atheists want you to know how Atheistic they are? Why must they wear it on their sleeve like a badge?

Why do sports fanatics want you to know how fanatical they are? Why must they wear it on their sleeve like a badge?

Why do gun nuts want you to know how pro-gun they are? Why must they wear it on their sleeve like a badge?

Why do anti-gun nuts want you to know how anti-gun they are? Why must they wear it on their sleeve like a badge?

Why do heterosexuals want you to know how Heterosexual they are? Why must they wear it on their sleeve like a badge?

Why do Boy Scouts want you to know how Scout-like they are? Why must they wear it on their sleeve (or uniforms) like a badge? (literally).

just questions....if I've said something politically incorrect, I don't really care....

SamSam
11-18-2009, 04:13 PM
How about the threat to cut off government funded social services? It's like poker, "I'll see your tax exemption abolition and raise you 68,000 sick, poor and homeless."

Kaa
11-18-2009, 04:15 PM
How about the threat to cut off government funded social services? It's like poker, "I'll see your tax exemption abolition and raise you 68,000 sick, poor and homeless."

See you and raise you a full IRS audit and investigation for something/anything out of a myriad of Federal offenses :D

Kaa

ishmael
11-18-2009, 04:17 PM
"why do gays want you to know how gay they are?"

I've known homosexuals since I knew what the word meant(as well as before) and you can't usually tell by a person's persona unless they want you to, are flamboyant about it. I've known happily straight men who I swore went home at night and put on a pink tutu, and gay men who chewed nails for snacks; Lesbians who were as feminine as Mary Poppins, and ones who thought they were G.I. Joe. But most of the folks I've known who were homosexual looked and acted just like everyone else.

As far as homosexuals wanting you to know they are homosexual, I can understand that. Like any other minority with a history of cultural repression they are staking out their turf. Do they go over the top sometimes? Even homosexual friends have said so, but it's understandable. Hell, heterosexual people go over the top too!

These discussions of homosexuals marrying have given me stuff to ponder. I'm trying to see it from the other perspective. I don't think it'll change my mind, but ya never know.

SamSam
11-18-2009, 04:47 PM
See you and raise you a full IRS audit and investigation for something/anything out of a myriad of Federal offenses :D

KaaSee you and raise you Damnation. :)

Kaa
11-18-2009, 04:50 PM
See you and raise you Damnation. :)

See your damnation and raise you an alternate Pope -- with an army, mind you :D

Kaa

Keith Wilson
11-18-2009, 04:53 PM
why do gays want you to know how gay they are?Why do you care?

Glen Longino
11-18-2009, 06:30 PM
See your damnation and raise you an alternate Pope -- with an army, mind you :D

Kaa

Okay, you and SamSam knock it off before somebody gets hurt!;):)

McMike
11-18-2009, 06:50 PM
"why do gays want you to know how gay they are?"

I've known homosexuals since I knew what the word meant(as well as before) and you can't usually tell by a person's persona unless they want you to, are flamboyant about it. I've known happily straight men who I swore went home at night and put on a pink tutu, and gay men who chewed nails for snacks; Lesbians who were as feminine as Mary Poppins, and ones who thought they were G.I. Joe. But most of the folks I've known who were homosexual looked and acted just like everyone else.

As far as homosexuals wanting you to know they are homosexual, I can understand that. Like any other minority with a history of cultural repression they are staking out their turf. Do they go over the top sometimes? Even homosexual friends have said so, but it's understandable. Hell, heterosexual people go over the top too!

These discussions of homosexuals marrying have given me stuff to ponder. I'm trying to see it from the other perspective. I don't think it'll change my mind, but ya never know.

I think thatís the point Ish. Youíve known Homosexuals all your life and it hasnít really impacted you either way. Whether theyíre flaming or nail eaters, it didnít matter, you lived your life. Like you said, youíve known straight guys that you swore wore tutus behind closed doors, maybe they did and were still straight but liked to play dress-up, it didnít matter in the grand scheme of things. The fact that you are only now pondering flaming gay men, now after all that time is proof of that. Personally, foolishness is foolishness gay or straight I feel uncomfortable when the guys at work cat-call women, just as I have felt uncomfortable when gay friends go all queer-eye snapping their fingers. Thatís me, Iím a low key kind of guy, donít like that kind of attention. Doesnít make it bad, it just is. I went to a commitment ceremony where two men were getting as married as they were allowed to be. It was no less touching to watch two men who clearly loved each other than it was to watch a hetro wedding. They meant as much to each other as two people could. In the end love is all that matters, I think thatís what god wants for us.

SamSam
11-18-2009, 07:29 PM
See your damnation and raise you an alternate Pope -- with an army, mind you :D

KaaI call. I fail to see how an alternate Pope beats Damnation. Which, I forgot to mention, is of the 'eternal' sort. Your army can be eternally Damned in an instant with plenty of Damnation still left over. :)

Btw, which alternate Pope? :confused:

Other claimants to the role of Pope also exist throughout the world.http://www.cesnur.org/2005/gregory.htm

ishmael
11-18-2009, 07:42 PM
"The fact that you are only now pondering flaming gay men, now after all that time is proof of that."

Not what I said, but I'm with ya on the rest of it.

I have said, repeatedly, let homosexuals make the legal commitments of marriage, just call it something different, because it is.