| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mike
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:32 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
 |
|
On Nov 13, 9:39 pm, Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 13, 10:27 pm, "michael ellis" <dvd...@bak.rr.com> wrote:
I won't sign a petition. That I don't believe in. I voted for yes on 8.
And damn proud of it. Why do you want to petition against a church
that stands against a lifestyle most of us feels is wrong?
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status prohibits substantial influence in
legislation.
Do you want the Mormons to start making laws for YOU?
I'm a
heterosexual
and goddamn proud of it.
Nobody has a problem with that. Oh, except for the "goddamn" part.
The Mormons aren't gonna like that one bit.
Gays and lesbians should be thankful for
having the title of civil rights..
Well, "civil rights" isn't a title. And FYI, gays in the U.S. don't
have full civil rights, and aren't guaranteed them.
|
Really? When was the last time you went to vote and were told you
couldn't vote on account of being gay? The fact is, gays are mixed up
as to what civil rights are. The institution of marriage was around a
long, long time before the Constitution.
BTW, blacks don't have much regard for gays trying to pass the gay
marriage thing off as a civil rights issue. It's apples and oranges.
| Quote: |
instead having nothing. Guillaume Ier de
Normandie..you're a fool.
Oh, my. Name calling? The Mormons aren't gonna like that, I should
think. It's mean. "Do unto others", ya know.
Posting a petition most of us won't sign..
Almost 18,000 have signed it already! 
|
Good luck with that. There's still more than 300 million who haven't
signed it.
| Quote: |
because
we feel gay marriage is wrong and is basically for man and woman.
Oh, well. You have a right to feel that way. On the other hand, one
has to wonder how same-sex marriage will harm you in any way.
|
When it gets to the point where we have to state the glarlingly
obvious in state constitutions, a problem has already crept in, and it
does not bode well.
I heard an NPR broadcase a few month ago about polygamy in America.
There are an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 polygamous marriages today in
the U.S. So far, they manage to stay under the radar because husbands
with two or more wives is the result of strictly religious ceremonies
without seeking a license or legal recognition of the arrangement.
At some point in the future they will not be satisfied with this and
will mount an offensive to have polygamous marriages formally and
legally recognized here in the US, just as gays are doing now.
The culture, the inherited patterns of socializing, of staying attuned
to the whole, are breaking up and falling apart. I'm not saying gays
and polygamists are the problem. Rather, they are the symptom of a
societal disease.
But you
| Quote: | must have thought this through very very carefully, even though what
you've presented here so far doesn't make that evident.
|
| Quote: |
Can gays be happy with civil rights? If they're not happy with that. Too
goddamn
Oops. Shh! The Mormons. They don't like swearing.
|
I don't cotton to Mormon beliefs at all, but most of the people voting
for Prop 8 were not Mormons, probably not even particularly religious.
| Quote: |
bad. Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN for man and woman.
Well, not "always". Not in Massachusetts, or Connecticut or
California, for example. Or in Spain, or South Africa, the
Netherlands, Belgium... and have you ever heard of Canada?
|
This has only been since about 2001, and is certainly not the norm
when compared to the whole sweep and scope of humanity. If anal sex
was a viable means of reproduction, it would be different.
| Quote: |
So, you've lied. The Mormons aren't gonna like THAT, either.
Guillaume Ier de Normandie..you're
pathedic.
And you, Madam, need to take an English class. |
|
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Owner and Trainer of boba
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 14, 11:32 pm, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 13, 9:39 pm, Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 13, 10:27 pm, "michael ellis" <dvd...@bak.rr.com> wrote:
I won't sign a petition. That I don't believe in. I voted for yes on 8.
And damn proud of it. Why do you want to petition against a church
that stands against a lifestyle most of us feels is wrong?
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status prohibits substantial influence in
legislation.
Do you want the Mormons to start making laws for YOU?
I'm a
heterosexual
and goddamn proud of it.
Nobody has a problem with that. Oh, except for the "goddamn" part.
The Mormons aren't gonna like that one bit.
Gays and lesbians should be thankful for
having the title of civil rights..
Well, "civil rights" isn't a title. And FYI, gays in the U.S. don't
have full civil rights, and aren't guaranteed them.
Really? When was the last time you went to vote and were told you
couldn't vote on account of being gay?
|
Voting isn't the only civil right.
| Quote: | The fact is, gays are mixed up
as to what civil rights are.
|
Well, let's put it this way.
When the majority of a population has a certain right, but a certain
minority within a population does not, the battle to get that right is
a battle for civil rights.
| Quote: | The institution of marriage was around a
long, long time before the Constitution.
|
So what?
| Quote: | BTW, blacks don't have much regard for gays trying to pass the gay
marriage thing off as a civil rights issue. It's apples and oranges.
|
It's also a red herring.
| Quote: |
instead having nothing. Guillaume Ier de
Normandie..you're a fool.
Oh, my. Name calling? The Mormons aren't gonna like that, I should
think. It's mean. "Do unto others", ya know.
Posting a petition most of us won't sign..
Almost 18,000 have signed it already! :-)
Good luck with that. There's still more than 300 million who haven't
signed it.
|
You don't need everyone in America to sign a petition in order to make
a statement.
Anyway, a complaint has already been filed against LDS.
| Quote: |
because
we feel gay marriage is wrong and is basically for man and woman.
Oh, well. You have a right to feel that way. On the other hand, one
has to wonder how same-sex marriage will harm you in any way.
When it gets to the point where we have to state the glarlingly
obvious in state constitutions, a problem has already crept in, and it
does not bode well.
|
Yeah. See, it seems that what you consider to be "glaringly obvious"
isn't really "glaringly obvious" at all. Indeed, in the present case,
fully 48% did not agree with what you consider to be "glaringly
obvious".
Must scare the shit out of ya. And if you're paying any attention to
the trend, well... Invest in Depends, dude!
| Quote: | I heard an NPR broadcase a few month ago about polygamy in America.
There are an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 polygamous marriages today in
the U.S. So far, they manage to stay under the radar because husbands
with two or more wives is the result of strictly religious ceremonies
without seeking a license or legal recognition of the arrangement.
At some point in the future they will not be satisfied with this and
will mount an offensive to have polygamous marriages formally and
legally recognized here in the US, just as gays are doing now.
|
Possibly, at some time. Don't you think they should be allowed to
present an argument? Have you closed your mind already? Can you draw
conclusions from premises, or do you draw your conclusions first and
then try to find premises that might make your conclusion valid?
| Quote: | The culture, the inherited patterns of socializing, of staying attuned
to the whole, are breaking up and falling apart.
|
Yeah. It's Doomsday. The world is coming to and end. Hey, did you
know that blacks can marry whites now??!!!
| Quote: | I'm not saying gays
and polygamists are the problem. Rather, they are the symptom of a
societal disease.
|
Well, first of all, likening the problems of the polygamists and the
gays is something of a problem, with regard to marriage. Be that as
it may, both groups have always existed.
Indeed, in your own Bible, didn't some dudes have many many wives?
| Quote: |
But you
must have thought this through very very carefully, even though what
you've presented here so far doesn't make that evident.
Can gays be happy with civil rights? If they're not happy with that. Too
goddamn
Oops. Shh! The Mormons. They don't like swearing.
I don't cotton to Mormon beliefs at all, but most of the people voting
for Prop 8 were not Mormons, probably not even particularly religious.
|
Well, don't ever let anyone accuse you of being able to see the forest
through for the trees!! LOL!! You actually thought I was talking
only about Mormons? You couldn't just take it to the next level????
Hmmm? A little slow on the uptake, are ya? You couldn't just maybe
take your brain to a place where you're controlled by a theocracy, no
matter what the religion??
Anyway, the U.S. Constitution makes it very clear that there is to be
a separation of church and state. Now, I shouldn't HAVE to explain
myself here. I'm going to give you SOME credit to figure this out on
your own. I'm almost certain to be disappointed.
| Quote: | bad. Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN for man and woman.
Well, not "always". Not in Massachusetts, or Connecticut or
California, for example. Or in Spain, or South Africa, the
Netherlands, Belgium... and have you ever heard of Canada?
This has only been since about 2001, and is certainly not the norm
when compared to the whole sweep and scope of humanity.
|
Well, that is a VERY rapid ascent in the gay rights movement in a VERY
short period of time, dontcha think? I mean, considering that for
MILLIONS of years, so far as we know, marriage rights were reserved
only for opposite-sex couples, and suddenly there are entire nations
embracing it.
| Quote: | If anal sex
was a viable means of reproduction, it would be different.
|
Oh give me a fucking break already. Quit pretending that the only way
a person can get married is if there is going to be procreation
involved. Quit pretending that marriage needs to exist in order for
procreation to occur. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:15 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 14, 2:41 pm, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, awthraw...@gmail.com wrote:
Specious, utterly specious. How would you propose a study of this
nature be done? Oh that's right, it can't be done expect to expose
children to having men marrying men and women marrying women! it ain't
going to happen.
1) If homosexuality can spread by seeing two men, why are there any
hetrosexuals in San Francisco?
2) If homosexuality can spread through the air, we are all in trouble.
|
No one has said it would spread through the air. You're creating a
straw man argument.
There is more to gender than sexuality. Gender behavior is often
learned. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Joe
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:19 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 14, 12:54 pm, awthraw...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 13, 8:50 pm, Guillaume Ier de Normandie
guillaumedenorman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sign the petition here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/review-the-501c3-status-of-the-churc...
The LDS church contributed a significant amount of money and effort to
endorse PROP 8 in California via its network of church, media, and
community outlets enshrining discrimination under the law for
thousands of Californians and their families.
"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)."
See:http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
The Black community voted down gay marriage 70 to 30. Maybe you should
go down to South Central where churches talk about politics all day
long and file a complaint. Stage a rally, start getting uppity, and
then try to intimidate a little old lady. Be sure to wear body armor.
|
Sorry, but the law is clear and the Morons broke the law by openly
trying to influence legislation. Their tax exempt status should be
removed. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Joe
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:26 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 14, 1:27 pm, "michael ellis" <dvd...@bak.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I won't sign a petition. That I don't believe in. I voted for yes on 8.
And damn proud of it. Why do you want to petition against a church
that stands against a lifestyle most of us feels is wrong? I'm a
heterosexual
and goddamn proud of it. Gays and lesbians should be thankful for
having the title of civil rights..instead having nothing. Guillaume Ier de
Normandie..you're a fool. Posting a petition most of us won't sign..because
we feel gay marriage is wrong and is basically for man and woman.
|
Your missing the point here. Why should you have an extra tax
deduction because you donate to a church that violates tax laws by
promoting legislation. If you want to donate to the Morons because
they were for proposition 8, thats fine, but then any donation you
make should not be tax dedcuctable. Thats the law, why should I have
to pay more tax than you?
| Quote: |
Can gays be happy with civil rights? If they're not happy with that. Too
goddamn bad. Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN for man and woman.
Guillaume Ier de Normandie..you're pathedic.
"Guillaume Ier de Normandie" <guillaumedenorman...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:a3ac65d6-3f83-449c-9e4f-acb4cfbf01e8@i20g2000prf.googlegroups..com...
Sign the petition here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/review-the-501c3-status-of-the-churc...
The LDS church contributed a significant amount of money and effort to
endorse PROP 8 in California via its network of church, media, and
community outlets enshrining discrimination under the law for
thousands of Californians and their families.
"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)."
See:http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Joe
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:28 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 15, 3:32 am, awthraw...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 13, 9:39 pm, Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 13, 10:27 pm, "michael ellis" <dvd...@bak.rr.com> wrote:
I won't sign a petition. That I don't believe in. I voted for yes on 8.
And damn proud of it. Why do you want to petition against a church
that stands against a lifestyle most of us feels is wrong?
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status prohibits substantial influence in
legislation.
Do you want the Mormons to start making laws for YOU?
I'm a
heterosexual
and goddamn proud of it.
Nobody has a problem with that. Oh, except for the "goddamn" part.
The Mormons aren't gonna like that one bit.
Gays and lesbians should be thankful for
having the title of civil rights..
Well, "civil rights" isn't a title. And FYI, gays in the U.S. don't
have full civil rights, and aren't guaranteed them.
instead having nothing. Guillaume Ier de
Normandie..you're a fool.
Oh, my. Name calling? The Mormons aren't gonna like that, I should
think. It's mean. "Do unto others", ya know.
Posting a petition most of us won't sign..
Almost 18,000 have signed it already! :-)
because
we feel gay marriage is wrong and is basically for man and woman.
Oh, well. You have a right to feel that way. On the other hand, one
has to wonder how same-sex marriage will harm you in any way. But you
must have thought this through very very carefully, even though what
you've presented here so far doesn't make that evident.
Can gays be happy with civil rights? If they're not happy with that. Too
goddamn
Oops. Shh! The Mormons. They don't like swearing.
bad. Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN for man and woman.
Well, not "always". Not in Massachusetts, or Connecticut or
California, for example. Or in Spain, or South Africa, the
Netherlands, Belgium... and have you ever heard of Canada?
So, you've lied. The Mormons aren't gonna like THAT, either.
Guillaume Ier de Normandie..you're
pathedic.
And you, Madam, need to take an English class.
It harms society because it confuses and harms children.
Marriage is not a right. It is a license. If you don't meet the
requirements, you can't get the license. The requirement is that the
license is between one man and one woman.
Not two men. Not two women. Not one man and two women. Not two men and
one woman. Not one person and one pet....one man and one woman.
You may have a civil contract if you wish. You just can't have a
license when you don't meet the requirements of that license.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Joe
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 15, 3:32 am, awthraw...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 13, 9:39 pm, Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 13, 10:27 pm, "michael ellis" <dvd...@bak.rr.com> wrote:
I won't sign a petition. That I don't believe in. I voted for yes on 8.
And damn proud of it. Why do you want to petition against a church
that stands against a lifestyle most of us feels is wrong?
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status prohibits substantial influence in
legislation.
Do you want the Mormons to start making laws for YOU?
I'm a
heterosexual
and goddamn proud of it.
Nobody has a problem with that. Oh, except for the "goddamn" part.
The Mormons aren't gonna like that one bit.
Gays and lesbians should be thankful for
having the title of civil rights..
Well, "civil rights" isn't a title. And FYI, gays in the U.S. don't
have full civil rights, and aren't guaranteed them.
instead having nothing. Guillaume Ier de
Normandie..you're a fool.
Oh, my. Name calling? The Mormons aren't gonna like that, I should
think. It's mean. "Do unto others", ya know.
Posting a petition most of us won't sign..
Almost 18,000 have signed it already! :-)
because
we feel gay marriage is wrong and is basically for man and woman.
Oh, well. You have a right to feel that way. On the other hand, one
has to wonder how same-sex marriage will harm you in any way. But you
must have thought this through very very carefully, even though what
you've presented here so far doesn't make that evident.
Can gays be happy with civil rights? If they're not happy with that. Too
goddamn
Oops. Shh! The Mormons. They don't like swearing.
bad. Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN for man and woman.
Well, not "always". Not in Massachusetts, or Connecticut or
California, for example. Or in Spain, or South Africa, the
Netherlands, Belgium... and have you ever heard of Canada?
So, you've lied. The Mormons aren't gonna like THAT, either.
Guillaume Ier de Normandie..you're
pathedic.
And you, Madam, need to take an English class.
It harms society because it confuses and harms children.
Marriage is not a right. It is a license. If you don't meet the
requirements, you can't get the license. The requirement is that the
license is between one man and one woman.
Not two men. Not two women. Not one man and two women. Not two men and
one woman. Not one person and one pet....one man and one woman.
You may have a civil contract if you wish. You just can't have a
license when you don't meet the requirements of that license.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Do you know when Barack Obama was born, it would have been illegal in
most states for his mother to have been married to his father because
she was black and he was white? So in a democracy the what
constitutes a legal marraige can change. I am not at all threatened
by gay couples wanting to get married even though I am not gay. We
should show compassion, not contempt for those who are different
otherwise we are making the same mistakes of the past when black
people were not allowed to marry whites. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:42 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 14, 2:55 pm, Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 14, 3:33 pm, awthraw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 12:15 pm, Emerson Wainwright <scot...@walla.com> wrote:
On Nov 14, 12:32 pm, awthraw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:39 pm, Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@hotmail..com
wrote:
On Nov 13, 10:27 pm, "michael ellis" <dvd...@bak.rr.com> wrote:
I won't sign a petition. That I don't believe in. I voted for yes on 8.
And damn proud of it. Why do you want to petition against a church
that stands against a lifestyle most of us feels is wrong?
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status prohibits substantial influence in
legislation.
Do you want the Mormons to start making laws for YOU?
I'm a
heterosexual
and goddamn proud of it.
Nobody has a problem with that. Oh, except for the "goddamn" part.
The Mormons aren't gonna like that one bit.
Gays and lesbians should be thankful for
having the title of civil rights..
Well, "civil rights" isn't a title. And FYI, gays in the U.S. don't
have full civil rights, and aren't guaranteed them.
instead having nothing. Guillaume Ier de
Normandie..you're a fool.
Oh, my. Name calling? The Mormons aren't gonna like that, I should
think. It's mean. "Do unto others", ya know.
Posting a petition most of us won't sign..
Almost 18,000 have signed it already! :-)
because
we feel gay marriage is wrong and is basically for man and woman.
Oh, well. You have a right to feel that way. On the other hand, one
has to wonder how same-sex marriage will harm you in any way. But you
must have thought this through very very carefully, even though what
you've presented here so far doesn't make that evident.
Can gays be happy with civil rights? If they're not happy with that. Too
goddamn
Oops. Shh! The Mormons. They don't like swearing.
bad. Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN for man and woman.
Well, not "always". Not in Massachusetts, or Connecticut or
California, for example. Or in Spain, or South Africa, the
Netherlands, Belgium... and have you ever heard of Canada?
So, you've lied. The Mormons aren't gonna like THAT, either.
Guillaume Ier de Normandie..you're
pathedic.
And you, Madam, need to take an English class.
It harms society because it confuses and harms children.
Cite?
Specious, utterly specious.
Oh, my.
How would you propose a study of this
nature be done?
Well, let's put it this way.
A person has claimed that two men marrying each other harms children.
Same-sex marriage is available in a number of countries and
jurisdictions.
|
A number of countries?? For how long??
Some things are easy to know. Don't touch a hot stove is one example.
It is easy and obvious to understand that men and women are different
in many, many ways. The reason for that difference is that children
need that difference.
States recognize and license marriage because the unique combination
of one man and one woman is a recognized good for society. There is no
equivalent combination.
| Quote: | So, if the statement that same-sex marriage harms or otherwise
confuses children -- and indeed if confusing a child is grounds for
denying rights to a group -- then there should be SOME evidence, no?
Oh that's right, it can't be done expect to expose
children to having men marrying men and women marrying women! it ain't
going to happen.
See above. Consider that same-sex marriage is legal and has been for
some time in Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa,
Massachusetts...
|
For some time?? You think a few years and a few people makes a
legitimate basis for determining the long range harm that is being
done to children and society??
| Quote: |
If you don't understand the difference in polarity as well as the
differences in biology between men men and women, that's your
problem.
What does knowing the differences in biology between men and women
have to do with anything?
|
It has everything to do with the issue. Blindly disregarding the most
obvious differences would be a first requirement in order to take the
crazy position you're presently holding. But the rest of us aren't so
blind.
| Quote: | Marriage is not a right. It is a license.
Obtaining a marriage license is a right if you qualify for the
license.
Nope. It would till be a privilege...a privilege that is reserved for
heterosexual unions.
If you meet the license requirements, you have the right to the
license.
Yes, you have the right to the LICENSE which is by definition a |
privilege. You only get that privilege by meeting the requirements of
that license. otherwise you have no right to it.
| Quote: | Don't believe me? Try to deny to a license someone who
meets the requirements. The courts will tell you that they have a
right to marry.
Indeed, courts have found marriage to be a "fundamental right".
|
I've seen where a few judges have written law instead of interpreting
it.
| Quote: | If you don't meet the
requirements, you can't get the license.
The requirement is that the
license is between one man and one woman.
Requirements can be changed. That's why we're trying to reaffirm
gays' right to get a license.
There is no reaffirming what does not exist.
Well, the California Supreme Court would disagree. They affirmed the
right of same-sex couples to marry just this past May.
|
Those judges wrote the law instead of interpreted it, which is why it
was placed on the ballot yet again.
| Quote: |
It would be a privilege
to get a license, a privilege that has repeatedly been reserved.
Courts have found marriage to be a "fundamental right".
|
Asked and answered.
| Quote: |
To exercise the privilege marry someone of the opposite sex.
Well, see, that wouldn't be quite honest, would it. I mean, I know
that being in love isn't a REQUIREMENT for getting married, but in the
modern day it's generally assumed.
So what you're suggesting I do is present a lie to the public.
|
If you don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, then marriage
is not a license you would qualify for. You don't need a license to
vote, because it is a right. Youneed a license to marry because it is
not a right, but a privilege.
| Quote: | That's not very Christian of you.
|
Spare me the religious bullshit argument. These are civil laws and
licenses.
| Quote: | Not two men. Not two women. Not one man and two women. Not two men and
one woman. Not one person and one pet
Ah, there's that slippery slope again! LOL!
There is no slope. The cliff begins and ends at one man one woman.
Depends on jurisdiction.
But yes, the slope is there, and it's mighty slippery. Slippery
slopes are fallacies, fallacies render conclusions logically invalid.
Hey, I didn't make the rules of logic.
|
You put forth the false argument and then attack yourself. Go figure.
| Quote: | ....one man and one woman.
And there's no reason that sex discrimination should apply to the
fundamental right of marriage, there's nothing wrong with it being
available also to man-man and woman-woman relationships.
There is no sex discrimination. All members of both sexes who meet the
requirements of the state can get married.
Cool. So when the state says that two members of the same sex can
marry, you'll have no problem.
|
If it is determined legally, then there is little I can do. So far, we
have a rogue court writing law.
| Quote: | And you've gone on the record as stating that.
There is no fundamental right to marriage.
Courts of law disagree with you. But I suppose we should listen to
you instead, huh?
LOL!!
|
The court decisions contradict the law as it was written in their
written opinion. It is an outrage that those four judges have broken
their oath to follow the law and have to this point written new law.
For any judge to declare that marriage is a fundamental right when it
is clearly in the law as a LICENSE...which is why they call it a
marriage LICENSE... meaning it is a privilege based on meeting
specific requirements, tells anyone with any objectivity that those
judges have crossed the line. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Owner and Trainer of boba
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 15, 12:42 am, awthraw...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 14, 2:55 pm, Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Same-sex marriage is available in a number of countries and
jurisdictions.
A number of countries??
|
Yes. Are you REALLY unaware???????? Seriously???? You can't be
serious. Can you????
Same-sex marriage with ALL rights of heterosexual marriage, is FULLY
legal in the following COUNTRIES:
+ Canada (Yep!)
+ Spain
+ The Netherlands
+ Belgium
+ South Africa
+ Norway (Jan 1, 2009)
There are other countries that RECOGNIZE those marriages, including
Israel and France.
Differs by region.
| Quote: | Some things are easy to know.
|
Well, it appears you didn't even realize that WHOLE COUNTRIES have
legalized same-sex marriage!
| Quote: | Don't touch a hot stove is one example.
It is easy and obvious to understand that men and women are different
in many, many ways.
|
So what?
| Quote: | The reason for that difference is that children
need that difference.
|
What kind of shit are you pulling out of your ass here?
| Quote: | States recognize and license marriage because the unique combination
of one man and one woman is a recognized good for society.
|
How is that unique combination, with respect to rights, any better
than a man-man or woman-woman combination?
| Quote: | There is no
equivalent combination.
|
Nobody said there was. There is also no equivalent combination to man-
man or woman-woman relationships. What's your point?
| Quote: | So, if the statement that same-sex marriage harms or otherwise
confuses children -- and indeed if confusing a child is grounds for
denying rights to a group -- then there should be SOME evidence, no?
Oh that's right, it can't be done expect to expose
children to having men marrying men and women marrying women! it ain't
going to happen.
See above. Consider that same-sex marriage is legal and has been for
some time in Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa,
Massachusetts...
For some time?? You think a few years and a few people makes a
legitimate basis for determining the long range harm that is being
done to children and society??
|
You're doomsaying again. Now you want us to wait for 100 years to
make sure that every single child can be studied from birth to grave.
And it will never end.
If you can find PROOF that children are somehow irrevocably harmed by
same-sex marriage, SHOW US.
You people are ALWAYS screeching "WHAT ABOUT THE
CHILDREN?!?!??!?!?!?" Children don't give a fuck. If they DO, it's
because dolts like you have taught them to HATE.
Yeah, it's not about the children, honey. It's about YOU. YOU don't
like it. Fess up.
| Quote: |
If you don't understand the difference in polarity as well as the
differences in biology between men men and women, that's your
problem.
What does knowing the differences in biology between men and women
have to do with anything?
It has everything to do with the issue. Blindly disregarding the most
obvious differences would be a first requirement in order to take the
crazy position you're presently holding. But the rest of us aren't so
blind.
|
You make no sense here. We all recognize the biological difference
between men and women. So what? I've asked you what this has to do
with anything, and you have not answered.
| Quote: |
Marriage is not a right. It is a license.
Obtaining a marriage license is a right if you qualify for the
license.
Nope. It would till be a privilege...a privilege that is reserved for
heterosexual unions.
If you meet the license requirements, you have the right to the
license.
Yes, you have the right to the LICENSE which is by definition a
privilege.
|
Get over yourself, Blanche. If a couple meet the requirements of the
license, they have a legal right to the license.
Period.
| Quote: | You only get that privilege by meeting the requirements of
that license. otherwise you have no right to it.
|
That's what I said! Jeesh!
| Quote: | Don't believe me? Try to deny to a license someone who
meets the requirements. The courts will tell you that they have a
right to marry.
Indeed, courts have found marriage to be a "fundamental right".
I've seen where a few judges have written law instead of interpreting
it.
|
Zzzz. Yeah. Definition for ya: "Activist judge": A judge who makes
a decision I don't like.
| Quote: | If you don't meet the
requirements, you can't get the license.
The requirement is that the
license is between one man and one woman.
Requirements can be changed. That's why we're trying to reaffirm
gays' right to get a license.
There is no reaffirming what does not exist.
Well, the California Supreme Court would disagree. They affirmed the
right of same-sex couples to marry just this past May.
Those judges wrote the law instead of interpreted it,
|
Incorrect. They saw that the California constitution did not prohibit
same-sex marriage, so they affirmed the right. That which is not
forbidden, is allowed. Doesn't matter how long you've done something
one way, if the other way isn't forbidden, it is allowed. Check the
U.S. Constitution, ex post facto laws. There shall be none. You
should have learned this by the time you graduated high school.
| Quote: | which is why it
was placed on the ballot yet again.
|
It was placed on the ballot again because bigots and fear-mongers knew
that if their duly elected legislators got a hold of it, it would be
doomed.
So the case -- well, one of them, anyway -- going before the
California Supreme Court will have the court decide if this initiative
amounts to a REVISION of the Constitution.
I believe that it IS a revision, because a right had already been
affirmed in the constitution, and the initiative serves to revise that
and take that right away.
If the court finds that this is the case, they will send the matter to
the legislature, which is where it should have come from in the first
place.
| Quote: | It would be a privilege
to get a license, a privilege that has repeatedly been reserved.
Courts have found marriage to be a "fundamental right".
Asked and answered.
To exercise the privilege marry someone of the opposite sex.
Well, see, that wouldn't be quite honest, would it. I mean, I know
that being in love isn't a REQUIREMENT for getting married, but in the
modern day it's generally assumed.
So what you're suggesting I do is present a lie to the public.
If you don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, then marriage
is not a license you would qualify for.
|
We're changing those qualifications to allow people to marry
regardless of gender.
| Quote: | You don't need a license to
vote, because it is a right.
|
Huh?
| Quote: | You need a license to marry because it is
not a right, but a privilege.
|
You're trying to split hair, and you're not doing very well. There
are qualifications for voting, too. Or didn't you knwo? You have to
be 18 or older. You have to be a U.S. citizen. Et cetera. You have
to register to vote. Your right to vote can be taken away.
Courts have affirmed that marriage is a "fundamental right". So not
matter how you try to split hairs, there it is for you, in black and
white, which shouldn't be hard for you to see because that's how you
see everything.
| Quote: | That's not very Christian of you.
Spare me the religious bullshit argument. These are civil laws and
licenses.
|
Hey, you're the one who suggested that lying was cool.
| Quote: | Not two men. Not two women. Not one man and two women. Not two men and
one woman. Not one person and one pet
Ah, there's that slippery slope again! LOL!
There is no slope. The cliff begins and ends at one man one woman.
Depends on jurisdiction.
But yes, the slope is there, and it's mighty slippery. Slippery
slopes are fallacies, fallacies render conclusions logically invalid.
Hey, I didn't make the rules of logic.
You put forth the false argument and then attack yourself.
|
Where is my "false argument"? How does one define that anyway? I've
said that fallacies make conclusions logically invalid. Do a Google
search.
| Quote: | ....one man and one woman.
And there's no reason that sex discrimination should apply to the
fundamental right of marriage, there's nothing wrong with it being
available also to man-man and woman-woman relationships.
There is no sex discrimination. All members of both sexes who meet the
requirements of the state can get married.
Cool. So when the state says that two members of the same sex can
marry, you'll have no problem.
If it is determined legally, then there is little I can do. So far, we
have a rogue court writing law.
|
Yeah yeah yeah. Again with that. "I don't agree with the decision so
the court is rogue." We hear ya.
| Quote: | And you've gone on the record as stating that.
There is no fundamental right to marriage.
Courts of law disagree with you. But I suppose we should listen to
you instead, huh?
LOL!!
The court decisions contradict the law as it was written in their
written opinion.
|
So you're saying that the courts are wrong. The courts that have
upheld marriage as a "fundamental right", are incorrect.
| Quote: | It is an outrage that those four judges have broken
their oath to follow the law and have to this point written new law.
|
Well, if you know anything about constitutional law, you'll know that
the decision they made is the right one. I doubt that you spent too
much time looking at their decision, but they were in fact correct on
this case. There was no prohibition against same-sex marriage in the
state's constitution.
| Quote: | For any judge to declare that marriage is a fundamental right when it
is clearly in the law as a LICENSE...
|
Zzzz. Well, as I pointed out, the same applies to voting, right? You
must meet the qualifications, you must register, or you don't have the
right to vote.
| Quote: | which is why they call it a
marriage LICENSE...
|
Oh, geez.
| Quote: | meaning it is a privilege based on meeting
specific requirements,
|
As with voting, as I pointed out to you. So why don't you call my
voter registration card a license? Hmm? If I move, I even have to
notify the board of elections! Just like with a driver's license.
| Quote: | tells anyone with any objectivity that those
judges have crossed the line.
|
Hmmm... well, I guess about half of the people in California agree
with you. I'm thinking its mostly the bigoted uneducated half, but
that's just my guess. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:02 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
It's all part of the UN trying to control population. Gay marriage
means less reproduction. Less people, easier to control than more.
The chemtrails didn't work with their sterilization drugs, so now they
try to push gay marriage and modify our DNA with more chemtrails to
make the gay gene more prevalent. Plus the genetically altered food
we eat makes us more docile.
And mind control rays from the Sputniks round it all out. Wear good
old fashioned boiler foil, shiny side out to reflect most of the mind
control rays. The only food that is safe to eat is highly processed
"potted meat food product" that is deep fried. Garden vegetables
could be contaminated from chem trails sprayed from passing jets.
Do you see the conspiracy? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mike
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 14, 1:55 am, "G. K. Heyes" <guenter_he...@tinyeden.org> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 14, 12:27 am, "michael ellis" <dvd...@bak.rr.com> wrote:
I won't sign a petition. That I don't believe in. I voted for yes on 8.
And damn proud of it. Why do you want to petition against a church
that stands against a lifestyle most of us feels is wrong? I'm a
heterosexual
and goddamn proud of it. Gays and lesbians should be thankful for
having the title of civil rights..instead having nothing. Guillaume Ier de
Normandie..you're a fool. Posting a petition most of us won't sign..because
we feel gay marriage is wrong and is basically for man and woman.
Can gays be happy with civil rights? If they're not happy with that. Too
goddamn bad. Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN for man and woman.
Guillaume Ier de Normandie..you're pathedic.
"Guillaume Ier de Normandie" <guillaumedenorman...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:a3ac65d6-3f83-449c-9e4f-acb4cfbf01e8@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Sign the petition here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/review-the-501c3-status-of-the-churc....
The LDS church contributed a significant amount of money and effort to
endorse PROP 8 in California via its network of church, media, and
community outlets enshrining discrimination under the law for
thousands of Californians and their families.
"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)."
See:http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
I believe you don’t get the point. The complain is about a religious
organization using their funds to influence a political/legal
decision.
|
That is saying that churches cannot advocate for any issue, even when
it concerns matters of family and marriage, issues that are part of
the social fabric.
| Quote: | The petition concerns the separation between church and
state, not an opinion on values. Maybe you should look at the many
referendums on abortion in the 1970’s in European countries where the
separation between church and state is a bit better controlled. In my
country of birth –(Austria)- the priests were not even allowed to
preach against the abortion prior to the referendum, those few who did
so faced the courts.
|
Then their freedom of speech was quashed. This is not seperation of
church and state. This is state invading the church's turf, directing
priests what they can and cannot say in sermons to their own
congregations. Very sad.
| Quote: | All that was permitted was a reading of the
Catholic Church on their stand on abortion. The priests were not
permitted to incite people in their sermons to vote against the
abortion laws. The pro-abortion law passed with an over 70% majority
in a country with 85% Catholics.
|
Was it necessary then, for the government to step in and muzzle the
churches?
| Quote: | Similar results were in most other
European countries at that time. A similar event happened just a few
years ago when the then still living Pope John Paul asked Italian
pharmacists to no longer sell condoms. Italy is also a strongly
catholic country. The church got a very clear “GFY” reply to this
request.
|
Which is the pharmacists right. Here, we've had issues with
pharmacists refusing to sell women the morning after pill for
religious reasons. I don't know what became of it as far as lawsuits
or whatnot, but with a pharmacy on practically every corner, a woman
could find another pharmacy that would fulfill her request within a
few minutes.
| Quote: | Religion is an issue that is personal. It can and shall never
be used for legislative reasons.
|
| Quote: | In America, people should learn that
there is a difference between believing in something – (Family values)
- and preaching and motivating people to take political action.
|
This is called advocacy. Following your logic, only secular groups
could advocate for or against a cause. Religious groups are
definitely stakeholders in many issues. They shouldn't be singled out
and told that they have to keep absolutely silent about every issue
that happens to show up on a ballot.
| Quote: | It is
one thing to preach: “God loves all life …” and another to preach: “If
you vote pro-abortion, pro-gay etc, you will fry in hell …please
donate so we can ensure that this law shall not be passed etc…” and
this is what the whole issue is about.
|
In such cases, I believe people can vote in another way, by shunning
such churches. When churches overreach like that, they risk losing
congregants. In many cases, though, a church simply reflects the
values of those who belong to them.
Therefore, if people believe that gay marriage is a non-starter and
belong to a church that reflects their views, what is to prevent them
from using that church's facilities and resources to advocate?
| Quote: |
Tiny Eden: -http://tinyeden.org- Nudism, bi-sexuality, religion,
politics & more- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
G. K. Heyes
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:34 pm Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 15, 9:50 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 14, 1:55 am, "G. K. Heyes" <guenter_he...@tinyeden.org> wrote:
On Nov 14, 12:27 am, "michael ellis" <dvd...@bak.rr.com> wrote:
I won't sign a petition. That I don't believe in. I voted for yes on 8.
And damn proud of it. Why do you want to petition against a church
that stands against a lifestyle most of us feels is wrong? I'm a
heterosexual
and goddamn proud of it. Gays and lesbians should be thankful for
having the title of civil rights..instead having nothing. Guillaume Ier de
Normandie..you're a fool. Posting a petition most of us won't sign..because
we feel gay marriage is wrong and is basically for man and woman.
Can gays be happy with civil rights? If they're not happy with that. Too
goddamn bad. Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN for man and woman.
Guillaume Ier de Normandie..you're pathedic.
"Guillaume Ier de Normandie" <guillaumedenorman...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:a3ac65d6-3f83-449c-9e4f-acb4cfbf01e8@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Sign the petition here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/review-the-501c3-status-of-the-churc...
The LDS church contributed a significant amount of money and effort to
endorse PROP 8 in California via its network of church, media, and
community outlets enshrining discrimination under the law for
thousands of Californians and their families.
"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)."
See:http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
I believe you don’t get the point. The complain is about a religious
organization using their funds to influence a political/legal
decision.
That is saying that churches cannot advocate for any issue, even when
it concerns matters of family and marriage, issues that are part of
the social fabric.
The petition concerns the separation between church and
state, not an opinion on values. Maybe you should look at the many
referendums on abortion in the 1970’s in European countries where the
separation between church and state is a bit better controlled. In my
country of birth –(Austria)- the priests were not even allowed to
preach against the abortion prior to the referendum, those few who did
so faced the courts.
Then their freedom of speech was quashed. This is not seperation of
church and state. This is state invading the church's turf, directing
priests what they can and cannot say in sermons to their own
congregations. Very sad.
>All that was permitted was a reading of the
Catholic Church on their stand on abortion. The priests were not
permitted to incite people in their sermons to vote against the
abortion laws. The pro-abortion law passed with an over 70% majority
in a country with 85% Catholics.
Was it necessary then, for the government to step in and muzzle the
churches?
>Similar results were in most other
European countries at that time. A similar event happened just a few
years ago when the then still living Pope John Paul asked Italian
pharmacists to no longer sell condoms. Italy is also a strongly
catholic country. The church got a very clear “GFY” reply to this
request.
Which is the pharmacists right. Here, we've had issues with
pharmacists refusing to sell women the morning after pill for
religious reasons. I don't know what became of it as far as lawsuits
or whatnot, but with a pharmacy on practically every corner, a woman
could find another pharmacy that would fulfill her request within a
few minutes.
Religion is an issue that is personal. It can and shall never
be used for legislative reasons.
In America, people should learn that
there is a difference between believing in something – (Family values)
- and preaching and motivating people to take political action.
This is called advocacy. Following your logic, only secular groups
could advocate for or against a cause. Religious groups are
definitely stakeholders in many issues. They shouldn't be singled out
and told that they have to keep absolutely silent about every issue
that happens to show up on a ballot.
It is
one thing to preach: “God loves all life …” and another to preach: “If
you vote pro-abortion, pro-gay etc, you will fry in hell …please
donate so we can ensure that this law shall not be passed etc…” and
this is what the whole issue is about.
In such cases, I believe people can vote in another way, by shunning
such churches. When churches overreach like that, they risk losing
congregants. In many cases, though, a church simply reflects the
values of those who belong to them.
Therefore, if people believe that gay marriage is a non-starter and
belong to a church that reflects their views, what is to prevent them
from using that church's facilities and resources to advocate?
Tiny Eden: -http://tinyeden.org-Nudism, bi-sexuality, religion,
politics & more- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
You are quite wrong in all points!
A church/religion operates on a principles of believes, not facts. In
a state and for the benefit of a people believes have no existence,
facts only matter.
Sexual behavior is not a question of “morality or values” it is a
question of the sexual instincts of a species. Morality is “Man Made”
and varies from culture to culture. What the gay movement is always
trying to underline is that being gay is Natural and thus void from
moral believes! It is however religion with its man made morality that
enforced believes and values that have nothing to do with the natural
beings that we humans are! The whole issue of marriage is a recent
“invention” that came out from the invention of agriculture some
10,000 years ago. Since agriculture is an issue of “Possession of
property” compared to the communal democracy of a hunting & gathering
tribe, the linage became important. One had to be certain that the son
to whom one passed on one’s possessions was also the true biological
son. Thus => Virginity cult. Also agriculture demanded a higher amount
of people to maintain this culture, so the family became a breeding
operation for manpower! Agriculture demeaned more administration! Thus
=> “Uniform behavior model” enforced on it’s members. This is how all
this crap began! And religion was just the crux they needed in order
to keep the people dumb! And it is this 10,000 + years of continuous
religious oppression that is fought today. Live and let live and for
this reason churches have to keep their opinion out from politics.
Tiny Eden: - http://tinyeden.org - Nudism, bi-sexuality, religion,
politics & more. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Owner and Trainer of boba
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 15, 7:50 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Which is the pharmacists right. Here, we've had issues with
pharmacists refusing to sell women the morning after pill for
religious reasons. I don't know what became of it as far as lawsuits
or whatnot, but with a pharmacy on practically every corner, a woman
could find another pharmacy that would fulfill her request within a
few minutes.
|
Wow.
You would REALLY have a woman have to walk or drive to another place
in order to get medication, because someone's religious beliefs
forbade the dispensing of a certain type of legal medication?
Are you fucking SERIOUS????????????????? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mike
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 15, 2:55 pm, "Owner and Trainer of bobandcarole (a.k.a. Nomen
Nescio, et al.)" <tugeh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 15, 7:50 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
Which is the pharmacists right. Here, we've had issues with
pharmacists refusing to sell women the morning after pill for
religious reasons. I don't know what became of it as far as lawsuits
or whatnot, but with a pharmacy on practically every corner, a woman
could find another pharmacy that would fulfill her request within a
few minutes.
Wow.
You would REALLY have a woman have to walk or drive to another place
in order to get medication, because someone's religious beliefs
forbade the dispensing of a certain type of legal medication?
|
No, I wouldn't, but since I am not a pharmacist, it's not my
decision. A federal judge decided that pharmacists have the right to
refuse, overturning a Washington state law.
| Quote: |
Are you fucking SERIOUS?????????????????
|
If you want to be even more incredulous and outraged, this link is to
a story about a woman who gave birth after being refused emergency
contraception. It happened in Great Britain.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Woman_refused_morning_after_pill_gives_birth&in_article_id=338579&in_page_id=34 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
hyperbola
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 13, 8:50 pm, Guillaume Ier de Normandie
<guillaumedenorman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Sign the petition here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/review-the-501c3-status-of-the-churc...
The LDS church contributed a significant amount of money
|
Can you show me where LDS inc contributed even a penny?
Thanks. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
