| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cupid Stunt, Owner and Tr
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:44 pm Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
 |
|
On Nov 15, 4:30 pm, hyperbola <bolahype...@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
Can you show me where LDS inc contributed even a penny?
Thanks.
|
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051 |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Mike
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 14, 12:23 pm, Emerson Wainwright <scot...@walla.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 14, 11:21 am, unsurreality_2...@yahoo.com wrote:
|
-------------------snip
| Quote: | I'm heterosexual. Married to a woman (man and wife). But I simply
don't feel the need to ban others doing what they want - as long as it
doesn't hurt others.
So, how does it hurt you...PERSONALLY?
It doesn't. We've asked REPEATEDLY, since this issue became a hot
topic, HOW allowing same-sex marriage could POSSIBLY negatively affect
straight marriages.
|
Who has argued that gay marriage personally hurts him or her?
Who argued that they were personally hurt by gay marriage? What are
their names?
One can still have a principled stand against gay marriage. There are
long-range legal and cultural ramifications, not the least is the fact
that for most people gay marriage is oxymoronic and undefinable, like
division by zero.
Let me ask you this: how are gay couples personally being hurt by not
having a certificate? Why is that of such overwhelming, absolute
importance right now, worth starting a culture war over?
Live your lives and prosper. You've gotten some good concessions from
society over the last few decades and it's good that you did, but
don't try to force society to do something it doesn't want to do. You
will definitely have some push back. You said to hell with democracy
when people voted against gay marriage twice, and that's troubling in
itself.
| Quote: |
The issue is ALWAYS avoided, and we are presented then with slippery
slope arguments ("If you allow men to marry men, soon they will be
allowed to marry goats", "If you allow two women to marry, soon they
will be allowed to marry newborn infants", etc.).
I've asked this before but
have yet to get a real answer except "it's gross" or "the bible says
it is wrong."
|
Yes, many people are sqeamish at seeing men buss each other, and
personally don't care to form mental pictues of what same sex couples
do in bed. But they'll leave consenting adults alone to do it.
Care for each other and enjoy each other's company, get married in a
church that solemnizes same sex unions and avail yourselves of all the
civil and legal rights and protections such unions have. Be known and
recognized as his husband, her wife--whatever between yourselves, with
family, friends, and acquaintences.
As for trying to force society at large to formally recognize your
union and to grant it the same overall status of those that are
consistent with biology and nature, forget it.
| Quote: | That's all they've got. The ones who don't use the religious
"argument" realize they're in trouble, but at the same time most don't
want to admit that they're bigots, so we get only fallacious
arguments.
|
The comparison between gays and blacks is false. There was no valid
religious reason to oppose black people from voting or holding
office. There is plenty of scriptural reason to think homosexuality
is wrong. Regardless of whether you believe or not, other people do.
This attempt to make gay marriage an issue on par with the civil
rights movement is, among other things, a way for militants to define
their opposition. That way, anyone who does not enthusiastically
support gay marriage can be called a hate-filled bigot, can be equated
with the Grand Wizard in linen, igniting a cross.
It's not going to work. Besides, black people, having come through
some horrendous times to get their right to vote, are not happy that
you show such contempt for their hard-won right.
| Quote: |
Give me a real, valid reason why, if say Mary and Anna get married in
CA, and how it will affect your next day.
|
It will not affect the next day, but it definitely will in the next 5,
10, or 15 years. After some time, the 50,000 to 100,000 polygamist
families (numbers growing) will demand that their marriages be legally
recognized.
| Quote: |
"Honey, I need to go get some milk."
"OH GOD NO! TWO LESBIANS JUST GOT MARRIED, YOU CAN'T GO OUT!!"
And, "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!??!?!??!?!?!??!?!" Yeah. Children
don't give a fuck. It's the adults who are pitching hissies.- Hide quoted text -
|
The ones pitching hissies are out in full force today. I'm watching
them on CNN. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:07 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 15, 12:12 am, "Owner and Trainer of bobandcarole (a.k.a. Nomen
Nescio, et al.)" <tugeh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 15, 12:42 am, awthraw...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
For how long??
Differs by region.
Some things are easy to know.
Well, it appears you didn't even realize that WHOLE COUNTRIES have
legalized same-sex marriage!
|
You got me there. My life does not revolve around your or my
sexuality. It apparently consumes yours.
| 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?
|
Okay, you admit your stupid about even the simplest of things.
| Quote: |
The reason for that difference is that children
need that difference.
What kind of shit are you pulling out of your ass here?
|
Pulling shit out of one's ass is a gay specialty. It's obvious that
you want to deny that children do best when they have both a mother
and a father. Too bad..it is as obvious as it is obvious that you
shouldn't touch a hot stove.
To pretend otherwise is to deny the obvious.
| 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?
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?
|
Children do best with one man one woman. States recognize this because
there is no equivalent substitute.
| 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.
|
No I don't want you to wait 100 years...I'm telling you no for now and
forever. You were the one who asked for a citation to justify one side
of the argument against the other. My response is that some things
can't be studied. In fact, the notion that one needs a "study" or that
it needs "to be studied" is merely a gambit to be manipulated.
| Quote: |
If you can find PROOF that children are somehow irrevocably harmed by
same-sex marriage, SHOW US.
|
You have your premise all wrong. Children are too valuable to require
the need to meet your hurdles. Some things are obvious: ie., hot
stoves, heterosexual marriage.
| Quote: | 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.
|
When you speak of hate, are you talking about the white powder mailed
to Mormon churches, or the big men assaulting the little, gray-haired
elderly lady?
Of course, you wouldn't understand why we place the children first
over your selfish desires. That's why we are left to defend them.
| Quote: | Yeah, it's not about the children, honey. It's about YOU. YOU don't
like it. Fess up.
|
I like what is good and right. Marriage is reserved for one man and
one woman. That is what is best.
| 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.
|
The biological differences between a man and a woman are designed that
way in large part to be what is best biologically and psychologically
for children.
| 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.
|
If the couple are not comprised of being one man and one woman, the
couple has failed to meet a basic requirement. If you apply for a
driver's license and you are a pillar of the community, but you are
also blind, you don't qualify for the license.
| 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!
|
Nope, you want to slide over the one man/one woman requirement just
like the blind guy wants to sldie by the sight requirement.
| 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.
|
Nowhere did i say that an activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling
I don't like. i did say that a judge who write law rather than
interpreting the law is a rogue. you probably won't grasp the huge
difference. I mean you can't see the difference between opposite sex
marriage and same sex attempts at marriage.
| 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.
|
Now you've changed the argument from a funamnetal right to an
application to change the license. The people of California, AZ and FL
have rejected the application.
| Quote: | 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.
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.
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.
|
You're not doing a very good job of it. The latest vote in CA was an
initiative to add to the Constitution that marriage will remain
between one man and one woman. The previous court ruling did not have
the power of enforcement by the court as noted in the opinion of the
dissenting judge.
So the DEFINITION of marriage as ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN is now a part
of the CA, AZ and FL Constitutions. Try to square that circle, Maude.
| Quote: |
You don't need a license to
vote, because it is a right.
Huh?
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.
|
The people of CA, FL and AZ have now made the definition of marriage a
part of their Constitutions. See if you can repeal it.
| 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.
You tried to insert the false argument of a slippery slope. I called |
you on it by telling you this is not a slippery slope, it's a cliff. I
gave you examples of things that don't qualify for a license. You
leapt at it, calling it a slippery slope.
| 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.
|
Another false claim. it does not follow that if I criticize one ruling
that I always or often refer to ta court as a rogue court. In this
case it is a rogue court because the court inserted it's own law in
place of the law as written.
| 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.
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.
For any judge to declare that marriage is a fundamental right when it
is clearly in the law as a LICENSE...
...
read more » |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Enos Penvy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:38 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 15, 7:07 pm, awthraw...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 15, 12:12 am, "Owner and Trainer of bobandcarole (a.k.a. Nomen
Nescio, et al.)" <tugeh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
Some things are easy to know.
Well, it appears you didn't even realize that WHOLE COUNTRIES have
legalized same-sex marriage!
You got me there. My life does not revolve around your or my
sexuality. It apparently consumes yours.
|
Ummm... well, if you ever watch the news or read a paper or
newsmagazine.... I mean, you don't think these things weren't
mentioned, do you?
| 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?
Okay, you admit your stupid about even the simplest of things.
|
Well, calling me stupid is just an ad hom. Yet another fallacy. You
can't provide evidence for your statement, so you call ME stupid for
not knowing what you yourself cannot prove!
LOL!
| Quote: | The reason for that difference is that children
need that difference.
What kind of shit are you pulling out of your ass here?
Pulling shit out of one's ass is a gay specialty. It's obvious that
you want to deny that children do best when they have both a mother
and a father.
|
Well, sorry, but we can't guarantee that even in STRAIGHT marriages
now, can we?
| Quote: | Too bad..it is as obvious as it is obvious that you
shouldn't touch a hot stove.
|
Touching a hot stove is one thing. Your analogy is lost because it
makes no sense. You sound like a kook.
| Quote: | To pretend otherwise is to deny the obvious.
|
Post your proof. Just saying "It's obvious" does nothing in an
argument, except make me laugh at you.
| 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?
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?
Children do best with one man one woman.
|
Cite, please.
After you find a cite, then tell us what we do about the heteros who
don't stay married even though they've got kids.
| Quote: | States recognize this because
there is no equivalent substitute.
|
"No equivalent substitute" also applies to man-man and woman-woman
relationships, so your premise is dismissed.
| Quote: | 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.
No I don't want you to wait 100 years...I'm telling you no for now and
forever.
|
Ah, so you lied.
Nice try. Lies don't work in arguments very well, and now that you've
admitted to presenting a lie, your entire argument goes down the
tubes. FWOOSH!!! Right into the sewer.
| Quote: | You were the one who asked for a citation to justify one side
of the argument against the other. My response is that some things
can't be studied.
|
You stated something as fact. If you can't prove the fact, then you
need to remove the premise.
| Quote: | In fact, the notion that one needs a "study" or that
it needs "to be studied" is merely a gambit to be manipulated.
|
You fear being manipulated by scientific studies?
Honey, that says SO MUCH about you that I'm not even going to start.
| Quote: | If you can find PROOF that children are somehow irrevocably harmed by
same-sex marriage, SHOW US.
You have your premise all wrong.
|
Nope.
| Quote: | Children are too valuable to require
the need to meet your hurdles. Some things are obvious: ie., hot
stoves, heterosexual marriage.
|
You're using children as a shield to protect yourself from something
you don't want.
That's revolting.
Children are resilient. There HAVE been studies done, and you won't
cite them because THE STUDY RESULTS CONTRADICT what you're trying to
say here!
Loser.
| Quote: | 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.
When you speak of hate, are you talking about the white powder mailed
to Mormon churches, or the big men assaulting the little, gray-haired
elderly lady?
|
Um, did *I* do those things?
No.
Next!!
| Quote: | Of course, you wouldn't understand why we place the children first
over your selfish desires. That's why we are left to defend them.
|
Children are resilient. You want to teach them hate. We're saying
we're tired of that. Teach them truth. They survive and thrive.
They are not damaged by same-sex marriage.
| Quote: | Yeah, it's not about the children, honey. It's about YOU. YOU don't
like it. Fess up.
I like what is good and right.
|
BUT YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to prove what IS good and
right. NOT ONE SHRED.
| Quote: | Marriage is reserved for one man and
one woman.
|
Well, but it's not.
| Quote: | That is what is best.
|
Cite. SURELY you have cites for THIS, right?
| Quote: | 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.
The biological differences between a man and a woman are designed that
way in large part to be what is best biologically and psychologically
for children.
|
Aside from conceiving and bearing children, how so?
| Quote: | Get over yourself, Blanche. If a couple meet the requirements of the
license, they have a legal right to the license.
Period.
If the couple are not comprised of being one man and one woman, the
couple has failed to meet a basic requirement.
|
We are working to get that requirement changed. We've been successful
in a great many places in a very short time.
| Quote: | If you apply for a
driver's license and you are a pillar of the community, but you are
also blind, you don't qualify for the license.
|
Right, and there's a very good reason for that.
Preventing a man from marrying his lover has no rational basis.
| 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!
Nope, you want to slide over the one man/one woman requirement
|
Yep.
| Quote: | just
like the blind guy wants to sldie by the sight requirement.
|
Faulty analogy. One can't drive if one can't see. One would not pass
the licensing exam in the first place.
| Quote: | Zzzz. Yeah. Definition for ya: "Activist judge": A judge who makes
a decision I don't like.
Nowhere did i say that an activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling
I don't like.
|
How stupid ARE you? *I* said it. That's how you use the term. "I
don't like the judge's decision, therefore, he is an activist judge."
It's a Republican mantra!
| Quote: | i did say that a judge who write law rather than
interpreting the law is a rogue.
|
No judge wrote law in the present case. You can look through the
California constitution yourself and see if same-sex marriage is
mentioned in it.
That which is not forbidden is allowed.
| Quote: | you probably won't grasp the huge
difference. I mean you can't see the difference between opposite sex
marriage and same sex attempts at marriage.
|
The differences are minute and no reason to ban a man from marrying
another man.
YOU can't and refuse to see or even look at the SIMILARITIES.
| Quote: | Now you've changed the argument from a funamnetal right to an
application to change the license.
|
First of all, I didn't come up with the phrase "fundamental right".
Courts have done that.
Secondly, you snipped the part where I put you in your place with
respect to that other fundamental right, VOTING, which I showed to be
very similar to obtaining a marriage LICENSE.
| Quote: | The people of California, AZ and FL
have rejected the application.
|
Yep. We're working to rid Californians of this ridiculousness.
Florida and Arizona, in time.
| Quote: | 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.
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.
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.
You're not doing a very good job of it.
|
Well, but, we are.  Five years ago, there were ZERO same-sex
married couples in the U.S. Entire NATIONS have legalized same-sex
marriage in that time. Including our neighbor to the north, and the
very Catholic country of Spain! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Emerson Wainwright
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:59 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 15, 6:29 pm, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 14, 12:23 pm, Emerson Wainwright <scot...@walla.com> wrote:
On Nov 14, 11:21 am, unsurreality_2...@yahoo.com wrote:
-------------------snip
I'm heterosexual. Married to a woman (man and wife). But I simply
don't feel the need to ban others doing what they want - as long as it
doesn't hurt others.
So, how does it hurt you...PERSONALLY?
It doesn't. We've asked REPEATEDLY, since this issue became a hot
topic, HOW allowing same-sex marriage could POSSIBLY negatively affect
straight marriages.
Who has argued that gay marriage personally hurts him or her?
|
The people who said that allowing same-sex marriage would hurt the
institution of marriage.
| Quote: | Who argued that they were personally hurt by gay marriage? What are
their names?
|
Get real.
| Quote: | One can still have a principled stand against gay marriage.
|
I don't see how.
| Quote: | There are
long-range legal and cultural ramifications,
|
Cite?
| Quote: | not the least is the fact
that for most people gay marriage is oxymoronic
|
Cite "most gay people". And then also provide us with how even if it
were "oxymoronic" for "most" gay people (that includes lesbians, ya
know), the ones who want to be married should be denied marriage
simply because they are not part of what you claim is the vast
majority.
| Quote: | and undefinable, like
division by zero.
|
Something tells me you're not a mathematician, so spare us the
numbers.
| Quote: | Let me ask you this: how are gay couples personally being hurt by not
having a certificate?
|
They are denied the rights as a couple that opposite-sex couples get
automatically and for free upon marriage.
| Quote: | Why is that of such overwhelming, absolute
importance right now, worth starting a culture war over?
|
Oh, my. It really DOES scare you.
Listen, you'll survive. The people in Canada, Spain, the Netherlands,
South Africa, Belgium, Massachusetts, Connecticut and California have
survived -- without detriment -- this scary "culture war". The
nations and states did not fall into the sea, did not burn down,
children didn't suddenly start dying... all of your kind's slippery
slopes have never come to pass.
| Quote: | Live your lives and prosper.
|
Give me equal rights.
| Quote: | You've gotten some good concessions from
society over the last few decades and it's good that you did, but
don't try to force society to do something it doesn't want to do.
|
You actually think that allowing same-sex marriage will FORCE people
to marry members of the same sex?
What a loooooooon!
| Quote: | You
will definitely have some push back. You said to hell with democracy
when people voted against gay marriage twice, and that's troubling in
itself.
|
Are you saying that using the judicial system isn't democratic? Is
THAT what you're saying?
Gonna snip the rest unread. I've given you enough to think about for
now.
//snip// |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ramon F Herrera
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:15 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
As an American who immigrated to this country as an adult, I am
sometimes surprised at the lack of knowledge I see about its very
fundamental basis. Not only from the Sarah Palins of the world, but
even from more enlightened citizens.
Every time I hear the "Let's tax them!" threat, I shudder.
Think about it. Since the foundation of this republic, churches would
very much like to be taxed. It is we the people who reject their
coffers full of money, and tell them: "Sorry, go away! We don't want
your money with all of its strings attached!"
Should I explain further?
How about the "No taxation without representation" principle? If we
fold it backwards logically, we end up with "If you tax me, I get to
decide how to use the money!"
What's next? Should we sell congress seats to Hugo Chavez or the
Chinese?
-Ramon The Gentile Layman |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john p
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:21 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:59:52 -0500, Harold Burton wrote:
| Quote: | In article
92f30008-2ee4-4cca-aeb9-c816b86e8dc7@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
"Owner and Trainer of bobandcarole (a.k.a. Nomen Nescio, et al.)"
tugehits@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
Same-sex marriage with ALL rights of heterosexual marriage, is FULLY
legal in the following COUNTRIES:
+ Canada (Yep!)
So move there.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid988092926?
bctid=18428564
10
|
How about you move to some backward country like Iran when gay marriage
is legalized in the US, or sooner.
--
John P.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities." ~Voltaire |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john p
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:35 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:15:34 -0800, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
| Quote: | As an American who immigrated to this country as an adult, I am
sometimes surprised at the lack of knowledge I see about its very
fundamental basis. Not only from the Sarah Palins of the world, but even
from more enlightened citizens.
Every time I hear the "Let's tax them!" threat, I shudder.
|
If they are going to act like PAC's then they should be taxed like one.
IMO they should be taxed anyway because there is nothing wrong with
paying your fair share. They use services the government provide. For
example, if their buildings catch fire they expect the fire dept to show
up and do their tax funded job.
| Quote: | Think about it. Since the foundation of this republic, churches would
very much like to be taxed. It is we the people who reject their coffers
full of money, and tell them: "Sorry, go away! We don't want your money
with all of its strings attached!"
|
Wrong, there is nothing stopping churches from paying taxes if they want
to. They don't want to pay taxes so they agree not to do things we in
the US collectively decided churches shouldn't be able to do while
retaining their tax exempt status.
| Quote: | Should I explain further?
How about the "No taxation without representation" principle? If we fold
it backwards logically, we end up with "If you tax me, I get to decide
how to use the money!"
|
Corporations are taxed and people are OK with that. Churches are often
just corporations that pretend to do a public service and get away with
not paying their fair share.
| Quote: | What's next? Should we sell congress seats to Hugo Chavez or the
Chinese?
|
How did you get there?
--
John P.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities." ~Voltaire |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:09 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 14, 8:08 am, awthraw...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | Go to the inner city and hold one of your rallies. Those churches
violate the IRS laws every Sunday. Be sure to wear a bullet proof
vest.
|
Oh, my word. You need to turn off the TV and get a grip on reality.
I've attended many inner city churches and I've never even seen a
gun! What do you think it is like down there? Kosovo during the civil
war? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 14, 8:21 am, unsurreality_2...@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | I'm heterosexual. Married to a woman (man and wife). But I simply
don't feel the need to ban others doing what they want - as long as it
doesn't hurt others.
|
Same with me! Same with all normal guys.
Secure straight men just can't get all worked up in a lather about
this gay thing. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ramon F Herrera
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:21 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 15, 9:35 pm, john p <john.ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
There is nothing stopping churches from paying taxes
if they want to.
|
Oh yes, there is. It is called "The Separation of Church and States",
and your answer is a perfect example of how people born and raised
here do not understand such a fundamental concept. You understand only
one half of the concept.
| Quote: | Corporations are taxed and people are OK with that.
|
Haven't you noticed that every single one of those corporations is
(1) Based on the planet Earth
(2) Has some relationship with the US (incorporated here, has offices
here, etc.)
You need *both* requirements to be taxed. The church doesn't fulfill
requirement (1).
-Ramon |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:53 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
On Nov 15, 7:38 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@ymail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 15, 7:07 pm, awthraw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 15, 12:12 am, "Owner and Trainer of bobandcarole (a.k.a. Nomen
Nescio, et al.)" <tugeh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
Some things are easy to know.
Well, it appears you didn't even realize that WHOLE COUNTRIES have
legalized same-sex marriage!
You got me there. My life does not revolve around your or my
sexuality. It apparently consumes yours.
Ummm... well, if you ever watch the news or read a paper or
newsmagazine.... I mean, you don't think these things weren't
mentioned, do you?
|
You are obsessed with the gay's getting married factor worldwide. I am
not. So of course your world goes in a circular funnel sucked into
that vortex. If I heard about it, it does not register, just like who
is the present world champion Judo wrestler. Nor could I tell you who
is the chief protagonist in the hottest video game. Gay marriage
worldwide holds my interest as much as that.
| 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?
Okay, you admit your stupid about even the simplest of things.
Well, calling me stupid is just an ad hom. Yet another fallacy. You
can't provide evidence for your statement, so you call ME stupid for
not knowing what you yourself cannot prove!
|
Actually you are stupid if you are unable to apprehend how men are
different than women and how that would be a huge factor in the
raising of children.
| Quote: |
LOL!
The reason for that difference is that children
need that difference.
What kind of shit are you pulling out of your ass here?
Pulling shit out of one's ass is a gay specialty. It's obvious that
you want to deny that children do best when they have both a mother
and a father.
Well, sorry, but we can't guarantee that even in STRAIGHT marriages
now, can we?
|
That defense does not rise to the level of an adequate affirmative
argument for your faulty cause. Namely, the failure of a family to
provide the ideal does not argue for two men or two women providing
what is biologically or psychologically inferior at its face for a
child.
| Quote: | Too bad..it is as obvious as it is obvious that you
shouldn't touch a hot stove.
Touching a hot stove is one thing. Your analogy is lost because it
makes no sense. You sound like a kook.
|
I'm in sync with what nature has provided for the continuation of
human life. That might sound kookie to you, but that's because you
have an aberent familial view based on your sexual wiring. In your
case it has driven you to think only about yourself instead of what is
important to families and society.
| Quote: |
To pretend otherwise is to deny the obvious.
Post your proof. Just saying "It's obvious" does nothing in an
argument, except make me laugh at you.
|
Your ignorance is not my responsibility.
| 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?
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?
Children do best with one man one woman.
Cite, please.
|
You try to insert so-called science as a gambit. As if the onus is on
me and those who support what is natural to prove to you who desires
what is unnatural. The onus is not on us.
| Quote: | After you find a cite, then tell us what we do about the heteros who
don't stay married even though they've got kids.
|
Pointing to a situation that is less than ideal does not raise your
desire to the status of ideal.
| Quote: | States recognize this because
there is no equivalent substitute.
"No equivalent substitute" also applies to man-man and woman-woman
relationships, so your premise is dismissed.
|
Those are less than ideal in terms of society needs for the
continuation of society. As such, the state recognizes the need to
support one-man one-woman marriages while it does not recognize the
same societal need for recognizing man-man or woman-woman marriages.
| Quote: |
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.
No I don't want you to wait 100 years...I'm telling you no for now and
forever.
Ah, so you lied.
|
You're lying by accusing me of lying. I have never held a promise of
marriage for homosexuals unions. There will never be a time when
society benefits from recognizing homosexual unions as marriage.
| Quote: |
Nice try. Lies don't work in arguments very well, and now that you've
admitted to presenting a lie, your entire argument goes down the
tubes. FWOOSH!!! Right into the sewer.
|
You've just condemned your own argument by falsely accusing me of
lying.
| Quote: |
You were the one who asked for a citation to justify one side
of the argument against the other. My response is that some things
can't be studied.
You stated something as fact. If you can't prove the fact, then you
need to remove the premise.
In fact, the notion that one needs a "study" or that
it needs "to be studied" is merely a gambit to be manipulated.
You fear being manipulated by scientific studies?
|
So-called scientific studies the primary and most fertile place for
utter bullshit. This is especially true when one thinks there needs to
be study about the relative merits of homosexual parenting to
heterosexual parenting.
It would achieve nothing but cruelty to subject a child or many
children to a study such as that.
| Quote: |
Honey, that says SO MUCH about you that I'm not even going to start.
|
Your hysteria might be cute on Broadway...it doesn't help your cause
here.
| Quote: |
If you can find PROOF that children are somehow irrevocably harmed by
same-sex marriage, SHOW US.
You have your premise all wrong.
Nope.
Children are too valuable to require
the need to meet your hurdles. Some things are obvious: ie., hot
stoves, heterosexual marriage.
You're using children as a shield to protect yourself from something
you don't want.
That's revolting.
|
What is revolting is for an adult to be so self absorbed as you are
that you would put your selfish desires ahead of children.
| Quote: | Children are resilient. There HAVE been studies done, and you won't
cite them because THE STUDY RESULTS CONTRADICT what you're trying to
say here!
|
Oh, that is too funny! Studies from the most radical places in
America, the pro-gay pro-left pro-communist world of the university
social studies programs across America. These sorts of studies mean
less than nothing. They merely put numbers to prejudice.
I'm a loser?? You keep getting shut out by normal people who keep
adding amendments to define marriage as something that can only be
done by one man and one woman.
To normal human beings, you are the consistent loser, because you
refuse to accept reality of biology.
| Quote: |
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.
When you speak of hate, are you talking about the white powder mailed
to Mormon churches, or the big men assaulting the little, gray-haired
elderly lady?
Um, did *I* do those things?
|
Back at you...Have I taught children to hate? No. But you were
perfectly willing to make that unsupported claim. Maybe you are the
hater.
You've falsely called me a liar and a loser, but you don't see
yourself as a hater...isn't that the way it always is..the actual
hater blames everyone else.
| Quote: |
Of course, you wouldn't understand why we place the children first
over your selfish desires. That's why we are left to defend them.
Children are resilient. You want to teach them hate. We're saying
we're tired of that. Teach them truth. They survive and thrive.
They are not damaged by same-sex marriage.
|
Again, there you go with the hate. You're a hater.
| Quote: |
Yeah, it's not about the children, honey. It's about YOU. YOU don't
like it. Fess up.
I like what is good and right.
BUT YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to prove what IS good and
right. NOT ONE SHRED.
Marriage is reserved for one man and
one woman.
Well, but it's not.
That is what is best.
Cite. SURELY you have cites for THIS, right?
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.
The biological differences between a man and a woman are designed that
way in large part to be what is best biologically and psychologically
for children.
Aside from conceiving and bearing children, how so?
|
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" I would
add a third, since you're trying to slip away: conceive, bear, and
RAISE. You cannot as two men or two women provide what a child needs
as well as one man and one woman can.
| Quote: | Get over yourself, Blanche. If a couple meet the requirements of the
license, they have a legal right to the license.
Period.
|
A couple cannot meet that requirement as a homosexual couple. It's now
defined in California, AZ, and FL to be the case as part of the
Constitution.
| Quote: | If the couple are not comprised of being one man and one woman, the
couple has failed to meet a basic requirement.
We are working to get that requirement changed. We've been successful
in a great many places in a very short time.
|
You lost in the very liberal state of California for God's sake! As a
Constitutional measure!
| Quote: |
If you apply for a
driver's license and you are a pillar of the community, but you are
also blind, you don't qualify for the license.
Right, and there's a very good reason for that.
Preventing a man from marrying his lover has no rational basis.
|
Keep thinking that. LOL!
| 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!
Nope, you want to slide over the one man/one woman requirement
Yep.
|
You'll ain't doing to well with that because most people are sane and
rational.
| Quote: |
just
like the blind guy wants to sldie by the sight requirement.
Faulty analogy. One can't drive if one can't see. One would not pass
the licensing exam in the first place.
|
Just like homosexuals flunk the test on sex.
| Quote: |
Zzzz. Yeah. Definition for ya: "Activist judge": A judge who makes
a decision I don't like.
Nowhere did i say that an activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling
I don't like.
How stupid ARE you? *I* said it. That's how you use the term. "I
don't like the judge's decision, therefore, he is an activist judge."
It's a Republican mantra!
i did say that a judge who write law rather than
interpreting the law is a rogue.
No judge wrote law in the present case. You can look through the
California constitution yourself and see if same-sex marriage is
mentioned in it.
That which is not forbidden is allowed.
|
Four of the judges ignored a legitimate law passed by the people.
Did you catch the result of the November 4th constitutional
initiative?
| Quote: |
you probably won't grasp the huge
difference. I mean you can't see the difference between opposite sex
marriage and same sex attempts at marriage.
The differences are minute and no reason to ban a man from marrying
another man.
YOU can't and refuse to see or even look at the SIMILARITIES.
|
Homosexuals are human beings. So they have that similarity. Men can't
have babies or nurse. The bone structure, musculature, brains and
internal organs of men and women are different.
The differences are so obvious that since time began in recorded
history marriage has been reserved for men and women, not for
homosexuals coupling with their own sex. But you know better than all
that. ROFL!
| Quote: |
Now you've changed the argument from a funamnetal right to an
application to change the license.
First of all, I didn't come up with the phrase "fundamental right".
Courts have done that.
Secondly, you snipped the part where I put you in your place with
respect to that other fundamental right, VOTING, which I showed to be
very similar to obtaining a marriage LICENSE.
|
I didn't snip anything. And you're hallucinating if you think you put
me in my place about voting.
| Quote: |
The people of California, AZ and FL
have rejected the application.
Yep. We're working to rid Californians of this ridiculousness.
Florida and Arizona, in time.
|
It must suck to be you...those three states just passed Constitutional
Amendments...that vortex keeps sucking you in because of your failure
to see the obvious.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Did you miss the November 4th results? You're screwed.
| 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.
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
...
read more » |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
No One
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:08 am Post subject: Re: PETITION: Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of L |
|
|
hyperbola <bolahyper46@gmail.com> writes:
| Quote: | On Nov 13, 8:50Â 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
Can you show me where LDS inc contributed even a penny?
|
What they contributed (apparently) was fundraising - getting members
to make large donations to the "yes on eight" campaign, and the
fair market value of that is substantial. IMHO no oganization
should be able to do that tax free unless all can: we don't
want tax laws to inadvertently give one side of an issue an
unfair advantage. | |
