What do you think of same-sex church wedding ceremonies?

[Planeia]

Let's restrict marriage to 100% healthy, heterosexual, white people who completely love each other and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ!

Did you not notice that I was being pro-same sex marriage? Not all Christians are crazies, you know.

I know...

l2sarcasm.

[Planeia]

I meant to say what the word is for practitioners of same-sex marriage, but I couldn't think of what it is so 'homosexuals' was the first thing that came to mind.

Same-sex couples.

Whatever, noted.

[Munrova]

Did you not notice that I was being pro-same sex marriage? Not all Christians are crazies, you know.

I know...

l2sarcasm.

Oh, I knew it was sarcasm. I misread it the first time as if you were responding to someone who said something like,

"What I want to know (as a Christian) is: If marriage is a religious institution, THEN WHY DO GAYS WANT IT?! BURN GAYS BURN!"

But I get it now.

[Dyakovo]

The wedding ring symbolizes the wife is shackled to her owner or husband, and should be discontinued.

Funny...
That's not at all what it symbolizes to me and my wife...

---

Source.

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', I'd assume. Which I'd say actually goes against tax breaks for religions, since the religion is getting special treatment.

Yup. One of my main arguments against churches being automatically tax exempt.

---

No church is being 'forced' to wed anyone, and they should lose their tax exemption anyway.

Aren't they classified as 501c organizations, just like any other charity organization, like the American Atheists organization? I don't think ONLY churches get tax exempt status. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Only churches qualify automatically.

---

Aren't they classified as 501c organizations, just like any other charity organization, like the American Atheists organization? I don't think ONLY churches get tax exempt status. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

They automatically get 501c even though many of them are for-profit or lobby the government. If they're actually charities, then they should apply for 501c like every other organization.

They do actually have to apply, it's just that their applications are automatically approved.

---

So taxing a newspaper violates rights as well, right?

A newspaper is not a religion. Don't be naive.

If taxing a newspaper doesn't violate their right to freedom of speech, taxing a church doesn't violate freedom of religion.

[Caninope]

Again, according to my religion God is fine with it. So why do you assume that your beliefs are the only beliefs?

Because Protestants are heretics, nothing they preach matters in the slightest, it's all baloney. It's a sect founded by an insane king so he could divorce his wife, or a fat guy who accidentally started a religion, or some other hipster kid that didn't want to follow the rules. There's no legitimacy to any of it.

I really don't know what to say about this, as a Southern Baptist.

I mean, really.

[Caninope]

Aren't they classified as 501c organizations, just like any other charity organization, like the American Atheists organization? I don't think ONLY churches get tax exempt status. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

They automatically get 501c even though many of them are for-profit or lobby the government. If they're actually charities, then they should apply for 501c like every other organization.

Define "for-profit" because I don't really see how a church can be "for-profit", since it's not selling a product.

As for lobbying, churches are subject to the same restrictions as other 501(c)3s, IIRC.

[Caninope]

Yup. One of my main arguments against churches being automatically tax exempt.

The great irony being that it has been ruled that not only does tax exemption not violate the Establishment Clause, taxation of churches (or some churches, at the very least) would produce more entanglement between church and state than otherwise.

[Mkuki]

Again, according to my religion God is fine with it. So why do you assume that your beliefs are the only beliefs?

Because Protestants are heretics, nothing they preach matters in the slightest, it's all baloney. It's a sect founded by an insane king so he could divorce his wife, or a fat guy who accidentally started a religion, or some other hipster kid that didn't want to follow the rules. There's no legitimacy to any of it.

Your history is wrong, Flood. That's the not so accurate history of Anglicanism. Not Protestantism.

[Breadknife]

Define "for-profit" because I don't really see how a church can be "for-profit", since it's not selling a product.

I, personally, don't see a "product" as necessary in the definition of what a profit is (although they do have a product, in the same way as a lecturer or a consultant or a private tutor has a product...)

At its simplest, I'd define "profit" as "excess of income over expenditure", in the fine tradition of Mr. Micawber. Income is what is given to the organisation (or earned by, or otherwise obtained, perhaps through annuities/etc) and expenditure can be everything spent but (in the interests of leaving more to be said, shortly) which in this case I will define as running costs. Utlity bills, repairs, (reasonable) stipends, etc.

Obviously one doesn't just accumulate your excess income (although you would lay some aside in order to handle momentary instances where expenditure dominates the equation) but pour that back out into further investments. If those 'investments' are themselves non-profit-making then that's charity (probably, if not just unlucky or unwise in nature) and should not be treated as profit and should not be taxed (or relief ought to be given on those losses, acknowledging that there's such a thing as a deliberate 'tax loss' which needs to be discouraged).

(Beware also separate "charity sinks" that are actually not truly charitable but are lining somone's pockets in some way, although that may or may not be something done with the complicity of the church donating towards that end.)


Investments that build up the presence of the church (or other entity) aren't charity but instead are structured spendings intended to bolster future donations (e.g. by making the institution more attractive to the richer donors by extending the building or buying a new one, or airtime for televangelism, etc) and should probably be taxed upon a Capital Gains basis, but failing that should be top-sliced for tax and then rebated according to the justifiability of each individual investment made. (NB: IANAEconomist, and have a feeling I've used incorrect terminology, there.)

A special case is where the stipend (either directly or through purchase of goods and services) is beyond mere 'living wage' and becomes a major income stream for one or more of those in receipt. It's probably a fuzzy line, as investing in a pastor's lifestyle can be a structural investment intended to present them as a better representative towards donors, but at some point a televangelist's mansion is probably more self-gratification by the individual than beneficial towards the church they are heading. I have no answers as to how to audit necessity and extravagance in this case, but you can probably point at various cases and say "That's a good example"/"that's a bad one" for many of them... To deal with this, an income tax (applying only to earnings/receipts, in cash or kind, above a decently high allowance) should be applied. But that's probably what everyone should be subjected to, universally and regardless of being in a ministry or not, where the allowance is high enough to let those near enough to povety pay nothing at all. (Isn't this what "progressive taxation" is supposed to be? Must look that one up...)


BTW, that cowboy church: Purchase and maintenance of the tent and seating/etc, would be running expenses, as would the the costs of maintaining the transport (whether pick-up or a string of ponies). I could imagine the preacher to either be living at barely subsistence level (alongside his flock) or having accumulated a handy nest-egg investment. It's probably somewhere in-between (and might depend on what he does outside of the 'cowboying' season).


Of course how the money gets distributed need not be an absolute indicator or how 'true' the church(/temple/synagogue/mosque/tent) is. Although, on the whole, I suspect that if you plotted P₁ ("for profit"-ness) against P₂ ("for Prophet"-ness) you'd probably find a negative correlation.


(typos corrected, maybe more still exist)

[Grenartia]

1. Why should they marry at all 2. i ask you after all they can't raise a family outside of adoption and when it comes to adoption a child needs a mother and a father....I mean yeah sure 'EQUALLITY" and 3. all of that scooby-doo liberal idiocracy but really 4. why do they want to get married at all, are they after the benefits that comes from marriage and adoption 5. i mean they don't really care about any kind of equallity do they?

6. They are just after their own agenda and the liberals are using them as strawmen against their opponents for their own gain and i personaly disagree with same sex marriage because it's just a silly idea that offers society nothing of value except for a libtardic rastafaresque college boy version of 'FREEDOM' and 'EQUALLITY' and all of that social retardation and what not.

7. Why don't they settle for same-sex unions?

8. Do they really have to bash the church and people's faith worldwide to prove a retarded point?

1. From a legal standpoint, marriage confers certain necessary benefits (hospital visitation and the like) that are CRUCIAL to any committed couple that wants them.

2. Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. Besides, same-sex parents are SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be as good as heterosexual parents.

3. You know, its phrases like this that make the rest of us mentally tag everybody who says them as paranoid on some level.

4. Already explained that.

5. What the hell are you trying to say here? Somebody set up us the bomb? All your base are belong to us?

6. Yet more incomprehensible paranoid psuedo-conspiracy theorist bullshit, laced with meaningless buzzphrases.

7. "Separate but equal" is inherently unequal.

8. NOBODY is forcing ANY church to marry ANY couple, gay, straight, or interracial, against their beliefs.

Why don't they redefine civil unions if it is more unequal than marriage?

Are you asking why we don't make civil unions the same as civil marriage? Because that'd be rather pointless. We already have civil marriage.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and for all intents and purposes IS a duck, why not call it a fucking duck?

An abomination performed only by heretical churches.

They used to say the exact same thing about interracial marriages.

Source.

Family.

That's not a source.

Very hypocritical. The Christian religion is against homosexuality.

No, its not. At least not inherently.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Then let me be more clearer 'Ahem', 'clears throat'-A woman has sex with a man and they give birth to a child and that union between human beings is called a family and that's the way nature made things.

So parents with adopted children aren't families?

Also, argument from nature is a logical fallacy.

You don't get it, do you? Let me be more clear.

Oh lovely, i like how liberals and socialists are always triyng to document everything so that they can fool themselves that they are in control and as for your 'source' maybe you should ask your makers for that.

Yet more psuedo-conspiracy theorist bullshit. Seriously. If you're right, then you should be able to link us to a peer-reviewed scientific paper proving your point, or providing solid evidence to back it up.

Oh lovely, i like how liberals and socialists are always triyng to document everything so that they can fool themselves that they are in control and as for your 'source' maybe you should ask your makers for that.

Yes, you're right. Having evidence is a communist plot.

Isn't that what good ole Uncle McCarthy said?

Gotta love NSG summer users who can't even spell properly, let alone debate without going off-topic and using countless logical fallacies.


Maybe come back when you're a few years older and can sustain an argument for longer than two posts, eh?

Ah, the good old fashioned liberal response 'HURR, DURR I SPELL BETTA THAN YAOU THAT MEANES I AM TEH SMARTER THAN YOUS' you gotta love that topic evasive comeback.

Better than your attempts to evade the topic.

I agree with you OP. Gay mariage is fine on the secular level, but Holy Matrimony is a ceremony defined by God.

^ Good.

So basically, fuck churches that actually have no problem with it, they shouldn't be able to perform them.

Again, according to my religion God is fine with it. So why do you assume that your beliefs are the only beliefs?

Because Protestants are heretics, nothing they preach matters in the slightest, it's all baloney. It's a sect founded by an insane king so he could divorce his wife, or a fat guy who accidentally started a religion, or some other hipster kid that didn't want to follow the rules. There's no legitimacy to any of it.

What if you're wrong?

Because Protestants are heretics, nothing they preach matters in the slightest, it's all baloney. It's a sect founded by an insane king so he could divorce his wife, or a fat guy who accidentally started a religion, or some other hipster kid that didn't want to follow the rules. There's no legitimacy to any of it.

I really don't know what to say about this, as a Southern Baptist.

I mean, really.

Undoubtedly, its proof of Catholic superiority.

They automatically get 501c even though many of them are for-profit or lobby the government. If they're actually charities, then they should apply for 501c like every other organization.

Define "for-profit" because I don't really see how a church can be "for-profit", since it's not selling a product.

As for lobbying, churches are subject to the same restrictions as other 501(c)3s, IIRC.

You know, those megachurches where the pastors make millions off of tithes, selling DVDs, etc.

And all of that money doesn't go to actual church expenses, like upkeep, missions, etc.

[Luveria]

Define "for-profit" because I don't really see how a church can be "for-profit", since it's not selling a product.

As for lobbying, churches are subject to the same restrictions as other 501(c)3s, IIRC.

You know, those megachurches where the pastors make millions off of tithes, selling DVDs, etc.

And all of that money doesn't go to actual church expenses, like upkeep, missions, etc.

As much as I dislike churches being tax-exempt, there are non-religious non-profit organizations with executives being paid millions in wages and bonuses such as the NRA.

Those megachurches aren't doing anything other non-profits aren't doing.

[The Parkus Empire]

You know, those megachurches where the pastors make millions off of tithes, selling DVDs, etc.

And all of that money doesn't go to actual church expenses, like upkeep, missions, etc.

As much as I dislike churches being tax-exempt, there are non-religious non-profit organizations with executives being paid millions in wages and bonuses such as the NRA.

Those megachurches aren't doing anything other non-profits aren't doing.

A salary is somewhat different than a profit share.

[Genivaria]

You know, those megachurches where the pastors make millions off of tithes, selling DVDs, etc.

And all of that money doesn't go to actual church expenses, like upkeep, missions, etc.

As much as I dislike churches being tax-exempt, there are non-religious non-profit organizations with executives being paid millions in wages and bonuses such as the NRA.

Those megachurches aren't doing anything other non-profits aren't doing.

Which is also bullshit.

[Luveria]

As much as I dislike churches being tax-exempt, there are non-religious non-profit organizations with executives being paid millions in wages and bonuses such as the NRA.

Those megachurches aren't doing anything other non-profits aren't doing.

Which is also bullshit.

I didn't say all at once. I meant over time, similar to how pastors can get millions over time but not always all at once.

[The New World Oceania]

Which is also bullshit.

I didn't say all at once. I meant over time, similar to how pastors can get millions over time but not always all at once.

Churches are businesses. Granted, they are tax-exempt businesses, but they're businesses. The LDS Church has those rumors going around that they own huge Coca-cola shares. The Vatican, too, owns large shares in billions of people.

[Luveria]

I didn't say all at once. I meant over time, similar to how pastors can get millions over time but not always all at once.

Churches are businesses. Granted, they are tax-exempt businesses, but they're businesses. The LDS Church has those rumors going around that they own huge Coca-cola shares. The Vatican, too, owns large shares in billions of people.

I'm well aware churches are businesses. I'd like them to see them taxed as such instead of being in the non-profit category. They'd still survive just fine paying taxes.

[Blasveck]

Churches are businesses. Granted, they are tax-exempt businesses, but they're businesses. The LDS Church has those rumors going around that they own huge Coca-cola shares. The Vatican, too, owns large shares in billions of people.

I'm well aware churches are businesses. I'd like them to see them taxed as such instead of being in the non-profit category. They'd still survive just fine paying taxes.

If they're paying taxes, wouldn't that give churches more political influence than they do already?

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm well aware churches are businesses. I'd like them to see them taxed as such instead of being in the non-profit category. They'd still survive just fine paying taxes.

If they're paying taxes, wouldn't that give churches more political influence than they do already.

Not really, if anything, they'd just have to be more transparent about it.

Churches have a ridiculous amount of 'soft' power, right now - and there's not really anything you can do about that.

[Luveria]

I'm well aware churches are businesses. I'd like them to see them taxed as such instead of being in the non-profit category. They'd still survive just fine paying taxes.

If they're paying taxes, wouldn't that give churches more political influence than they do already?

Opposite. They have so much political influence because they don't pay taxes. That makes them untouchable politically since no politician will dare propose taxing churches when it's political suicide. If that's not political influence, I don't know what it is.

And as Grave said there would be more transparency, so all around their political influence would be significantly reduced.

[The North Polish Union]

Churches are businesses. Granted, they are tax-exempt businesses, but they're businesses. The LDS Church has those rumors going around that they own huge Coca-cola shares. The Vatican, too, owns large shares in billions of people.

I'm well aware churches are businesses. I'd like them to see them taxed as such instead of being in the non-profit category. They'd still survive just fine paying taxes.

Not many of them. Start taxing churches and the small ones will go broke. Pretty soon all we'd have left was mega-churches, which would suck IMO.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm well aware churches are businesses. I'd like them to see them taxed as such instead of being in the non-profit category. They'd still survive just fine paying taxes.

Not many of them. Start taxing churches and the small ones will go broke.

Why?

[The North Polish Union]

Not many of them. Start taxing churches and the small ones will go broke.

Why?

Because churches rely almost entirely on offerings given by attenders of the church. Some small churches where I live (Nebraska) have fewer than 20-30 attenders on any given Sunday. Not all attenders will necessarily be willing or able to give money. Eventually, if taxed by the government, these churches will not be able to pay their staff (pastor(s)/priest(s), custodians, musicians, etc.) and will (1) have to disband, or (2) have to rely on volunteers to clean the church, plan and play music on Sunday, and other things. Also, being a pastor or priest is generally a full-time job, and many pastors (but hopefully not preists ) have families to take care of. If a church is no longer able to pay their pastors, the pastor will have to try to get a job somewhere else, thus forcing the church to disband. Not to mention that many pastors of small churches make barely enough to support their families anyway.

[Desperauex]

I believe everyone should be able to marry, homo or hetero, just that marrying in a Christian Church would be irony. Even moreso if it was the WBC.

[Vazdania]

Seeing as he makes a point of reminding us at every opportunity.

'I am above you all for I have no sexual urges! I am pure and God loves me! I am Vazdania!'
is all I hear.

This^

[Desperauex]

'I am above you all for I have no sexual urges! I am pure and God loves me! I am Vazdania!'
is all I hear.

This^

I don't get why sex is a dirty thing. I mean, it's the reproduction of life.