Prop 8 Overturned

Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't read the whole thread, but I am sure the same old arguments on both sides have been brought up, and likely the one I am going to state, too, but here it is anyways. In an ideal world I'd get away with the term marriage altogether. In fact the government would not recognize civil unions in any particular way other than how it now handles any contract between people. I'd figure what we understand as marriage would be basically the same as people incorporating as they do already. That way 2 or more people of age can make contracts regarding their financial and social conditions and they would be sanctioned in the same way any private contract is. That would allow the same status for polygamous and homosexual relationships as monogamous heterosexual ones (and no there's no slippery slope for children, animals and toasters). In private anyone can call their union anything they want and have any ceremony they want.

I mean I can see the point of marriage, however there seem to be better, more modern ways to deal with it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd like to point out that your first line is definitely false. Gays and gay rights activists have and continue to campaign to get churches to lose their tax exemption status if they refuse to marry gays.

However, it's far more likely that that won't get passed in America when America was founded upon strong anti-government opression ideals such as separation of church and state.

That is a word mess, right there, and I could pick apart my on sentence with many different arguments. So, to help prevent that, I'm talking about the state controlling churches. As long as churches are not harming children or the people (basically, not doing criminal things), then they should stil lbe tax exempt and get to exclude people from "their club." That's basically it.

In other words, I should be able to fom a private non-profit ccurhc for every single person except for kids with the name "Susan."

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As far as government goes, to me gay marriage makes very little of a dilemma. There is no need for gay couples to not be able to marry and enjoy benefits, not only of status but also tax and other property benefits.

As far as church goes, it shouldn't even be in the question. I think church has the right, as a religious institution to decline to marry gays in church, however, that shouldn't matter in the slightest. The important thing is that the government recognizes it.

Duly noted.

Now if gays can be accepted into the military......we'll have to wait and see. I see no difference, either, since I, myself, am ex-military.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd like to point out that your first line is definitely false. Gays and gay rights activists have and continue to campaign to get churches to lose their tax exemption status if they refuse to marry gays.

No, you are wrong; the tax-exempt status of churches is being challenged—for illegally contributing to anti-gay ballot initiatives, not for refusing to marry gay couples.

Originally posted by Impediment
Duly noted.

Now if gays can be accepted into the military......we'll have to wait and see. I see no difference, either, since I, myself, am ex-military.

Wait, I thought they were? Don't ask, don't tell?

I don't know about this, so feel free to correct me.

their not accepted... hence the... "dont tell" part 😐

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Wait, I thought they were? Don't ask, don't tell?

I don't know about this, so feel free to correct me.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is considered to basically be code for "no gays". Another phrasing would be "If you come out, you're out".

Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
their not accepted... hence the... "dont tell" part 😐

That could be considered ''we don't want to know'' rather than ''no gays''.
Constructive contribution to a debate fail.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Don't ask, don't tell" is considered to basically be code for "no gays". Another phrasing would be "If you come out, you're out".

So they get discharged based on their sexuality. Makes little sense, however I always though that 'don't ask, don't tell' was more of an appeasement to homophobes who stick their noses in other people's business, but that they accepted gays without wanting to know about it.

If one is found out other way than ''telling'', I assume he/she is discharged?

if he informs command they are removed after they substantiate the claim..

the dont ask dont tell imo is to keep ppl from soliciting other military personal as sexual harassment or prejudice..

plus one of the articles is the sexual position which missionary is the only legal position.

also article 134 conduct unbecoming of a marine...

i have known 3 gay guys in the marines never had a problem with them.. 2 were being discharged one was for inappropriate conduct and drug abuse... the other told his unit about his sexual orientation and claimed to be getting harassed.. suspicion he was just looking to get out marines were happy to comply.

anyways the last one was naval medic really cool guy everyone knew he was gay none of us really cared.

anyways those are the ones i knew personally it never bothered me..

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That could be considered ''we don't want to know'' rather than ''no gays''.
Constructive contribution to a debate fail.

it could be but only a dumb person would come to that conclusion! 😄

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, you are wrong; the tax-exempt status of churches is being challenged—for illegally contributing to anti-gay ballot initiatives, not for refusing to marry gay couples.

Nah, I'm right.

There are those that are trying to cause churches to lose their tax-exempt status for discriminating against gays.

Here it is, addressed, from simple legal terms:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

That's by far NOT the only case or situation. The first I heard of this rubbish was on FOX (or CNN, I don't remember) during the rush to get married after it was made okay for gays to marry in CA. Some retarded loud mouth gay guy, every bit as retarded as a conservatard, was screaming on the TV that churches should lose their tax exemption status for not marrying gays.

However, the rest of your post is ALSO right.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/04/09/gay-bashing-church-could-lose-tax-exemption/

Why do churches get tax exemption in the first place?

Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
it could be but only a dumb person would come to that conclusion! 😄

I would reconsider what you just wrote. Troll me one more time and you're banned.

you just scared me... 🙁

maybe some one answered this but is there any current government military that openly excepts homosexuals?

Originally posted by Lucius
Why do churches get tax exemption in the first place?

I think they're considered charities.

Originally posted by King Castle
maybe some one answered this but is there any current government military that openly excepts homosexuals?

Not many*

*Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Cololmbia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

Cololmbia. It's full of lol.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think they're considered charities.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I would reconsider what you just wrote. Troll me one more time and you're banned.

whoops sorry 🙁

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why do charities get tax-exempt status?

Because they're non-profit organisations.

Again, folks, please keep it to the topic. The tax exempt status of churches or powers of military personnel can be discussed elsewhere.