Gay Marriage is GO...

[RandyForRubio]

This ruling shouldn't affect churches in any way. LDS temples will still be able to bar gay marriages, just as they're able to bar any heterosexual marriages who aren't temple worthy.

This new law doesn't affect heterosexuals in any way, shape, or form.

Based on the Bob Jones case from the early 80's, with this new ruling, the IRS would have the ability to take away the tax exempt status from Christian universities that won't admit homosexuals because it goes against their beliefs. So yeah, it kinda does effect heterosexuals.

 

[GVC]

Based on the Bob Jones case from the early 80's, with this new ruling, the IRS would have the ability to take away the tax exempt status from Christian universities that won't admit homosexuals because it goes against their beliefs. So yeah, it kinda does effect heterosexuals.

How does this ruling affect that at all? That is, how does the prospective student's marital status make any difference? Have any "Christian" universities lost tax exemption for not admitting homosexuals?

 

[RandyForRubio]

How does this ruling affect that at all? That is, how does the prospective student's marital status make any difference? Have any "Christian" universities lost tax exemption for not admitting homosexuals?

Serious?

This is a synopsis of the case (where I think the university was completely in the wrong btw): "Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination."

Practices contrary to a compelling government public policy...doesn't sound anything like a Christian school not allowing homosexuals after gay marriage was legalized.

 

[The Fresh Prince]

Glad to see all of you gays... er... Guys are for it.

 

[GVC]

Serious?

This is a synopsis of the case (where I think the university was completely in the wrong btw): "Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination."

Practices contrary to a compelling government public policy...doesn't sound anything like a Christian school not allowing homosexuals after gay marriage was legalized.

Why would it be any different than before gay marriage was legalized? Admittance based on sexual preference has nothing to do with marital rights. Has any bigoted university lost their tax exemption for refusing to admit a student based on their sexual preference or behavior?

 

[Gameface]

Based on the Bob Jones case from the early 80's, with this new ruling, the IRS would have the ability to take away the tax exempt status from Christian universities that won't admit homosexuals because it goes against their beliefs. So yeah, it kinda does effect heterosexuals.

I for one would do cartwheels if tax exempt status was removed from all religious institutions...at least their for profit enterprises, like churches and schools.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Don’t Expect a Flood of Gay Marriages


Although gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states, don’t expect to see long lines of homosexuals applying for marriage licenses (especially after the initial publicity-seeking flurry is over). After 10 years of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, The Institute For Marriage and Public Policy commissioned research into the question: What has the demand for same-sex marriage turned out to be among same-sex couples? The answer: “Gay marriage is relatively rare.” The central statistics are:

Just 20 percent of Dutch homosexual couples are married, compared with 80 percent of heterosexual couples.
Dutch survey data suggests that 2.8% of Dutch men and 1.4% of Dutch women are gay or lesbian.
About 8% of gay and lesbian people have chosen to marry.

Why so little take-up of same-sex marriage?

Vera Bergkamp, head of a Dutch gay rights organization, says there are three main reasons for the lack of nuptial enthusiasm among gay couples:

Less pressure from family and friends, fewer gay couples marrying to have children than their straight counterparts, and a more individualist, less family‐orientated mindset among many homosexuals.

Why then has so much time, money, and effort been invested in a gay marriage drive that that will only result in a small percent of a tiny percent actually being married?

As I’ve written before: Gay marriage is not primarily about gay marriage, it is mainly about silencing gay consciences. But there’s a second reason. Gay marriage is also about silencing Christians.

Silencing Christians

If I hated God and despised Christians, I’d be an ardent supporter of same-sex marriage. What better way to express enmity against God and His people? That’s a major reason why so many homosexuals who will never marry, and why so many heterosexuals who have no interest in same-sex marriage, wanted it legalized and mandated by the Supreme Court. They wanted a weapon to shove in the face of God and to wield against His faithful people. And the Supreme Court effectively handed our heads to them on a platter. Just watch as this instrument of “equal love” is now wielded against all dissenters. You’re about to see some very unequal hate.

Yes, there will be high-profile cases where pastors and other prominent Christians will be convicted, bankrupted, and imprisoned for so-called hate crimes. Businesses will continue to be targeted and closed down for any explicit or implicit disapproval of same-sex weddings.

But much of the persecution will go largely unnoticed, behind closed doors, in the everyday lives of ordinary Christians: jobs will not be offered, promotions will not be awarded, contracts will be lost, team positions will be forfeited, downsizing will carefully “select” its victims, our children will suffer lost opportunities, our churches will be penalized. All for holding the “wrong view” of marriage; which was the right view in all human civilization until the last few years.

Loving Darkness, Hating Light

We are about to see as we have never seen before in the West in our lifetime: “Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light” (John 3:19-20).

Remember what happened to the two angels when they came into Sodom (Genesis 19). A whole city of homosexuals lined up to attack them. And even when God blinded them, they still searched and scrabbled at the door to get to their intended victims.

As they weren’t exactly lacking in opportunities for homosexual sex, what motivated their irrational desire to attack these two particular men? They saw holiness as they had never seen it before, they saw brighter light than ever before, and they were nearer to God than ever before. And the holiness had to be quashed; the light had to be extinguished; the god-like-ness had to be erased.

That, I believe is what gay marriage is about for many (note, I did not say ALL) homosexuals, and for many heterosexuals too. Yes, it’s about silencing conscience; but it’s also about silencing Christians. And ultimately it’s about silencing God.

(I know there are many “moderate” homosexuals out there who just want to live a quiet life, who don’t want anything to do with persecuting Christians, and who are embarrassed about what bad winners many gay leaders are being. But I’m giving up hope that such moderates will ever have the courage to speak up against their own radicals and fundamentalists.)

So, don’t expect a flood of same-sex marriages. But do expect a flood of “hate-crime” laws and “non-discrimination statutes,” and “conditional government contracts.” And then a flood of Christian victims.

Unless there’s a flood of fire and brimstone first.

Flood of Love

In the meantime, we have an opportunity to love our haters as never before.

No, we will never agree with your same-sex marriage or do anything that in any way expresses approval of same-sex weddings. But if you do marry (and if you don’t), we will love you in every other way possible; we will love you in ways that will surprise and astonish you.

We’ll bless you when you curse us.

We’ll pray for you when you abuse us.

We’ll be kind to you when you are cruel to us.

We’ll not retaliate when you ruin us.

We’ll defend your right to speak and disagree with us even when you want to silence us.

We’ll be a Good Samaritan to you when you are a road-crosser and other-sider to us.

We’ll employ you for non-faith-related jobs if you are the best candidate, even though you want to bankrupt our businesses.

We’ll help you when you’re poor even though you want to impoverish us.

We’ll not insult you when you call us bigots.

We’ll be the best neighbors you’ve ever had.

We’ll love you as much as we love ourselves – and that’s a lot.

And we just have two simple requests of you. Accept that, because of the Bible’s teaching, we will never agree with gay marriage. And please don’t ask us to do anything for your weddings.

That’s it. Is that really too much to ask?

.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Other than a bunch of rotten-hearted, unintelligent people getting upset and a bunch of other people being very happy to be treated as human beings? Not much.

Name calling to discredit a point of view you don't agree with does not help. Name calling in attempts to discredit from either point of view is unhelpful.
It is understood that you are in support of same sex marriage and despise those who are against the practice.
It is possible to disagree with something without hating the people involved no matter which side of a divide you are on.
I understand fully what you are trying to do here, but it only widens the gulf rather than bridges the gap, if that is your intention, bravo.

 

[LogGrad98]

If we went to a flat tax system then most of the issues surrounding the need marriage in general goes away. I would be curious how much of a drop off of marriage, of any kind, we would see if there were no perceived benefit for getting married in the first place?

 

[moevillini]

I'm not sure I understand how going to a flat tax on incomes would necessarily do anything to change the distinction between filing an individual return vs. filing a joint return - nor does it have anything to do with abolishing deductions for dependents, charitable donations, home mortgage interest, property taxes, etc.

My understanding is that it would change the graduated system whereby higher taxable incomes are taxed at higher rates to one where all taxable income is taxed at the same rate - - but it doesn't change the method of arriving at the amount for taxable income.

But maybe I misunderstand.

 

[Harambe]

There is a difference between not serving an individual and not serving a group of individuals. In the same way that there is a difference between not promoting a woman and not promoting women.

I don't see how this changes anything I just said. Perhaps you needed "for any reason" in there, but the concept remains the same; If I feel like the marriage of X and X is bad for the institute of marriage, or makes a mockery of it, I shouldn't sign the marriage license. I'm not paid by the state. I'm a private entity that makes no money, and therefore can not be taxed.

If any two self aware individuals of legal age want to get married, they should. But as a non-taxed private entity, I maintain my right to chose not to be a part of a wedding if I'm against the union for any reason. Christian churches currently still have that right, and so do I. If at a later date that changes, that's fine. But let's cross that bridge when we get there.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm not sure I understand how going to a flat tax on incomes would necessarily do anything to change the distinction between filing an individual return vs. filing a joint return - nor does it have anything to do with abolishing deductions for dependents, charitable donations, home mortgage interest, property taxes, etc.

My understanding is that it would change the graduated system whereby higher taxable incomes are taxed at higher rates to one where all taxable income is taxed at the same rate - - but it doesn't change the method of arriving at the amount for taxable income.

But maybe I misunderstand.

I was thinking that would be the point of a flat tax to simplify the code and get rid of all of that other crap, like rampant deductions and a million different ways to calculate tax. If there were no advantage to file a joint return (which really is kind of arbitrary if you think about it, but you don't see huge rallies by singles protesting their right to be single and keep the same benefits as married's...but I digress), then how many people would simply not bother to get married in the first place? I know there are a ton of other things tied legally to the marriage picture (insurance, inheritance, etc.) but if the playing field were leveled then 1) this would be a non-issue really and 2) I wonder how it would impact marriage in the first place?