Catholic Church Doubles Down on Anti-Same Sex Marriage message

[techs]

Explain to me again why a church gets full access to all public services yet doesn't have to pay taxes?

Isn't this true of all non-profit entities?

No. A not for profit pays things like property taxes while a church doesn't.

 

[MovingTarget]

So the liberal view is that men should be abstinent until BC pills for men are available through science.

I fail to see how this is any way practically different from what I said.

That is not the liberal view. Not even close.

 

[nehalem256]

No. A not for profit pays things like property taxes while a church doesn't.

Your statement is inaccurate.

A 501c3 organization can be free of property tax. Regardless of being a church or not.

 

[Nintendesert]

It is more common to see this on the left than the right, but not impossible there, because folk on the right hold political views on faith just as they do religion. Unfortunately, for the left, of course, being reasonable only means you can be persuaded by reason, not that you have been. Sadly, many on the left, repelled by the right's imbecility, or more accurately brain defective incapacity to reason, are repelled also by religion as if it were worthy of the same contempt. It is not the truth that is repulsive, but they way you see it.

There is not doubt whatsoever that what God represents exists. It's what people tell themselves God represents that leads folk astray. God exists because humans exist and we are human because of God. You can't have one without the other. Atheists etc are simply rain that deny the existence of water. They are just droplets of water denying their source. It's an adhesion cohesion problem.

I think you're missing out on prime raiding time.

 

[alzan]

Where in the constitution is the right for women to have free contraception guaranteed?

Where in the constitution is that right abridged?

 

[alzan]

Well, it is more than likely a conflict based on scripture, but again, not knowing their doctrine and seeing how flawed the CC's views are, I am uncertain as well.



I disagree. It isn't self defeating. If people don't want to attend your church because of your teaching, the heck with it. That's how it should be. Church-goers should not compromise the sanctity of their worship to please a group or groups of people. If a so-called religious person is just that and views the Bible as authority, he should reject certain things regardless of how people view him. Even without the Bible, people in general have moral boundaries that they will not cross.

Respect starts with both sides -- pro-SSM people ought to respect the fact that everyone isn't going to be on board with that. Religious people ought to stop trying to makes laws banning it.

You're right, they should not be passing judgment. Agree 100%.

However, if they're taking a stand on this issue, I don't see how that's judging others. But to your point, I have read the CC calling people disordered and other incendiary terms. They ought to just keep their mouths shut.

That's just it. As I understand it, practically the entire debate about SSM is not about getting the CC or any other major religion to officially recognize SSM, to allow same sex ceremonies in their parishes or allow same sex couples as members. I can't personally understand why SS couples would want to go to places where a majority of the members think SS couples are a sidestep away from demons, but to each their own.

The debate centers around the marriage license that is issued by local/state governments. Right now in most states SS couples will not be issued marriage licenses. The state and local governments are not granting the same rights and protections to a section of our society. There are at least three cases headed to the Supreme Court that will most likely put this issue to rest once and for all.

Despite what some "Christians" think, LGBTQ people are not out to convert heterosexuals to homosexuals. Why would they? Homosexuals come from heterosexuals.

I can only speak for myself but I'm quite aware that some religious people are not on board with that, just don't stand in the way or support organizations that do stand in the way.

Taking a stand on an issue is one thing; using money and/or power to exert your will over another countries laws is quite another. The CC and others have been doing that for years.

 

[Retro Rob]

The debate centers around the marriage license that is issued by local/state governments. Right now in most states SS couples will not be issued marriage licenses. The state and local governments are not granting the same rights and protections to a section of our society. There are at least three cases headed to the Supreme Court that will most likely put this issue to rest once and for all.

We will see. It will be interesting to see how either side reacts to whatever comes of the ruling.

Despite what some "Christians" think, LGBTQ people are not out to convert heterosexuals to homosexuals. Why would they? Homosexuals come from heterosexuals.

Me either, I just think it's being sold as means to "unite" people under the guise of "rights". What I mean is that proponets of it think that those who aren't on board with are dividing the country, and those who are for it are uniting the country.

I can only speak for myself but I'm quite aware that some religious people are not on board with that, just don't stand in the way or support organizations that do stand in the way.

Taking a stand on an issue is one thing; using money and/or power to exert your will over another countries laws is quite another. The CC and others have been doing that for years.

I agree that the CC is probably the most arrogant organization that we can find. They are the largrest non-government provider of educational and medical services in the world, so they think that they will never be successfully challenged.

They will hold their ground, and probably openly contest any law made in favor of their opposing viewpoint on this issue.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Believing in God is good, believing in a bunch of profiteering "holy men" and their cathedrals, not so much.

 

[nehalem256]

Where in the constitution is that right abridged?

WTF are you talking about? Are all liberals really that dumb.

It is abridged in the same place my right to a free Lexus is abridged.

 

[nehalem256]

The debate centers around the marriage license that is issued by local/state governments. Right now in most states SS couples will not be issued marriage licenses. The state and local governments are not granting the same rights and protections to a section of our society. There are at least three cases headed to the Supreme Court that will most likely put this issue to rest once and for all.

They also will not a grant marriage license to a brother and sister who apply for one.

 

[zsdersw]

You only have freedom of speech if you are gay.

No one is saying they can't voice their opinions. We're just saying those opinions are incredibly stupid; we're voicing our opinion of their opinion.

 

[alzan]

They also will not a grant marriage license to a brother and sister who apply for one.

Then petition the government to change the rule so that you can marry your brother.

Now back to same-sex marriage.

 

[alzan]

We will see. It will be interesting to see how either side reacts to whatever comes of the ruling.



Me either, I just think it's being sold as means to "unite" people under the guise of "rights". What I mean is that proponets of it think that those who aren't on board with are dividing the country, and those who are for it are uniting the country.

That's a rather sideways way of looking at it though. It is exactly and fundamentally about rights, specifically the equal rights and protections to which every citizen in this country is due. Religions are not being asked or forced to change their beliefs or change the way in which they worship.

I agree that the CC is probably the most arrogant organization that we can find. They are the largrest non-government provider of educational and medical services in the world, so they think that they will never be successfully challenged.

Yes and for that many are truly grateful. However that does not give them a pass on attempting to use their influence to create or interpret a sovereign countries' laws.

They will hold their ground, and probably openly contest any law made in favor of their opposing viewpoint on this issue.

And they will end up driving themselves further into irrelevancy, in this country and others. They're allowed to their opinion or viewpoint as are we all. But to create or interpret the laws of this country? No religion is allowed that privilege, no matter how many good works they perform.

 

[Retro Rob]

And they will end up driving themselves further into irrelevancy, in this country and others. They're allowed to their opinion or viewpoint as are we all. But to create or interpret the laws of this country? No religion is allowed that privilege, no matter how many good works they perform.

Speaking of that, is looks as if they're refusing to comply:


http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_a0634672-2e27-11e2-bc40-0019bb2963f4.html

lol

 

[alzan]

Speaking of that, is looks as if they're refusing to comply:


http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_a0634672-2e27-11e2-bc40-0019bb2963f4.html

lol

Some of the bishops must've been born in or have roots to Missouri (as do I); I'm detecting the unmistakable signs of that certain Missouri mule-ness.