So... agreement reached?

 

 

 

Next lets end the IGR topic.

 

anyways, I do believe marriage in the church should be followed as the church's views state it should be followed, but gay marriage done by the state, is perfectly fine with me.

 

 

 

You know what? This actually seems like a good solution that will favour all parties. Of course, heterosexual and homosexual spouses should have the same benefits and what not, but yeah, good idea. State and church should be separate anyway

 

 

 

If this were what gays wanted they could have had it long ago.

 

 

 

What they want is for it to be recognized by the Church.

 

 

 

If the Church is going to reserve the right to choose who they can and cannot marry then they should start paying taxes.

 

anyways, I do believe marriage in the church should be followed as the church's views state it should be followed, but gay marriage done by the state, is perfectly fine with me.

 

 

 

You know what? This actually seems like a good solution that will favour all parties. Of course, heterosexual and homosexual spouses should have the same benefits and what not, but yeah, good idea. State and church should be separate anyway

 

 

 

If this were what gays wanted they could have had it long ago.

 

 

 

What they want is for it to be recognized by the Church.

 

 

 

If the Church is going to reserve the right to choose who they can and cannot marry then they should start paying taxes.

 

 

 

DAMNIT OT JUST AGREED ON A CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC! JUST LEAVE IT!!! :XD:

 

anyways, I do believe marriage in the church should be followed as the church's views state it should be followed, but gay marriage done by the state, is perfectly fine with me.

 

 

 

You know what? This actually seems like a good solution that will favour all parties. Of course, heterosexual and homosexual spouses should have the same benefits and what not, but yeah, good idea. State and church should be separate anyway

 

 

 

If this were what gays wanted they could have had it long ago.

 

 

 

What they want is for it to be recognized by the Church.

 

 

 

If the Church is going to reserve the right to choose who they can and cannot marry then they should start paying taxes.

 

 

 

DAMNIT OT JUST AGREED ON A CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC! JUST LEAVE IT!!! :XD:

 

 

 

The ending consensus gimmick is only another example of our human need for groupthink.

A church should, however, be able to follow its own doctrines without government intervention.

A church should, however, be able to follow its own doctrines without government intervention.

 

 

 

And they should also pay taxes.

 

 

 

By the same standard, does a shop owner have the right to tell a black person that he can't buy anything from his store because he's black?

 

 

 

If yes, well at least you're being consistent. I understand the freedom of institutions standpoint but at the same time rights of individuals are more important in my opinion.

 

 

 

EDIT: Actually, the example is slightly different because many people consider marriage to be a *right*, whereas being able to buy from a store arguably isn't. If anything this strengthens the position. Should the Church be able to go against what the government/people deem to be basic human rights?

I understand you wanting churches to pay taxes, but how would they get the money?

I understand you wanting churches to pay taxes, but how would they get the money?

 

How do they now?

A church should, however, be able to follow its own doctrines without government intervention.

 

 

 

And they should also pay taxes.

 

 

 

By the same standard, does a shop owner have the right to tell a black person that he can't buy anything from his store because he's black?

 

 

 

If yes, well at least you're being consistent. I understand the freedom of institutions standpoint but at the same time rights of individuals are more important in my opinion.

 

there's a difference between the two.

 

in a store, not letting someone buy from a store is getting rid of the right a person has to get the things they need for survival, whereas the church itself is an institution and it is much different from a store.

 

A church is a place of worship, and a place where people gather to pay respect to their gods. The church should not need to give the homosexuals the ability to be married in their church, due to the fact the church is a place where they teach principles and morals, although not always right, forcing the churches to let them get married in the church is against the principles and views they teach in their church, is not right.

 

The act of marriage has nothing to do with survival, like the situation with a store, it is just a higher level of bonding between a couple, which isn't needed in a church.

 

Although the individuals themselves may follow the religion, while still being homosexuals, they should be able to respect the church's right not to be forced to contradict what they teach.

 

 

 

And on the subject of churches paying taxes, I don't quite understand why, and where exactly would they get the money from? some churches get a lot of money from donations, whereas churches in poorer demographics may have trouble getting funding for taxes, and not have the money to help out, organize events, and other such things with charities, and contributing to the local community.

 

 

 

Did anyone ever notice that the options underneath the reply box, the spaces in the center of it all, is shaped like the eiffel tower?

I understand you wanting churches to pay taxes, but how would they get the money?

 

How do they now?

 

 

 

Donations? I doubt they could make drastically more from donations.

I understand you wanting churches to pay taxes, but how would they get the money?

 

How do they now?

 

Lure people into giving money by playing on their guilt.

I understand you wanting churches to pay taxes, but how would they get the money?

 

How do they now?

 

Lure people into giving money by playing on their guilt.

 

Stop trying to demonize the church, their intentions are good.

I understand you wanting churches to pay taxes, but how would they get the money?

 

How do they now?

 

Lure people into giving money by playing on their guilt.

 

Stop trying to demonize the church, their intentions are good.

 

to a certain extent.

I understand you wanting churches to pay taxes, but how would they get the money?

 

How do they now?

 

Lure people into giving money by playing on their guilt.

 

Stop trying to demonize the church, their intentions are good.

 

 

 

No. Helping people and charity yes, but taking advantage of peoples' fears, indoctrinating children with ridiculous stories, trying to force their scripture into law, condemning condom use and refusing to pay taxes at the same time?

 

 

 

Not so good.

A church should, however, be able to follow its own doctrines without government intervention.

 

 

 

And they should also pay taxes.

 

 

 

By the same standard, does a shop owner have the right to tell a black person that he can't buy anything from his store because he's black?

 

 

 

If yes, well at least you're being consistent. I understand the freedom of institutions standpoint but at the same time rights of individuals are more important in my opinion.

 

there's a difference between the two.

 

in a store, not letting someone buy from a store is getting rid of the right a person has to get the things they need for survival, whereas the church itself is an institution and it is much different from a store.

 

A church is a place of worship, and a place where people gather to pay respect to their gods. The church should not need to give the homosexuals the ability to be married in their church, due to the fact the church is a place where they teach principles and morals, although not always right, forcing the churches to let them get married in the church is against the principles and views they teach in their church, is not right.

 

The act of marriage has nothing to do with survival, like the situation with a store, it is just a higher level of bonding between a couple, which isn't needed in a church.

 

Although the individuals themselves may follow the religion, while still being homosexuals, they should be able to respect the church's right not to be forced to contradict what they teach.

 

 

 

And on the subject of churches paying taxes, I don't quite understand why, and where exactly would they get the money from? some churches get a lot of money from donations, whereas churches in poorer demographics may have trouble getting funding for taxes, and not have the money to help out, organize events, and other such things with charities, and contributing to the local community.

 

 

 

Did anyone ever notice that the options underneath the reply box, the spaces in the center of it all, is shaped like the eiffel tower?

 

Would it be acceptable for churches to not allow blacks to marry there? Or latinos, or asians, or any other ethnicity?

 

Why shouldn't churches pay taxes? They get money, they own property, they get a ton of money every year. Taxes would only mean they get less.

 

Stop trying to demonize the church, their intentions are good.

 

 

 

For them.

I understand you wanting churches to pay taxes, but how would they get the money?

 

How do they now?

 

Lure people into giving money by playing on their guilt.

 

Stop trying to demonize the church, their intentions are good.

 

I'm just displaying what it is. And I do believe that the institute called religion has a bad influence on the world. Though, the intentions of an individual believer would quite often be alright.

I understand you wanting churches to pay taxes, but how would they get the money?

 

How do they now?

 

Lure people into giving money by playing on their guilt.

 

Stop trying to demonize the church, their intentions are good.

 

 

 

No. Helping people and charity yes, but taking advantage of peoples' fears, indoctrinating children with ridiculous stories, trying to force their scripture into law, condemning condom use and refusing to pay taxes at the same time?

 

 

 

Not so good.

 

 

 

1. They don't pay taxes because atm they're government funded.

 

 

 

2. As for law, you got me on that one.

 

3. They don't take advantage of fears, at least not mine. In the years I've attended my church I've never heard a word from them about hell.

 

 

 

4. The church didnt condem condom use, the Pope did.

 

 

 

5. What rediculous stories? There are two kinds of things in the Bible, historical fact, and stories made to teach lessons.

I understand you wanting churches to pay taxes, but how would they get the money?

 

How do they now?

 

Lure people into giving money by playing on their guilt.

 

Stop trying to demonize the church, their intentions are good.

 

 

 

No. Helping people and charity yes, but taking advantage of peoples' fears, indoctrinating children with ridiculous stories, trying to force their scripture into law, condemning condom use and refusing to pay taxes at the same time?

 

 

 

Not so good.

 

 

 

1. They don't pay taxes because atm they're government funded.

 

 

 

2. As for law, you got me on that one.

 

3. They don't take advantage of fears, at least not mine. In the years I've attended my church I've never heard a word from them about hell.

 

 

 

4. The church didnt condem condom use, the Pope did.

 

 

 

5. What rediculous stories? There are two kinds of things in the Bible, historical fact, and stories made to teach lessons.

 

Addressing point 3: How do you feel about rotting in the ground in complete darkness never knowing anything ever again? How do you feel about being etarnally damned?

 

 

 

Addressing point 5: Noah's Ark is a big one.

I understand you wanting churches to pay taxes, but how would they get the money?

 

How do they now?

 

Lure people into giving money by playing on their guilt.

 

Stop trying to demonize the church, their intentions are good.

 

 

 

No. Helping people and charity yes, but taking advantage of peoples' fears, indoctrinating children with ridiculous stories, trying to force their scripture into law, condemning condom use and refusing to pay taxes at the same time?

 

 

 

Not so good.

 

 

 

1. They don't pay taxes because atm they're government funded.

 

 

 

2. As for law, you got me on that one.

 

3. They don't take advantage of fears, at least not mine. In the years I've attended my church I've never heard a word from them about hell.

 

 

 

4. The church didnt condem condom use, the Pope did.

 

 

 

5. What rediculous stories? There are two kinds of things in the Bible, historical fact, and stories made to teach lessons.

 

Which it claims are true.

I understand you wanting churches to pay taxes, but how would they get the money?

 

How do they now?

 

Lure people into giving money by playing on their guilt.

 

Stop trying to demonize the church, their intentions are good.

 

 

 

No. Helping people and charity yes, but taking advantage of peoples' fears, indoctrinating children with ridiculous stories, trying to force their scripture into law, condemning condom use and refusing to pay taxes at the same time?

 

 

 

Not so good.

 

 

 

1. They don't pay taxes because atm they're government funded.

 

 

 

2. As for law, you got me on that one.

 

3. They don't take advantage of fears, at least not mine. In the years I've attended my church I've never heard a word from them about hell.

 

 

 

4. The church didnt condem condom use, the Pope did.

 

 

 

5. What rediculous stories? There are two kinds of things in the Bible, historical fact, and stories made to teach lessons.

 

 

 

If they are government funded, then no, they do not have the right to decide who they can and cannot marry.

 

 

 

How are they funded, isn't there the whole first amendment of the constitution?

I understand you wanting churches to pay taxes, but how would they get the money?

 

How do they now?

 

Lure people into giving money by playing on their guilt.

 

Stop trying to demonize the church, their intentions are good.

 

 

 

No. Helping people and charity yes, but taking advantage of peoples' fears, indoctrinating children with ridiculous stories, trying to force their scripture into law, condemning condom use and refusing to pay taxes at the same time?

 

 

 

Not so good.

 

 

 

1. They don't pay taxes because atm they're government funded.

 

 

 

2. As for law, you got me on that one.

 

3. They don't take advantage of fears, at least not mine. In the years I've attended my church I've never heard a word from them about hell.

 

 

 

4. The church didnt condem condom use, the Pope did.

 

 

 

5. What rediculous stories? There are two kinds of things in the Bible, historical fact, and stories made to teach lessons.

 

Addressing point 3: How do you feel about rotting in the ground in complete darkness never knowing anything ever again? How do you feel about being etarnally damned?

 

 

 

Addressing point 5: Noah's Ark is a big one.

 

There must be some truth to Noah's Ark. Nearly everyone from around the world has an account of a global flood occurring. It just doesn't happen that everyone in the world makes up the same story.

A church should, however, be able to follow its own doctrines without government intervention.

 

 

 

And they should also pay taxes.

 

 

 

By the same standard, does a shop owner have the right to tell a black person that he can't buy anything from his store because he's black?

 

 

 

If yes, well at least you're being consistent. I understand the freedom of institutions standpoint but at the same time rights of individuals are more important in my opinion.

 

there's a difference between the two.

 

in a store, not letting someone buy from a store is getting rid of the right a person has to get the things they need for survival, whereas the church itself is an institution and it is much different from a store.

 

A church is a place of worship, and a place where people gather to pay respect to their gods. The church should not need to give the homosexuals the ability to be married in their church, due to the fact the church is a place where they teach principles and morals, although not always right, forcing the churches to let them get married in the church is against the principles and views they teach in their church, is not right.

 

The act of marriage has nothing to do with survival, like the situation with a store, it is just a higher level of bonding between a couple, which isn't needed in a church.

 

Although the individuals themselves may follow the religion, while still being homosexuals, they should be able to respect the church's right not to be forced to contradict what they teach.

 

 

 

And on the subject of churches paying taxes, I don't quite understand why, and where exactly would they get the money from? some churches get a lot of money from donations, whereas churches in poorer demographics may have trouble getting funding for taxes, and not have the money to help out, organize events, and other such things with charities, and contributing to the local community.

 

 

 

Did anyone ever notice that the options underneath the reply box, the spaces in the center of it all, is shaped like the eiffel tower?

 

Would it be acceptable for churches to not allow blacks to marry there? Or latinos, or asians, or any other ethnicity?

 

Why shouldn't churches pay taxes? They get money, they own property, they get a ton of money every year. Taxes would only mean they get less.

 

It would have to depend on which church it were, but in most churches what they teach has nothing to do with race, so no it would not be acceptable. They should not, (theoretically) be able to deny the right to marry based on ethnicity, unless that is part of what is based in their religion, in which case I'd be fine with it.

 

 

 

I haven't really put much thought into the taxation of churches. But if someone could present me some facts, on how they get the money, (other than donation, because donations should not be taxed) and on how much, it would affect the well being of the church. it would also depend on where the taxed money would be going to, I don't believe that if it were being given to charities, or given to aid the poor, or help diseases of some sort that it should be taxed.

 

 

 

If the church is government funded, that should still not affect whether or not homosexuals have the right to be married in their church.

 

if the government had a church created by the government, then it would be okay for them to do that. The only time the government should intervene is if the church is infringing on the rights of others. being married is not a right.

[hide=]

A church should, however, be able to follow its own doctrines without government intervention.

 

 

 

And they should also pay taxes.

 

 

 

By the same standard, does a shop owner have the right to tell a black person that he can't buy anything from his store because he's black?

 

 

 

If yes, well at least you're being consistent. I understand the freedom of institutions standpoint but at the same time rights of individuals are more important in my opinion.

 

 

 

EDIT: Actually, the example is slightly different because many people consider marriage to be a *right*, whereas being able to buy from a store arguably isn't. If anything this strengthens the position. Should the Church be able to go against what the government/people deem to be basic human rights?

[/hide]

 

 

 

you have the right to love/marry whoever you want

 

 

 

you have the right to not be barred from businesses based on race/gender etc.

 

 

 

however, a religious institution should never be required to recognize the legitimacy of something they disagree with. If a church does not approve of homosexuality, then why do homosexuals want that church to recognize them? If someone doesnt like you, you certainly wont follow them around begging for them to be your friend because it wouldnt make sense.

 

 

 

on the taxation, churches should not be taxed because they are not a business. All or nearly all of church money is spent on programs, charity work, or improvements involving the church community so there is no reason to tax the money. Secondly, the role of the government is to protect its citizens and provide for the common welfare(to generalize); the government derives its power from the citizens not the other way around. Taxes are taken to provide for the running of the government and to varying extents to aid those with less money. How will taking away from the ability of a charitable organization to help the less fortunate ever help anyone?

 

 

 

edit--what church is tax funded? If its the church of england then bare in mind Im talking about America and would have some different thoughts on that.

 

 

 

as clarification, you have the right to be married in the legal sense, ex. next of kin status and the other protections; however, you have no right to be married in the church of your choosing just the right to the certificate/legal status.

 

There must be some truth to Noah's Ark. Nearly everyone from around the world has an account of a global flood occurring. It just doesn't happen that everyone in the world makes up the same story.

 

 

 

If there was a huge global flood wouldn't we expect things to be at different levels in the strata all over the world instead of continuously finding fossils and rocks fitting perfectly into their respective orders of age along the timeline of evolution going back billions of years?