It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Roberts Warns Churches Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status For Opposing Gay Marriage

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Church's are an 501c not for profit business, that's their tax exempt status.




posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
As a gay person I would never want to get married in a church that didn't approve of me, or want to preform the ceremony; let alone force them. That's just putting bad juju on myself. The religious folk and their churches can have their beliefs and I can have mine. The two can coexist just fine. They just need to concentrate on keeping their own lives clean and happy and stop worrying about mine. Because in my reality they don't exist or affect mine and vise versa.

FYI....I learned my ethics and morals from my parents. I don't have to follow an ancient book that's been translated and changed countless time. They taught me right from wrong, treat others how you would like to be treated, to mind my p's and q's, be respectfully of others and to be polite and courteous, etc.....

If you want to see a prime example of what following an archaic book and religion looks like, look at the Middle East.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ZenTam

If those people in the middle east would follow the three things Jesus said to do there would not be such serious problems.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I imagine the conservative religious institutions in the USA would unite after a fashion, corporately renounce their 501(c)3 non-profit status, and insist that the 1st Amendment means what it says in that the federal government may not establish a religion nor can it interfere with a religion or a religious person by any means whatsoever. (e.g., No tax-exempt status and no taxation of the same.) The U.S. government would simply not possess jurisdiction to do anything at all with a religion because that is what the U.S. Constitution says.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
If churches want to preach against the melting pot this nation was actually founded on, and get political with their extremist ideology of hate hiding under the banner of religion... preventing the melting pot and peace, then that "tax shelter" of sorts to freely indoctrinate the masses in separation teaching: intolerance, bias, and bigotry should be dissolved.

If they want to play they have to pay... all that negative karma is coming due whether they believe in it or not :p By their very word they ignore "all are equal under the eyes of the lord." by their very word they have become judges of men women and children and shall be judged, and reaped according to what they have sewn.

If Christ "the light of the world" died on the cross for all sin... then how does sin exist? Cept in the eyes of another? They nail their saviors feet to the cross for which he bared for all... they do not walk the path of light but are mired in the darkness of fear.

Whatever will be will be, the fight will eventually end karma cannot be controlled, nor is it an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth... it is created individually by oneself, the karma of groups only hasten it's own end.

In every war there are no winners, just a rest to rise and try again. This vicious cycle must end to experience heaven on earth as it was in the beginning, before thought shaped matter on the potters wheel of existence.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ZenTam

so odd how people think there is no Biblical God. It can only mean that they have not researched the archeology, cross-checking and looking at the scholarship on the New Testament, for example…

are you so sure your parents knew enough to fully inform you of the realities on this planet? what is their opinion of 911, for example, or banking?

these things point to higher truths you seem not to care about.

---------------------


yt: Former Homosexual Speaks Out Part 1
youtu.be...

yt: Ex Homosexual Testimony / Spiritual Warfare Freedom From Spirits Influencing Thoughts & Desires
youtu.be...

yt: Jesus Christ Saved Me from 27 Years of Homosexuality
youtu.be...

yt: Former Gay Man Explains Transition to Heterosexuality
Michael Glatze, pastor in Wyoming, co-founder of Young Gay America, and former gay rights advocate joins David to discuss no longer identifying as gay
youtu.be...

David Pickup NARTH 2012 Press Conference
youtu.be...

“And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”
Romans 12:2



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Verum1quaere

Cherry pickers of scripture only satisfy their own desire by the fruit of which they have chosen as worthy, the sin is feeding it to others as perfection when they have ignored all fruit they have deemed imperfect.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Marriage offers legal and financial benefits, ever since governments started offering benefits to people who get married it was moved from a purely religious institution to a state institution. It has nothing to do with tradition, marriage today from the governments perspective is nothing but a legal status and denying that legal status to a section of the population is discriminatory, which is unconstitutional.

Marriage means something more to a church, but churches are allowed to deny marriages to anyone they wish and that hasn't changed, and their marriages don't offer any legal benefits in the first place.


Benefits are offered because traditional marriage is good for society. When societies get away from traditional values, historically, they fail.

For now, the churches can refuse, but we all know they will be the brunt of lawsuits. It's simply a matter of time.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Churches will eventually stop marrying anyone and then they can say they are equal to all then so no discrimination when all are denied equally. WHat gets me is a MAN performs the wedding ceremony,so how can it be said that God joined them? Didnt a MAN join them together? So since it was a MAN who married them how can it be wrong to divorce since God himself did not perform the ceremony? Its just something i always wondered about.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

This is an appeal to tradition fallacy. Society doesn't hinge on adhering to tradition. For every anecdotal example you can drag out of a society falling apart due to removing traditions, I can point out one that didn't.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Benefits are offered because traditional marriage is good for society. When societies get away from traditional values, historically, they fail.

For now, the churches can refuse, but we all know they will be the brunt of lawsuits. It's simply a matter of time.


This is a ridiculous argument, so called traditional marriage was also against interracial marriage but we know how that went. It's also against people of different faiths marrying but we know how that went. The benefits of marriage aren't because tradition is good, but because people want them. God didn't come down and ordain that all properly married non gay people can pay fewer taxes or get a marital communications privilege in court.

If anything we have seen moving away from tradition advance society. Tradition supported slavery, it supported racism, it supports sexism, and it supports many other evils in the world. Moving away from these things and questioning why we have them has resulted in more people having more rights and being more free.

People like you who want to persecute a segment of the population for being different are fortunately losing their voice, what you are doing right now is the same thing as when in the middle ages, and even as late as the 1950's a left handed person would have their hand bound so they wouldn't be able to use it, and could instead be forced to use their right like all the normal people. Oddly enough homosexuality and left handedness both occur in about 10% of the population.

And no, churches will never be forced to comply unless the first amendment changes.


originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Churches will eventually stop marrying anyone and then they can say they are equal to all then so no discrimination when all are denied equally. WHat gets me is a MAN performs the wedding ceremony,so how can it be said that God joined them? Didnt a MAN join them together? So since it was a MAN who married them how can it be wrong to divorce since God himself did not perform the ceremony? Its just something i always wondered about.


Different religions have different rules but in the various sects of Christianity it's very difficult to actually be divorced, instead they will annul a marriage if one person can prove the other wasn't eligible for marriage under their rules (such as say, lying about their religion in order to get married). They are still able to be divorced by the state just fine, the church won't recognize it however which may cause issues in being remarried by that church.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Churches will eventually stop marrying anyone and then they can say they are equal to all then so no discrimination when all are denied equally. WHat gets me is a MAN performs the wedding ceremony,so how can it be said that God joined them? Didnt a MAN join them together? So since it was a MAN who married them how can it be wrong to divorce since God himself did not perform the ceremony? Its just something i always wondered about.


I can only speak for what I know, based on my beliefs. So, with that in mind....

When a couple is married in a Christian ceremony, the idea is that God is a part of the ceremony. The couple is making vows, not just to one another, but to God as well, to remain faithful, and together, in marriage. Really, from that standpoint, no official person would be needed, but someone presides over it, to be able to provide official witness to the event. A trusted pastor makes an official witness. Even then, weddings tend to require other witnesses to the vows. Hope that makes sense.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It isn't a fallacy if it's true. Societies stand and fall on building blocks of behavior, with some behaviors being good for a stable society, and others being harmful. It would be illogical to assume any and all behavior was equal. Heck, if that's the case, why do we have laws at all? We have the because anarchy doesn't work.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It isn't a fallacy if it's true. Societies stand and fall on building blocks of behavior, with some behaviors being good for a stable society, and others being harmful.




If faux marriage is such a wonderful concept, why is just now 'coming out?' There have been numerous advanced civilizations other than the modern era - why was this wonderful 'progress' not championed before?

It is true that some societies embraced homosexual behavior openly - look how wonderful that turned out for them.

How did it end for the Weimar Republic? How did it end for the Roman Empire?

They got lazy, they got fat, and they celebrated sexual excess and deviance.

Then, the rest is history, and we are pretty well set to repeat it.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It isn't a fallacy if it's true. Societies stand and fall on building blocks of behavior, with some behaviors being good for a stable society, and others being harmful.



If faux marriage is such a wonderful concept, why is just now 'coming out?' There have been numerous advanced civilizations other than the modern era - why was this wonderful 'progress' not championed before?

It is true that some societies embraced homosexual behavior openly - look how wonderful that turned out for them.

How did it end for the Weimar Republic? How did it end for the Roman Empire?

They got lazy, they got fat, and they celebrated sexual excess and deviance.

Then, the rest is history, and we are pretty well set to repeat it.


Indeed, it never turns out well for societies that embrace it. History repeats itself, which we know, but too many won't admit,w hen their personal agenda stands in the way!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog
If faux marriage is such a wonderful concept, why is just now 'coming out?' There have been numerous advanced civilizations other than the modern era - why was this wonderful 'progress' not championed before?


Faux marriage in what regard? You are aware that Christians don't hold the title on marriage right? Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintos, and others. They all have different rules, some allow it and others don't. Why is a marriage recognized by one of these other churches not good enough for you? Is it still a fake marriage if it's not Christian?

Again, it's up to the church to decide to marry someone, but the government must fill out the paperwork for all who wish to be married, even outside of a church.

My parents had an elaborate wedding basically out of fear that they needed to be married, before having a kid. I was told I was present at it. Eventually they divorced, both later remarried and I was present at both weddings. One was a simple court ceremony that took 20 minutes, the other was a walk in place that finished the marriage in 10 minutes. In both cases they stayed together for a long time afterwards. Are those faux marriage? Or is it simply a marriage different from the traditional Christian one?


It is true that some societies embraced homosexual behavior openly - look how wonderful that turned out for them.


The Romans ruled the world for over 1000 years, invented many mathematical breakthroughs and engineering feats that changed the world forever. They took human behavior and accepted it (in this regard). That's a much better solution than what the Catholic church has done to hide homosexual acts performed by priests.



They got lazy, they got fat, and they celebrated sexual excess and deviance.

Then, the rest is history, and we are pretty well set to repeat it.


So your God doesn't attempt to teach tolerance, acceptance, and love for all man kind but rather teaches persecution, hate, and vitriol for those that are different?

I'll go a step further, Pope Francis will sometime during his tenure change the church rules so that gays and lesbians can be married by the church. He's the type of reformer that would do something like that.
edit on 2-7-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It isn't a fallacy if it's true. Societies stand and fall on building blocks of behavior, with some behaviors being good for a stable society, and others being harmful. It would be illogical to assume any and all behavior was equal. Heck, if that's the case, why do we have laws at all? We have the because anarchy doesn't work.


Well the only way you can establish it is true is if you have some good evidence to support it. Otherwise it is just rhetoric.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Try reading some history books.

The information is all over the place.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What is traditional marriage? Who says what is 'traditional'?

Is it what is described in the Bible? That means polygamy. It means homosexuality. What have you got against the Bible?

Or do you mean a marriage where the wife was considered the husbands chattel and could not, by law made to enforce male dominance 'tradition', own anything or have any opinion in her own name. Nothing. Not the clothes she wore and not the functions of her body.

Or do you mean the kind of marriage represented by the flag you fly in your signature line, the flag of treason and tyranny? The kind of marriage that speaks of fidelity and honor in public while behind closed doors rape and degradation are to be hidden and pretended to be non-existent by the wife and feared and expected by the slave?

Are these your ideas of 'traditional' marriage? If not, please explain what you mean by 'traditional' marriage.

Just so we're on the same page, understand that those I listed have much more claim to 'tradition' than "Ozzie and Harriet" or "Edith and Archie" and any discussion based on TV show fantasy doesn't have much 'gravitas'. So have at it.



edit on 3/7/2015 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/7/2015 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa
one of the kings of Isreal had a party and while he was entertaining his male guests his Queen was entertaining the female guests in another area of the palace or whatever they were in. The king wanted to show off his beautiful wife to all his guests and sent for her. She was having too much fun entertaining her own guests and refused to come to him. He was so angry with her he banished her from his kingdom and made it a law of the land that all the wives in his kingdom were to obey their husbands!
If you look into the church doctrines for many of the mainstream religions they have somewhere in them something about wives obeying their husbands, it's one of the reasons why I stopped going to church. I wouldn't have a problem if it said love, but sometimes love does require you to say no, I won't do it to your husband! so, well, what can I say..
there was what seemed to be an agenda going on online a decade or two ago trying to convince women that they should go back to this type of "traditonal marriage" but then well the gov't started focusing on Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and they decided to use the way the women were treated as a way to demonize the Islamic world, so well, it kind of postponed that part of the christian agenda. but I am sure they will get back to it eventually!




top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join