Active Users:1217 Time:01/08/2026 09:37:13 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." Dannymac Send a noteboard - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM
There is no state sponsored religion, no financial backing by the government. In order to be tax free, churches follow the same rules as any other non-for profit organization, not all of which are charities per se. Churches where the full take are the personal piggy bank of the staff (which are rare) are taxed as any other business, and employees of non-taxed churches still pay income tax like anyone else.

Not entirely sure what you want to see changed.
Eschew Verbosity
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. Dannymac - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1830 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. Helene - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1212 Views
One small problem... Phelix - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1214 Views
Re tax. Rebekah - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1263 Views
That seems sensible to me. SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 1157 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1281 Views
Nice. *NM* Camilla - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 703 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. Cannoli - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1471 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1320 Views
Who else should make those decisions? Cannoli - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1239 Views
I'd totally... Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 1143 Views
I'd totally... ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1305 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 587 Views
Indeed ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1236 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. everynametaken - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 1238 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged Cannoli - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 1147 Views
Um, ok. *NM* everynametaken - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 591 Views
*Shakes Head* Dannymac - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 1112 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 616 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. Great Lord of Chaos - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1225 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1165 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! Vodalus - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 1106 Views
whoops *NM* ßelals Girl - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 548 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* Cannoli - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 1168 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution LadyLorraine - 08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM 1308 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM 521 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. Dannymac - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 1112 Views
You cannot be that stupid. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1374 Views
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them... Legolas - 11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM 1321 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. Dreaded Anomaly - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1503 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment random thoughts - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 1102 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 1162 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* Ectheledhel - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 602 Views
Did I say there was anything? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1247 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1193 Views
Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 1118 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 1106 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1219 Views
Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 1070 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1197 Views
Re: Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 1067 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1254 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1266 Views
... Camilla - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 1144 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM 1134 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM 1106 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM 1201 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM 1227 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1260 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 1065 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Dannymac - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1185 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Isaac - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 1095 Views
Great post Danny SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 962 Views
It should be noted again... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1227 Views
and how is it not a right? LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 1136 Views
My definition of rights... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1224 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 990 Views
+1 Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1282 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 1089 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1247 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1432 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM 1118 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM 1430 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize. Legolas - 10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM 1024 Views
The point is that marriage IS a right, one which cannot be denied based upon sexual orientation *NM* Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:04:16 PM 817 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM 1281 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 1101 Views
It also doesn't say they can Isaac - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 1101 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. Legolas - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 1136 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 1116 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM 1084 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point. Isaac - 10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM 1022 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM* Legolas - 10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM 542 Views
To clarify for you SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 1091 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1487 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body' SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM 1101 Views
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM 1369 Views
Disagree - but it's most a matter of definition there SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:31:53 PM 1247 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... Jeordam - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 1053 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 569 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 581 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination SilverWarder - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1283 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM 575 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1212 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... Vodalus - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1271 Views
I agree LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 969 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1421 Views
Note it all you want... Dannymac - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 979 Views
No, they seek to expand the terms of the partnership. Homosexuals can & do get married normally *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:14:25 PM 621 Views
The best one yet. Camilla - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1225 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 1090 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1193 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 1105 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1239 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1211 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel Camilla - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 1152 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes