Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-28-2010, 04:40 PM
 
4,875 posts, read 10,024,819 times
Reputation: 1993

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex View Post
I wish that it was A LOT EASIER to do that. I'm sure that the mormons have a lot of high powered connections in DC. If you demanded 10% of your members' income tax free and able to buy vast properties in ultra-expensive areas, again tax free, you certainly could have a lot of pull also. Sadly though, I believe that the election laws only cover elections with candidates, not propositions like Prop 8.
Why don't we see what the election laws say about that...

The law says http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-..._b_142001.html

"no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying)."

The full law is at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-28-2010, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Chicago
313 posts, read 405,468 times
Reputation: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
Why don't we see what the election laws say about that...

The law says Mario Ruiz: Gays Hit Back at Mormons

"no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying)."

The full law is at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
heck the government even threatened some churches the last couple of elections of losing their tax exempt status for promoting a candidate near election time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2010, 06:06 PM
 
95 posts, read 140,753 times
Reputation: 85
I was merely pointing out that the push to get gay marriage recognized is more financial, than some kind of social equalization. Attorneys have a vested interest in making that happen. They know that gay folks tend to have plenty of money.

Nobody really cares about your "orientation", it just doesn't matter to most people. If you want to be gay, go for it.

The only reason it may not have been enacted in some type of broad form, is because the majority of voters aren't interested in your version of progress. You aren't going to change views that have been around a lot longer than your agenda.

Just be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
I wish I was a divorce attorney

"You do realize that civil unions have the same divorce rate as everyone else. " So? It's a risk they are willing to take.

"One big reason that their is a massive push to get gay mariage recognized in one form or another, is so divorce attorneys can get a bigger piece of the pie." Why not? People are responsible for their marriages, yes? States get more money from taxes due to marriage, businesses get more money from weddings, etc., and divorce attorneys get more money from business. Why not?

"Chew on that for a while." - I chewed on it a long time ago, and I stand by everything I said.

"Their is no common law marriage/partner issues for gay people." - Huh? The ability for them to get the same rights as a heterosexual married persons have is worth the political struggle.

Again, I stand by everything I said.



No, they are lecturing "conservatives" (I put it in quotes, as I feel your adjective to describe the anti-gay marriage crowd should be discarded) that they should leave them alone, let them marry. They are not asking you to like them. They are asking you to let them get the same marriage benefits that heteros have.

Don't like homosexuality? Then don't engage in same-sex relations. But nobody should be voting against gay marriage. It is immoral to do so. A person who doesn't believe in gay marriage should not vote in the said election.

"(especially Prop 8 which was voted on by the PEOPLE) " The people were wrong, and the federal courts need to overturn it. Wonder why the Supreme Court is not voted on by the people?

The so-called "gay agenda" is the path to morality.

BTW black civil rights came by with indirect democracy (LBJ pressuring senators into passing the civil rights act), NOT through "mob rule."

And the African-Americans who are against homosexual marriage will see the light and realize that they must allow it to happen unobstructed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2010, 06:09 PM
 
4,875 posts, read 10,024,819 times
Reputation: 1993
1. Well, it's win-win, isn't it? The gays get to get marriage and they spend money that they want to spend, and the attorneys make more money.

2. "Nobody really cares about your "orientation", it just doesn't matter to most people. If you want to be gay, go for it."

and

"The only reason it may not have been enacted in some type of broad form, is because the majority of voters aren't interested in your version of progress. You aren't going to change views that have been around a lot longer than your agenda. "

Well, if the people don't truly care about Joe's orientation, shouldn't they step out of the way and let him marry?

"You aren't going to change views that have been around a lot longer than your agenda. " - It's not a matter of changing other people's views. It is a matter of intellectually defeating them and stopping those people from interfering with the lives of homosexual people. It is a matter of telling them "You can have your views, but let the gays marry." Did the African-Americans doing civil rights try to change the minds of the bigoted people in Mississippi? No, they got the federal government to subjugate the state government and force it to stop interfering with the lives of African Americans.

As for changing other people's minds, society is becoming more friendly to homosexuality as children have more tolerance than parents do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by keep on livin View Post
I was merely pointing out that the push to get gay marriage recognized is more financial, than some kind of social equalization. Attorneys have a vested interest in making that happen. They know that gay folks tend to have plenty of money.

Nobody really cares about your "orientation", it just doesn't matter to most people. If you want to be gay, go for it.

The only reason it may not have been enacted in some type of broad form, is because the majority of voters aren't interested in your version of progress. You aren't going to change views that have been around a lot longer than your agenda.

Just be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Last edited by Vicman; 07-28-2010 at 07:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2010, 06:13 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,591,341 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by keep on livin View Post
I was merely pointing out that the push to get gay marriage recognized is more financial, than some kind of social equalization. Attorneys have a vested interest in making that happen. They know that gay folks tend to have plenty of money.
This is silly. You can have your warped view of why there's a push for same-sex marriage, but the vast majority of people who support it are doing it for social reasons. And if there's a financial motivation for it, then so what? As for attorneys, they have little or nothing to do with it.

Quote:
Nobody really cares about your "orientation", it just doesn't matter to most people. If you want to be gay, go for it.
Ha. That's not true at all. Same-sex relationships are one of the most controversial subjects in America.

Only 35% of Republicans say homosexuality is morally acceptable. 61% of Democrats and 61% of independents say it is acceptable.

Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans

I know some Republicans like to say that sexual orientation doesn't mean anything, but I guess they're unaware of the fact that they're in the minority within their party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2010, 04:25 PM
 
Location: very new to Ossining NY
220 posts, read 370,892 times
Reputation: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Hawaii governor vetoes same-sex civil unions bill - U.S. news - Life - msnbc.com

Unreal. And then we have certain conservatives and Republicans on this forum who repeatedly ask, "Why don't the gays just push for civil unions instead of trying to shove marriage down our throats?"
Gays are still, unfortunately, outside of the mainstream in other rights that heterosexuals have. But then, what can you expect from a governor who has so little regard for this state's children that she has furlough days for teachers almost every Friday? That's why I'm moving next year instead of my sister and little niece moving here to Honolulu.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2010, 05:15 PM
 
Location: very new to Ossining NY
220 posts, read 370,892 times
Reputation: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Linda Lingle is a heartless, craven toad, and the fact that she's been governor of a state yet is still not considered an up-and-coming star in the Republican Party says a lot to me. I think her talent and intelligence must be sorely lacking.
She isn't a looker the way Palin is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2010, 05:30 PM
 
Location: very new to Ossining NY
220 posts, read 370,892 times
Reputation: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Young Herman View Post
Most blacks are against homosexual marriages, even after being subjected to pro homosexual propaganda by their liberal over loards for over a decade now. Hawaii isn't full of white liberals, so I doubt they will allow homosexuals to bully them into accepting their right to marriage or civil unions.
And it isn't full of white Fascist-Conservative theocratic morons, either, thank Pele!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2010, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,867 posts, read 14,055,650 times
Reputation: 16573
[Beating Dead Horse Flag On]
Contrary to popular belief (indoctrination), marriage is NOT for love. Marriage is a contract joining the property rights of two adults for the benefit of progeny (aka "legitimate" children).
Two people in love do not need a lifelong binding contract to stay together.
The bonds of holy matrimony are to keep two people together, for the benefit of the next generation, the beneficiary of the joined property rights.

Restating, marriage is about property, which may explain why arranged marriages were the norm, for thousands of years.

Since 1935, and the beginning of national socialism in America, enumerated Americans ceased owning private property, and the whole rationale for marriage was eradicated. In addition, non-custodial child support eradicated the economic benefits for a stable marriage.

They may as well abolish all limitations on marriage, and open the door to polygamy, polyandry, polygyny, and every other possible combination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2010, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Sarasota, Florida
15,395 posts, read 22,457,822 times
Reputation: 11134
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Hawaii governor vetoes same-sex civil unions bill - U.S. news - Life - msnbc.com

Unreal. And then we have certain conservatives and Republicans on this forum who repeatedly ask, "Why don't the gays just push for civil unions instead of trying to shove marriage down our throats?"
It's all semantics....civil unions is fine by me.....everyone is not going to ask if you are civil unioned anyway.......by using the term marriage we are playing into the extremist right winger's hands.

It'll just be called marriage anyway as time goes by. Let's beat them at the "semantics game"...settle for civil unions....for now....as long as we are treated equally....then "they" lose their ridiculous convoluted logic, since most support "civil unions"....so they say at least.

PS...My partner and I celebrated our 27th year together this past February Time to be unioned or unionized......LOL.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top