Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Karlis

California Marriage Amendment to be decided

766 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

The Silver Thong

Are you the spokesperson for the UM community?

No he is not.

However he is one of the most logical people here at UM and you might and I stress might learn a thing or two from him. Your logic and reason is flawed, so please listen to wisdom when it comes your way as it's a sign of intelligence to understand and it's free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

No he is not.

However he is one of the most logical people here at UM and you might and I stress might learn a thing or two from him. Your logic and reason is flawed, so please listen to wisdom when it comes your way as it's a sign of intelligence to understand and it's free.

Wow! That really is a rave review of Cadetak and a poor review for me Silver Thing.

I guess that is no suprise though. You continually post in threads about how you do not like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

No he is not.

However he is one of the most logical people here at UM and you might and I stress might learn a thing or two from him. Your logic and reason is flawed, so please listen to wisdom when it comes your way as it's a sign of intelligence to understand and it's free.

:blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Karlis

I'm confused as this book you are citing and especially its related opinionated reviews don't really mean or show anything.

Cadet, if you did not understand what I posted,I guess there is little more for me to say.

In my post I am *specifically addressing* the claim you made against me. Read the bolded phrase to see what I mean:

So you expect that there is some unknown alternative agenda that is secretly happening but can't show it or even know what it could be? But because of some 'gut' feeling you believe its true and happening?

With all do respect Karlis, and note I said with all do respect...that is not only completely illogical but also an irresponsible way to go about making social decisions.

I have answered your charge against me, but you still claim that I have *not* given you a relevant reply.

Sorry, but you are ignoring what I posted, Cadet. You write that what I posted ...

… don't really mean or show anything. …

Cadet, I’ll leave out your following remarks, and get to where you post the following:

… Whether a clear agenda is present or not is not very relevant. …

Actually, this is where you are wrong Cadet. You claimed that I could not demonstrate a gay agenda outside the gay marriage issue. I showed you otherwise. Let me repeat just some of what I posted:

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

To overcome Americans' deep-rooted aversion to gay men and women, psychologist Kirk and ad man Madsen propose a massive media campaign designed to correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice. ...

Link to Amazon books

It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called After the Ball,[15] where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behaviorin a decade-long time frame.... They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda.

The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit:

*Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible(...)

*Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers(...)

*Give homosexual protectors a just cause(...)

*Make gays look good(...)

*Make the victimizers look bad(...)

*Get funds from corporate America(...)[1]

After the Ball[15] is a book published in 1989 by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. It argues that after the gay liberation phase of the 1970s and 1980s, gay rights groups should adopt more professional public relations techniques to convey their message.

According to a Christian Broadcasting Network article by Paul Strand, Sears and Osten argue that After the Ball follows from "a 1988 summit of gay leaders in Warrenton, Virginia, who came together to agree on the agenda" and that "the two men (Kirk and Madsen) proposed using tactics on 'straight' America that are remarkably similar to the brainwashing methods of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese -- mixed with Madison Avenue's most persuasive selling techniques."[16]

The article goes on to claim that films such as Brokeback Mountain are part of this "well-planned propaganda campaign". Link to wiki source

For whatever reasons of your own, Cadet, you ignored the above – and basically conclude that:

Because there is no clause, loopholes, or fine print in the proposed law change that reads"allow for any and all gay agenda" the only issue is Gay Marriage...

That, Cadet, is specious reasoning on your part.

I did provide an answer. Whether you accept it or not is up to you.

Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

Karlis, my apologies in retrospect my previous post was poorly written. I accept and understand that you answered my original questions and resolved my original claims that I presented in my first reply to you. My second reply to you, was not intended to continue along the line of my first post(as you resolved the issue) but to critque the agenda in question.

You posts show that there is an agenda of certain activists, or at least a book about an agenda that people followed, it does not show an agenda in the legal issue of gay marriage as a whole.

Legalizing gay marriage does nothing but legalize gay marriage,it cannot be shown that a law change alters anything but the law/definition of marriage. So when we vote for or against gay Marriage that is what we are voting for...we are not voting for Gay Marriage plus everything else in somebodies agenda...just Gay Marriage. What you are doing is lumping everything together into one issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Karlis

Karlis, my apologies in retrospect my previous post was poorly written. I accept and understand that you answered my original questions and resolved my original claims that I presented in my first reply to you. My second reply to you, was not intended to continue along the line of my first post(as you resolved the issue) but to critque the agenda in question.

You posts show that there is an agenda of certain activists, or at least a book about an agenda that people followed, it does not show an agenda in the legal issue of gay marriage as a whole.

Ok -- misunderstanding resolve Cadet. :tu: Would be nice if more discussions could be settled so simply. Hmmm ... otoh, that would make UM threads so much less interesting, right? :P

Legalizing gay marriage does nothing but legalize gay marriage,it cannot be shown that a law change alters anything but the law/definition of marriage. So when we vote for or against gay Marriage that is what we are voting for...we are not voting for Gay Marriage plus everything else in somebodies agenda...just Gay Marriage. What you are doing is lumping everything together into one issue.

No, I'm not lumping all things together Cadet.

As in all social issue movements, there are people behind the scenes; but please don't say that I'm suggesting secret conclaves burning the midnight oil behind closed curtains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

The first amendment doesn't make churches tax-exempt, the tax code does. And there are rules that all 501( c)(3) organizations--religious or not--have to follow. Otherwise they don't get to be 501( c)(3) organizations anymore.

To be tax-exempt under section 501( c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501( c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual.
In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501( c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501( c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501( c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501( c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

When did the IRS become the authority on free speech? The statute is unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

Ok -- misunderstanding resolve Cadet. :tu: Would be nice if more discussions could be settled so simply. Hmmm ... otoh, that would make UM threads so much less interesting, right? :P

Yeah it was my bad my second reply was poorly written i rushed because I didnt have a lot of time and because this thread jumps by pages per day I wanted to get it, especially considering you took the time out to make a direct detailed reply to me.

No, I'm not lumping all things together Cadet.

As in all social issue movements, there are people behind the scenes; but please don't say that I'm suggesting secret conclaves burning the midnight oil behind closed curtains.

Yes there is almost always an agenda in any group of people. Basically when any people organize let it be politics, bosses and workers union, or girlfriends friends conspiring aginst you:P What ends up mattering is if the agenda is active, its power, and what its trying to accomplish.

For the record there is also agendas against gay marriage and agendas against homosexuals in general.

What I am trying to say is that when we vote on an issue, we are only voting on that issue. Casting a vote for Gay Marriage isn't also casting a vote for Gay Adoption or Gay Sex Ed, its just a vote for the issue of Gay Marriage. So say we vote for Gay Marriage and the gay activists then think "Oh step 1 is complete on to step 2 and later world domination! Muhaha" we shouldn't think "Oh man we shouldn't have legalized gay marriage" because legalization was perfectly good thing to do, the thing is to go "Oh no Step 2 is too much/doesnt make sense/is wrong...I'm going against that issue"

Edited by Cadetak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

When did the IRS become the authority on free speech? The statute is unconstitutional.

Churches can say what they want but if they want tax exemption status they have to follow the rules. The idea is that certain organizations(such as churches) shouldn't have to pay taxes because they are non-profit and provide a public service(or however it works). When a church becomes more akin to a political activist group it becomes disqualified from tax exemption.

So the IRS isn't acting as an authority on free speech here but as an authority on taxes.

Hope that clears it up.

Edited by Cadetak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

The government is not "scaring" any of them with threatening to remove the tax exempt status. When they applied to be a "church" or religion they agreed to certain things. One of those being not politically motivated.

If the church opts to take a stand, they KNOWINGLY do so at their own risk.

Nibs

Many do take a stand, rightfully so. IRS hasnt had the balls to act though, they just threaten. No one can agree to have thier freedom of speech taken from them. The IRS doesnt give them freedom to speak, God does. So the IRS cant take it from them. If we cant get behind these basic simple freedoms FOR ALL, then we are indeed lost.

The constitution protects the churches freedom to speak. When it come to religion "congress shall make NO LAW prohibiting the free exorcise there of". So if a church feels its thier duty to inform thier congregation politicaly, it is thier RIGHT Not IRS privilage, But RIGHT to do so.

Why do people on the left or right think they have authority to control anothers mind?

Any one of you who think gay folks should be able to marry, while thinking its ok to restrict the speech of anyone, is a hypocrite beyond absurdity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Churches can say what they want but if they want tax exemption status they have to follow the rules. The idea is that certain organizations(such as churches) shouldn't have to pay taxes because they are non-profit and provide a public service(or however it works). When a church becomes more akin to a political activist group it becomes disqualified from tax exemption.

So the IRS isn't acting as an authority on free speech here but as an authority on taxes.

Hope that clears it up.

Not even close. Paying taxes doesnt give you the right to free speech. Our "creator" does. The people that make up a church have already been taxed to death, and now they should be taxed again for speaking??? Tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

Not even close. Paying taxes doesnt give you the right to free speech. Our "creator" does. The people that make up a church have already been taxed to death, and now they should be taxed again for speaking??? Tyranny.

They have free speech, they can and do say what they wish and that is not trying to be changed. What I am staying and what Startraveler was refrencing was the criteria for being eligible for tax exempt status.

For example we have to pay taxes, if we didn't want to pay taxes(or less taxes) we would have to apply for some sort of tax exemption. However to be granted that benefit and keep that benefit we would have to operate under the rules set.

So a church can do whatever they want...they just may have to pay taxes like everybody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

They have free speech, they can and do say what they wish and that is not trying to be changed. What I am staying and what Startraveler was refrencing was the criteria for being eligible for tax exempt status.

For example we have to pay taxes, if we didn't want to pay taxes(or less taxes) we would have to apply for some sort of tax exemption. However to be granted that benefit and keep that benefit we would have to operate under the rules set.

So a church can do whatever they want...they just may have to pay taxes like everybody else.

The church is made up of its people, who HAVE paid thier taxes. The constitution prohibits any law that would restrict a church in any way. The code is unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

The church is made up of its people, who HAVE paid thier taxes. The constitution prohibits any law that would restrict a church in any way. The code is unconstitutional.

It does not restrict them, it provides them a benefit by allowing them tax exempt status. Arguably it is more unconstitutional to give them tax exemption then it is to deny them tax exemption.

The people are aloud to say whatever they want as individuals, as they do not have tax exempt status the rules that apply to it are not relevant to them. A church that does enjoy tax exemption has to abide by the rules or lose their benefit...this doesn't restrict their freedom of speech just their ability to receive tax exemption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

It does not restrict them, it provides them a benefit by allowing them tax exempt status. Arguably it is more unconstitutional to give them tax exemption then it is to deny them tax exemption.

The people are aloud to say whatever they want as individuals, as they do not have tax exempt status the rules that apply to it are not relevant to them. A church that does enjoy tax exemption has to abide by the rules or lose their benefit...this doesn't restrict their freedom of speech just their ability to receive tax exemption.

Who authorised directly against the will of the constitution, the ability to implement property taxes at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Vanhornes Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

Every State in the Union has its constitution reduced to written exactitude

and precision. What is a Constitution? It is the form of Government, delineated

by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental

laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the

permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount

to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the

authority that made it. The life giving principle and the death doing stroke must

proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the

Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: It is their commission;

and therefore all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void.

The Constitution is the work or the will of the people themselves, in their original,

sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in

their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the creator, and

the other of the creature. The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of

legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit in which it must move. In short,

gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all

Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever be the case in

other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the

Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is absolutely void.

The Constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring,

possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. it

is not ex gratia from the Legislature, but ex debito from the Constitution.

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power

to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of the Constitution. it says to the

Legislators, this far ye shall go and no further,

Edited by preacherman76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

Who authorised directly against the will of the constitution, the ability to implement property taxes at all?

I believe the Constitution grants the ability for the government to tax in Article 1(Section 7 or 8ish?)

I think property tax is operated under the local government though and not the federal...I don't know I don't pay property tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

inalienable-

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

I believe the Constitution grants the ability for the government to tax in Article 1(Section 7 or 8ish?)

I think property tax is operated under the local government though and not the federal...I don't know I don't pay property tax.

The Constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring,

possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and inalienable

The states cant not over ride the constitution. It is what we have "United" under. In order to create a more perfect "union".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

The Constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring,

possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and inalienable

The states cant not over ride the constitution. It is what we have "United" under. In order to create a more perfect "union".

How is the legality of property tax relevant to the Church's 1st amendment rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

How is the legality of property tax relevant to the Church's 1st amendment rights?

Thats one of the main things the IRS threatens the churches with regarding free speech. Property tax. As well as income tax, which of course is just as unconstitutional. Its litteraly half the battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

Thats one of the main things the IRS threatens the churches with regarding free speech. Property tax. As well as income tax, which of course is just as unconstitutional. Its litteraly half the battle.

Which is because a church may violate the conditions of its tax exempt status it is no longer illegible for the status and thus must pay taxes like everybody else. Whether income or property tax is constituional or not, although a valid concern worthy of its own topic, is not very relevant considering churches can(and most certainly do) speak out against Gay Marriage and can do so whether they are taxed or not. Nothing is stopping them from doing that. However, they cannot act as a political activist group and enjoy tax exemption as tax exemption isn't for political activist groups.

In short, the Church's ability to be opinionated in the matter of Gay marriage is not infringed by any law.

Edited by Cadetak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Well I have been trying to hold this topic strickly from a constitutional stand point, even though it has now averted us from the OT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

Well I have been trying to hold this topic strickly from a constitutional stand point, even though it has now averted us from the OT.

Oh okay we were off topic, I understand now.

The Constitution doesn't give us much support in this issue. I know you will say that means we shouldn't recognize any marriage(and I would agree) but that's not the scenerio we have. I do not believe this issue can be resolved at the federal level which leaves this issue at the will of the people of individual states.

The constitution and law make mention of race, gender, and religious affiliation but at the moment do not protect matters of sexual orientation. Although there is room for argument with interpretation of the law(as you and others have stated in this thread) at the end of the day it will come to down to some form of public opinion...effectively mob rule.

Edited by Cadetak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler

Perhaps it would be wise to save the word "unconstitutional" for things that actually violate something in the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.