Refute this

>faggets upset they don't have their own holy book and that most holy books see them as sinners

/thread

Churches are gay

Not to mention charity.

>comparing a sexual orientation to a religion

>being opposed to separation of church and state

Church don't pay taxes because they're separate from the state. If churches paid taxes they'd have tangible influence in government and I don't think you fags want that. It's a 2 way street.

Fags did have equal rights. Straight people aren't allowed to marry the same sex either. Straight and gay people all had the exact same right, to marry the opposite sex and not the same one. No one had a right the other didn't.

Fags and fag enables are so fucking stupid and inconsistent it really gets my goat

good, stick to the easy one, don't even try to refute the yellow text because you can't.

>Churches don't pay taxes because it's not an organization for making profit
>it's not an organization for making profit

You have a lot to learn my friend.

witnessed

Why don't gays just come out and say they want the same tax breaks that straight people enjoy? That's what same-sex marriage is really about, right? But then why should they enjoy these incentives to raise a family, if at this stage they can't procreate.

FPBP

>Gay Marriage isnt an attack on christians values
>Every argument supporting gay marriage ends with a sneering dig on Christianity

Churches are not taxable
faggots are.
refute this.

not paying taxes is not gay privilege

impoverished blacks don't pay taxes, let's call that privelege

Churches aren't individuals, they are [supposed to be] charitable houses of worship that collect and distrubte money as part of a collective responsibilty to help others.

Then you have fucking nigger church with their million preachers that are conning people out of their money, those should be taxed or outlawed.

Faggot marriage isn't equal either because everyone has the right to marry the opposite sex regardless of their sexual desire.

Gays were allowed to marry women before
And many did

churches still pay taxes. They pay state, municipal property, and employment taxes. If they buy things, they still pay sales tax as well.

Most faggots seem to confuse entities being exempt from FEDERAL INCOME TAX as being exempt from ALL taxes. Or they simply chose to ignore this fact.

Gay eat da poo poo!!

youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w

I guess I'll do it: it's a strawman. Almost no one opposed to gay marriage is calling it gay privilege, they just don't believe that gay people deserve that same right.

then churches will have influence over government, which is why they aren't taxed

Marriage is a privilege, thus gays getting marriage is gay privilege. You do not have the right to get married, you have the right to ask to get married and you can get turned down any time.

btfo

>88

Glorious

>Every argument supporting gay marriage ends with a sneering dig on Christianity
Asserting men and women are equal and shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of sex in marriage isn't a sneering dig on Christianity...unless it's some sort of backward religion that doesn't even recognize human equality or something.

That wouldn't be true would it?

They also rarely have just one partner. There have been many articles covering the well-known fact that gays can have thousands of partners in their lifetime, even after marrying

Separation of church and state + no taxation without representation = no church taxes

...

I don't care about gay marriage, or anything else gays do behind closed doors. I just don't want them bringing their degeneracy out in the streets (gay pride events are just a thinly veiled excuse for orgies, as are pretty much any other gay event), and I don't want them adopting (a little boy being raised by two lesbians just happened to decide he's actually a girl? What a fucking coincidence!).

Marriage is a sacrament. It will never be equal because gay marriage is not even s thing.

Matthew 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Faggots were free to marry members of the opposite sex just like everyone else

Louis Lerner made sure they paid their taxes. -the conservative churches that is, not the liberal.

>unless it's some sort of backward religion
you just proved his point faggot

LOL Another sneering dig on Christianity.
Congratulations you played yourself.

Churches offer charity services.
Do fags offer anything other than STDs?

I didn't know Gay's had something the equivalent of churches? Is that where my dads go every sunday morning?

ERASED

Marriage isn't a right.

The Constitution.

Also Ricky Gervais is one of the biggest psueds I can think of.

The worthless abos, here in Canada pay no taxes, and then they go around crying about their reserves have shitty public services.

They ought to check their fuckin priveledge!

If a church wanted to perform gay religious wedding ceremonies, they wouldn't suddenly be taxed for it. This is an argument against nothing.

Nice trips. Honestly I agree, however, the faggots going sucking dick in public and saying "YOU'RE HOMOPHOBIC" if you tell them to stop need to fucking stop. Keep that shit in your bedroom man.

>miscegenation has nothing to do with equal rights
>Where it is illegal, a white person can't marry anyone of their different race any less than a colored person can't.

Equal rights isn't equality between races/sexes/whatever, it's equality without regards for races/sexes/whatever so the argument isn't even properly structured even if it doesn't come with a clear decades old counterexample.

If A can marry B legally, then if C can't it better not be because they are a different race/sex/whatever.

I can.

There is an economic and civic imperative for the state to promote the creation of new citizens.

Gays, no matter how hard they try, by principle, cannot produce more citizens.

Why should the state incentivize it?

Beyond that, Churches are tax exempt because of the separation clause, which prohibits the creation of state churches, which in turn, prohibits state sponsored and enforced morality. You can't have your cake and eat it too, motherfuckers. We value our freedom, not your right to impose on others.

On a semi-related note, we had common law and civil equivalencies on the table for a long time. You fags rejected it in favor making a point.

ITT: its fine as long as i dont have to see them kiss in public

Churches do a lot good for their communities.

Fags don't.

Ok. Not paying taxes is illegal resident privilege. So is taking from the welfare system they didn't contribute to, having free access to emergency healthcare and public schooling, and not incurring debt. There's no point in gays even getting married. While I've my own qualms about religion, I'm smart enough to understand that the denigration of the church has much to do with how far we've fallen as a nation.

If churches _dont_ _not_ pay taxes?
The double negative implies, they do pay taxes
The fuckers don't, but.
>irrefutably refuted
>chalk-wielding faggots cannot into English

AIDS

They should be allowed to marry.

Gays had the right to marry before. they just couldnt marry a member of the exact same sex, XD. Straight people couldnt either, so it's equal

Churches are charities. They give back to the community and host free meals, give out clothes, coats, shoes etc to the poor, help guide people going through drugs/alcohol problems, and much, much more.

All gay people seem to do is bitch and moan about trivial shit like is there any gluten in their oatbran vegan muffins and how the patriarchy is oppressing them by not giving them free shit.

It was a joke m8s. I could have left out everything after the elipse and still made my point (that being the argument works fine without bringing religion into it).

I think there are 4 kinds of arguments for gay marriage, completely rational ones that stand on their own, completely irrational ones steeped in anti religious sentiment, bad arguments that don't fucking work, and completely rational ones that only end up seeming as attacks on religions because full retards argue that society should be run by religious mores first and thus disproving that has to become central to the counterargument.

Don't argue religion knows better and 9 times out of 10 you won't have people proving you wrong in an "attack on Christianity"

what kind of fallacy is this called again? comparing two completely unrelated things in unrelated ways?
>there's no gay Christians
>all straight people go to church
>an AK that shoots 6.5x53R
those wacky Warsaw pact Dutch Nazis

>gay marriage is not even s thing.
So if a man has multiple wives, by that logic wouldn't the wives be of one flesh?

So gay marriage is a thing?

Gays marrying gays implies that marriage is based on sexual attraction, which is incredibly untrue for all of human history

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Fags are demanding to literally redefine a culturally-constant term to suit their agenda.

So yeah, fuck fags.

Marriage is a religious thing. Call it a legal union to keep the religious folks quiet and call it a day.

When did I say anything about gays in that post?

I was simply saying you can't discriminate based on sex in US marriage law.

>I want the government to tax everything I don't like
Literally worse than Hitler

that was attempted with 'civil union' but the fags kept crying about "muh jim crow laws and shiet" because they perceived it as "separate but equal" but not

We do. Civil marriage is a legal union.

Rightwing retards still threw a bitchfit for years of same sex civil marriage.

>I was merely pretending to be retarded

>implying I think miscegenation should be legal

It is, by definition, destructive of a nation. Only secular states who have no regard for their founding ethnicities legalize it.

Churches aren't people.

The state can't force churches to perform gay marriages, right?
Separation of Church and State and all that?

I mean, if the church in question is cool with the idea, then by all means, but if it isn't...

non sequitur?

I mean right now that's correct. I would except that marriage is a social construct but it's current form has worked well so far and don't see why it should change.
Once you concede that being a fag is okay marriage and fostering will always be the result, which is why we need zero tolerance for homesexuality.
The don't ask don't tell was part of the problem. Those on the right need to understand that giving up the moral high ground will always result in defeat.

Equality is a false God. We don't need to live in an equal society. If you have sexual desires that are abnormal, that's your problem. Not ours. Now get back in the closet and stfu.

Civil unions isn't recognized by the federal government just the state they were married in.

Rome was the first state to have no separation between church and state. Constantine intervened a lot in church matters and likewise the church influenced him. He was basically a pope-Emporer of sorts. Of course there was an actual pope and all that but yeah. It's said God sent a message to Constantine in the form of a Flaming Cross telling him something like "Conquer in this." I don't believe the current pope is a true Christian so I see your point.

1. Civil unions weren't equal to civil marriages, having no federal or interstate recognition (federal recognition of same sex marriages even came about because a chick was being taxed millions of dollars for inheriting her deceased wife's assets because no spousal exception for the inheritance tax if you need a practical example of how they differ that directly relates to how we came to same sex marriage)
2. separate but equal was inherently unequal you fucking retard

My black friend really dislikes gay people and he said to me one time "You know, im not against gay people getting married, but dont call it civil rights" lol

So by that logic, because a gay Prussian was instrumental in founding the United States, we should have legalized same sex marriage forever ago?

this is kind of funny because im a cpa and in the past i've had a few gay small business owners come to me because they weren't paying taxes because the govt wouldnt allow them to get married.

Gay Prussian men can't make mutt babies with brown people.

It's funny because you're posting that shit on an anonymous image board instead of IRL.

I agree fundamentally, abnormals should seclude themselves and shut the fuck up you dipshit homophobe.

except there is no seperation by them, they still have an overwhelming amount of influence

so they either need to pay up or fix this shit

If you have a problem with gays, stfu. I can do it too.

>attack Christianity

i see nothing about christianity in there

That's what I'm thinking of, does it apply here? They could have mentioned religion in general, they're >implying it's only Churches, not mosques, synagogues or anything else, that are tax exempt, and/or that individual Christians are greatly privileged by their church not paying taxes (news flash gays, you can start a non profit if you want to put money towards something you believe in)

>muh equal rights
But equality is a sham and doesn't exist. We aren't equal.

Looking at churches not paying taxes as a privilege is holding a perspective where, by default, a government has a right to any person or group's possessions, and that government grants special rights to specific people or groups. That perspective can be flipped around. By default a government has no right to anyone's possessions, but some may grant the right to a government to tax them to provide certain services (courts, roads, military, etc). From the first perspective, people are not inherently free and do not truly own anything, since the government could choose to take it at any time. In the second perspective, people are inherently free and can choose to give up those freedoms.

The First Amendment is framed in the second perspective. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The government was not granted the right to tax a religious institution.

>thousands

oh kek, sauce plz

corporations are people my friend

>marriage is a christian tradition

no it isn't.

>I was just pretending to be retard guys

Hahaha

Corporations are groups of people who all individually pay their own taxes on any profits they receive from the corporation. You don't forfeit your rights just because you act through XYZ Inc. rather than yourself.

In hoc signo vinces
By this sign you shall conquer, and I think it was the Chi Rho actually

No taxation without representation. If you want to keep churches out of politics then keep them tax free.

>all religion is anti-gay meme

The state should have never gotten involved in marriage to begin with.

Once it's got it's huge ass firmly seated in the problem area, of course it's obligated to be even-handed, and give the marriage treats to everyone not just the breeders.

so why does a corporation gain extra representation based on the group if the individuals retain it?

i don't think it applies here, non sequitur implies the premises are being used to argue for a particular conclusion that they don't have a logical connection to... OP image is just a false analogy

Everyone already has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender

Gays are literally asking for more rights on top of what they already have

And in doing so are redefining a word and defying common sense

In addition they defy the wishes of God who clearly sees it as an abomination

If churches have to pay taxes, then they can lobby in government.
So sure, tax 'em, I'd love to use church money to lobby hardcore for the removal of gay rights.

faggots sure are catty

it is

What is the purpose of Marriage and all incentives to marry?

refute what? its nonsense. there is no rational though there. its just some dried up sodomizers brain scrambling to express some emotional point in a desperate attempts to justify its aids.

>so why does a corporation gain extra representation based on the group if the individuals retain it?

What extra representation? Does PepsiCo get to vote in elections? Did you vote for Ronald McDonald in your state primary this year?

>What extra representation?

ah yes, corporations don't have government influence

my bad. i mean it isn't exclusive to christianity, nor did it originate with christianity.

I have nothing against civil union, but some faggots want to marry in a church.
This should never be allowed.

Hey fags, bake me a Hitler cake for Hitler's birthday.

>Asserting men and women are equal and shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of sex in marriage isn't a sneering dig on Christianity...unless it's some sort of backward religion that doesn't even recognize human equality or something.

Men and women aren't fucking equal you fucking cucktard.
Fuck off to reddit with the other malefeminist nice guy fedoras.

Churches are institutions that help their communities.

Gays can enter marriage without any risk of ever having to start a family.... you know, that thing marriages are for. It basically lets them worm into financial benefits made for people starting families.

So yes, it is a "privlege" and the libshit is full of shit as usual.

/thread

>what extra representation
my my, someone hasn't been following modern politics.

To get government priority over single people.

>This should never be allowed.

except in the churchs that allow it

Rights are a spook anyway. A right can only be said to exist if someone is willing to fight for its existence.

If it's a Christian tradition, then it has no place in secular law.

"Separation of church and state" means religion doesn't exist as far as the law goes. Churches do still exist as financial entities, and should still be subject to the laws regarding financial entities. "Separation of church and state" DOESN'T mean that the church should be outside the law, rather it means that the law should not acknowledge religion, any more than it acknowledges some 5 year old's imaginary friend.

That's like saying America and the USSR had equal free speech rights, as both allowed you to criticize President Reagan.

Most WOULD be okay with that, if straight "marriage" was abolished as well and it was all replaced with civil partnerships. In any case, marriage as an incentive for families is a literal meme anyway, because a straight couple unable or unwilling to reproduce has the exact same marriage rights as straight couples who have children.

The people who run churches can vote - are you saying that the (inherently undemocratic) "right" of corporations to fund political campaigns is a fundamental part of "no taxation without representation"?

>There is an economic and civic imperative for the state to promote the creation of new citizens.
Then put your money where your mouth is and demand the marriage privileges of non-reproductive couples be revoked.

It wouldn't be an issue if we decided to reclassify straight legal marriages as "civil unions" as well.

Marriage doesn't exist either, it's just something made up. So why is it such an issue if we combine one made-up concept with another one?

Gary people already have equal rights to marriage. I don't see anything saying that gay men can't marry a woman or a lesbian woman can't marry a man. They're just upset that their biology prevents them from being securely attracted to the opposite gender. There next step is tax payer funded test tube babies because procreation is oppressive. Absolutely degenerate.

>they think money = influence

All the money in the world can't buy a single vote.

But let's roll with your retardation. Let's say my XYZ Inc. gives a million dollars to some cause, passing a law providing free orthodontics to all Asian box turtles.

Where did this money come from?

Who authorized it to be spent in this manner?

>In addition they defy the wishes of God who clearly sees it as an abomination
Based on what? What some middle easterner wrote 3000 years ago?

So you think it's wrong to tax property unless that property grants you an extra vote?

Cred Forums is a christian board

Seriously are gay people even oppressed anywhere in America anymore? I only see support or at worst people saying they disagree but who cares. You would think gays are being forced into prison the way people go out of their way to show support

Fag religions get tax exemptions too.

we legalized bribery

money is now the only influence

So I guess that makes you a faggot then.

carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

Answer the questions. Who authorizes a corporation to spend money to support a political cause?

i don't give a shit about gay marriage. Who says it's "gay privilege"? I've never heard that term in my life.

people do but the corporation's income isn't taxed as personal income now is it faggot

board of directors

That's cool and all.

But I'm still gonna call you a faggot

God bless rights

>the corporation's income

What do corporations do with their income? Does Coke have a giant piggy bank somewhere where they keep all the coins from vending machines? Maybe Serta sticks theirs under their mattresses.

Marriage (tm) is a property of the church. They have a right to refuse service to anyone. Faggots should make some sort of legal equivalent of their own, but not a religious one.

We all know that gayfags have more than 1000 partners in their lifetime and that they are walking hiv reservoirs anyway............. they never have long relationships anyway, they just want to intrude on our rights to not care and act decently in public.

So, this "board of directors", who do they work for?

I don't pay taxes because the government thinks I'm too poor. Do I have Poor Privilege?

Maybe, but that's not how what we usually mean by privilege,

A more appropriate example of privilege that means certain laws applying to certain groups of people (hat is what privilege means - private law -) are Hate Speech and Affirmative Action.

Start a gay church

Saging this slide shit

Gays can marry, is nonissue still used rile up folks who don't actually care about politics and corruption.

>citing a Christian propaganda site

you don't need marriage to start a family. you don't need to start a family if you're married. At least not in USA. Maybe in some ass-backwards land like Saudi Arabia.

Do churches receive federal funding like planned parenthood?

the corporation

>What do corporations do with their income?

influence politics

>he doesn't know why marriage exists in the first place

>churches are people

>the corporation

Wrong answer.

>influence politics

Wrong answer. You shouldn't comment on such matters if you don't know the basic fundamentals of corporate structure.

both answers are correct until you can prove otherwise

Fuck that

Marriage is the institution the citizen can join to receive tax breaks. Marriage by definition is the union of a man and a woman. There is a cultural criteria for this that has been established over a long history of mankind and it has a natural biological implication.
That would make it seem like all citizens that don't live in marriage are discriminated against which of course is not the case since the joining of this union is not forbidden to them. It's not a right because the citizens can't demand to be provided with marriage - he has to find a partner on his own that agrees to join this union with him. That means that the man and wife are granted a privilege since they now receive tax breaks that people outside of this union do not receive.

So the state does discriminate against everyone not joined in this union because it is incentivizing citizens to do so. The implication would be that the state should offer no tax breaks to achieve equality before the law. It goes to show that marriage can't be an institution recognized by the state if it is not allowed to grant privileges and thereby discriminate against others.

Christianity coopted something that's been around since humans were humans

Donations should not be taxed. The argument is poorly framed.

Corporations are people my friend

marriage is not a right. its a privilege. otherwise you would not need a license to do it

Marriage *was*, by US legal definition, the union of a man and a woman. It is no longer that since the gendered discrimination inherent in that definition was ruled unconstitutional.

Its a legal privilege that *was* granted on a discriminatory, unconstitutional basis.

You yanks basically wrote yourselves into a legal corner on this one.

The board of directors is usually elected by the shareholders of the company. Corporate income is either spent as overhead or distributed to the shareholders as dividends.

This is very simple stuff. If you don't want my help, then just say so. You can continue living your life as a peasant paralyzed by jealousy of your superiors. It's all the same to me.

>Rights are a spook anyway. A right can only be said to exist if someone is willing to fight for its existence.

"willingness" would be the spook then. you're a terrible instirnpterter

Get a church or sea captain to marry you. The State has no business in your private life.

Gay non profits dont pay taxes
Faggots could always marry women
Straight men could never marry other men

If that's why marriage exists, those unwilling or unable to reproduce, or at the very least adopt, should be forbidden from marrying.

Willingness is not a spook. It's pretty easy to define: how much risk would you take to defend this right?

Why?
Everyone had the same restrictions
Marry someone of the opposite sex

Is this just bait or do you not know that state sanctioned marriage = tax breaks? Pic related

Faggots are free to marry members of the opposite sex, the same right that straight people have. They have exercised this right for millennia - even the famously gay Beoetians in ancient Greece married women and had little faggotty rugrats.

>If that's why marriage exists, those unwilling or unable to reproduce, or at the very least adopt, should be forbidden from marrying.

Don't conflate the purpose with the function. Without state co-option of marriage, a childless couple is simply neutral. It's like buying a car without wheels.

>gay people should get married because I doubt the faithfulness of a monogamous homosexual marraige
do you even hear yourselves?

Everyone has the right to marriage. Marriage being between a man and a woman.

'Marriage' between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not marriage. Therefore allowing it, and calling it marriage, is special treatment.

I agree

>Marriage *was*, by US legal definition, the union of a man and a woman. It is no longer that since the gendered discrimination inherent in that definition was ruled unconstitutional.

Which goes to show that discrimination is an inherent part of the state. Either you accept that the states discriminates or you have a state that is confined to areas that don't require discrimination. Stripping marriage of its meaning as union of man and woman in the end goes to showcase the destructive effect the state has on civilization. Either you let the majority decide which way of live should be preserved by the state or you give everyone equal opportunities which simply renders the state useless.

Letting a court make such a decision in the end is no better. It's even worse. When did marriage become unconstitutional in the United States? It must have been around the same time as the Supreme Court suddenly realized that prohibition of abortion was illegal too. Fancy that! The people that wrote the constitution and lived by it didn't even realize it at the time. For 300 years nobody noticed it until the Supreme Court stepped in and saved the day by allegedly saving the constitution.
It's a level of retardation no on can comprehend.

This implies that marriage between a man and a woman is equal to same sex marriage when it is clearly not.

Why would a church pay taxes? Don't they live of charity in the usa?

What makes charity immune to taxation?

>Why would a church pay taxes?

Because funding for churches involves an arbitrary transfer of resources between a voluntary collection of individuals and nothing drops statist panties faster than finding new revenue streams for the government.

>What makes charity immune to taxation?

Hey guys, we should tax cigarettes, that way, people will want to stop smoking!

Hey guys, we should tax charitable contributions, that way, people will want to...

OP btfo

Two distinctly different situations, but cute effort!

I think marriage is none of the government's business unless it's stopping you marrying a child or whatever the fuck, but this fucking "HURR CHURCHES DON'T PAY TAXES MUH FAIR SHARE" meme needs to die, churches aren't fucking casinos raking in loadsamoney daily

>Church
>Not Christian
You are a special kind of stupid

Serious question. What would Churches pay taxes on? They don't sell anything, so why would they even need an exemption?

it's usually tax deductible actually

>Two distinctly different situations

It's literally the same situation, and yet I'm not sure why I thought that a person who unironically thinks that is a good policy would be able to see that. I mean, why do we need charity, anyway? Isn't that what government is for?

Exactly. Which is why a church should not be tax exempt.

>literally
See:

Gay marriage is not about equal rights. It was equal BEFORE gay marriage.

Before:
Gays: Could not marry same sex
Heteros: Could not marry same sex

Now:
Gays: Can marry same sex
Heteros: Can marry same sex

It was NEVER an "equality" issue, and any faggot that has argued that is completely illogical.

It is a total NON-issue, and always has been. Gays are almost non-existent statistically... transgenders even more so. They are over-represented in the media to give the masses a false moral dichotomy that the globalist agenda has exploited to destroy the nuclear family structure. Those who don't support these non-breeding people are labeled racists/bigots, giving the left an avenue to claim moral high-ground.

>gay people can't get married
stupidest thing i've ever heard. marriage is a contract between a man and a woman regarding their property.

>false moral dichotomy
Then why oppose them? If it's such a
>non-existent statistically
represented percentage than it should, in the long run, not matter at all. If this is what you truly believe then you're just tilting at windmills and wasting your fucking time preventing two people from entering into a legal contract that protects their interests.

Ending a tax deduction achieves the same ends as adding a new tax. You're giving people less bang for their buck, so to speak. Economics 101, if they still taught that, would tell you that people are going to engage in that behavior less.

In any case, churches, like any corporation, should not be liable for any income or wealth tax.

Uh, churches give the majority of their revenue to charity ?

So will you kys now?

how are they different? if you had to pay tax on donations you made fucking nobody would do it

When they're willing to ruin society just for the sake of making indulging in their fetish easier?

The backwards logic that they run on and are trying to infect all of society with is insane, and I'm glad that a majority of the world still doesn't tolerate their bullshit.

if people want to legally get married, I honestly couldn't give less of a fuck. Just stop trying to push this message that everyone NEEDS to be okay with it, and the churches need to honor those as marriages. Also, I guess we should start taxing all the other non profits who do stuff like feed the homeless and help struggling youth, suicide hotlines, etc.

>Ending a tax deduction achieves the same ends as adding a new tax.
Oh you sweet summer child, no it doesn't.
>Economics 101, if they still taught that
Yeah, about that. See above.
>In any case, churches, like any corporation, should not be liable for any income or wealth tax.
Wow. There's so much wrong about this, I don't even know where to start. It's not really not even wrong, it's just bad...

>indulging in their fetish
Sex other than for procreation?

I can't. All profit making institutions should be taxed. Especially Mosques.

Marriage is a privilege that single people don't get and that's not fair. Prove me wrong.

>if you had to pay tax on donations you made fucking nobody would do it
if you had to pay tax on cigarettes you smoked fucking nobody would do it

DANNY DOOBERSTEIN?

Marriage should be privatised. That's the real solution. What kind of insecure person finds solace in the state sanctifying their relationship.

false equivalency

> profit making institutions
you do realize that the reason they don't get taxed is because they are defined as non-profit. do your homework

>Oh you sweet summer child, no it doesn't.

Decreasing the effective benefit of an action will reduce that action. It doesn't matter if $1.00 that previously got you $1.10 of benefit now only gets you $1.00, or if if $1.00 that previously got you $1.00 of benefit now only gets you $.90.

>Wow. There's so much wrong about this, I don't even know where to start. It's not really not even wrong, it's just bad...

Point and sputter, it works for clickbait, it'll work for you too.

See:

Maintaining the original meaning of marriage is not about opposing gay behavior. The two are completely unrelated.

Sexual preference should never be the concern of any government for any reason. If the laws are equal, and they clearly were, then leave it alone. Stop wasting time and tax-payer dollars on issues that don't even matter.

The dirty little secret here is that it -does- matter to the highest echelons of the progressives/globalists... because it destroys the meaning of marriage and divides us.

churces are an abomination

>The unrelated legal benefits that the state assigned to the religious institution of marriage and their bastardization thereof is a privilege that single people don't get and that's not fair.

FTFY

same. only benefit is on taxes, which judging on how badly marriage had deteriorated in meaning, could be completely removed soon since no one actually seems to stick together and create the benefits to children which I assume was one of the reasons for creating them in the first place

No, sex with the same sex. It's just a fetish.

It's only recently, in the last two hundred years or so, that we've had the insanity of calling a preference an orientation, and treating it like it's innate, immutable, and inherent.

There's more people who have had sex with animals than there are homosexuals, and yet we call what they do a disgusting fetish, while fags are trying to get us to condone what they do as just a flipside to heterosexual sex.

It's a dumb fetish they've chosen to adopt as an identity, because it makes it easier to have gay sex if you're allowed to be open about it. And, when you allow a fetish to form your identity, you end up becoming human cancer.

>Point and sputter, it works for clickbait, it'll work for you too.
That's your rebuttal? It doesn't even address the point, let alone come close to the location the point exists in.

>If the laws are equal
which they weren't
>meaning of marriage
which there isn't beyond a legal definition
>divides us
m'itosis (((tips fedora)))

Sorry I got here late, just wanted to point out nowhere in the history of the Gay Marriage debate has anyone ever called Gay Marriage an example of Gay Privilege. Except for the faggot who wrote on that blackboard.

This sort of paranoia and self-manifesting persecution is a strong indicator of someone suffering from multiple, serious mental disorders. I advise them to seek counseling immediately.

No, the only benefit is not on taxes. There are lots of other legal obligations when it comes to a legal marriage. Please defer from entering the conversation until you're educated about these things.

this was on r/atheism. fuck off reddit fedoras

>That's your rebuttal? It doesn't even address the point, let alone come close to the location the point exists in.

Right, and OMG WOW JUST WOW did.

I posted links to previous posts. Read them or don't, I don't care. You can live out the remainder of your years as a bootlicker, it's all the same to me.

The only correct definition of marriage is;

A union between a Christian man and Christian woman before God entered into for life.

The State defining marriage as something else is as absurd as the State defining the meaning of the sacraments or any other Christian concept you can think of. It's a gross violation of separation of church and state. So why are the left supporting this concept of "gay marriage"?

>There's more people who have had sex with animals than there are homosexuals
citation please!
>because it makes it easier to have gay sex if you're allowed to be open about it
now you're just trolling for effect
>when you allow a fetish to form your identity, you end up becoming human cancer
adorable. troll confirmed.

lmao, faggot says "wow, just wow... you're bad" and thinks it warrants a rebuttal... fuggin amateur hour

equal rights means you're free to start your faggot-based religion and apply for tax exempt status.

>Same-sex marriage is not gay privilege
this is another prime example of psychotic SJWs refuting a claim that no one made.

It's a troll, don't waste your time.

what benefits are provided to married persons not allowed to singles by institutions? Don't get me wrong, I think it's very important for society, but the government along with a lot of the left has distorted the entire thing.

not as adorable as your deviant fetish that forms the basis of your identity ;^)

Your links are shit. They show no coherence of opinion and are plain "OMG TAXATION" bullshit. Pull your tiny head out of your ass and form a goddamned opinion if you want to talk at the adult table.

The restriction on who you could marry was ruled discriminatory.

So update your constitution. You wont though, because there's not enough popular support to do so.

It does however seem eminently appropriate for the court to rule on whether laws contradict the constitution or not - that is somewhat the point of having a court. You need someone independent of the legislature and executive to rule on the results of conflicting laws.

Marriage is religious contract not a human right. Retarded niggers forget this.

>citation please!

You can look up any set of studies. Any. Even those with an extremely liberal bias. Even Kinsey reported more people having sex with animals then their being homosexuals, and he greatly exaggerated how many homosexuals they were.

>now you're just trolling for effect
Dispute it. Go on. Tell me that there's another reason to be "open" about being gay other than to make it easier to have gay sex.

>adorable. troll confirmed.
Human cancer confirmed. This is what happens when you set your personality to "fag."

>Fags can marry their dogs
in canada, sure

They're suggesting homosexuality has defined human history as much as religion?

>impoverished blacks don't pay taxes, let's call that privelege
it literally is, though

for one simple illustration, medical power of attorney.

Apology accepted.

At least it was, now there's basically two different kinds of marriage; that of the church and that of the state, however the two are treated as the same. They have not been for a long time. If they were the same, then you wouldn't be able to go to a courthouse to get married. Muddys the entire conversation.

You don't need to be married to a person to be their power of attorney

There was no rebuttal. You faggots can stand in line behind him and try to provide a decent argument if you like. It appears you're too busy gargling each other's shit, however.

A Christian church that is willing to preform a gay marriage is like an AA meeting that provides free booze for showing up.

It doesn't bother me that gay marriage is legal now, but only a fucked up church would be willing to do one because it promotes sin.

The tax incentives for married couples exist to reward a man and woman for creating the next generation of Americans. Faggits can't have kids so they don't deserve the tax incentives.

That's correct, but there is a distinct and already established method for two people who wish to be in a stable, ongoing relationship to permanently establish these legal benefits. It's called marriage. I'm sorry if your sensibilities lead you to think it's abhorrent, but that's how it breaks kid.

marriage isnt a right, its a privilege granted to strengthen the nuclear family.

Aye, people who thing Christianity supports homosexuality are idiots. Not to say we should treat them poorly, but saying "oh yeah, it's okay now" is stupid beyond belief.

well for one, no one calls gay marriage a
>privilege

pretty sure the maker of the sign just worded it that way so he could take a jab at Christianity
probably because he's a neck beard faggot

It's a "hate the sin, not the sinner" type thing, where the Church feels compassion for the people who have urges, but do not condone them to act upon them.

> OMG, I have to fill out paperwork for power of attorney instead of filling out paperwork for a marriage license.

I really don't see your point about this. If there is actually something that you can't do as a single person, as far as the state is concerned, then please tell.

>You can look up any set of studies.
The Kinsey study showed ~10% homosexuality, and far less proclivity towards sex with animals. I don't think you've done any reading whatsoever.

>UNDER GOD
sorry but America is a Christian nation

majority is still Christian by a lot
despite what liberal media spins

Implying the Christians who go to church don't already pay taxes. You'll just be taxing Christians twice making churches pay taxes

Even as a christian, I disagree with this. The entire reason the country was created was to keep the state from fucking with the church [and vice versa]. While it's dumb to deny the US's christian heritage and values, or attempt to discard them. I don't think it helps to be dishonest, and say we're a Christian nation, otherwise we would have declared a state religion, the very thing the US was created in part to escape.

>which they weren't

Yes, they were. I said, and you apparently ignored the fact that same-sex marriage was not possible for people of ANY and ALL sexual orientations, prior to the new ruling. That is equal. EVERYONE was under the blanket of the same rule of law.

The only argument for same-sex marriage is and always has been based upon a select minority's DESIRE to be treated as though they were a part of something they could never logically be a part of. They WANT to be "married" by the state in a completely new way that has never existed, even for heterosexuals.

Marriage under the law, had previously been defined as between two people of the opposite sex. It didn't matter what you were attracted to sexually, that was how it was defined.

For gays, and even transgenders, it's all about perception. They WANT to be perceived and accepted as though they are no different than the rest of society, when they are clearly different. They want to engage in their behavior in the open, yet force the suspension of disbelief on the rest of society because they don't want to suffer the reality that they are indeed a small minority... they are incapable of dealing with this.

If I told you that I'm a good, upstanding person, and I should be treated that way... but occasionally, I like to snuff out the occasional homeless person... or strangle the occasional hooker (only on wednesdays though, not a big deal, right) should you be forced to accept this as reality? Legality aside, should you be forced to deny that I am indeed an immoral person, just because you FEEL that you aren't? Do you think that your incapability of dealing with ramifications of your behavior... that you openly make public... is reason enough to alter our current laws and ideas of what morality really is?

>all this typing for a troll

Churches promote good in communities. Fags promote degeneracy in communities.The whole idea that sexual abnormalities deserve so much attention and discourse is ludicrous and absurd.

This whole sexual exploration bullshit is the downfall of humanity and if you can't see that you're a hopeless byproduct of thought manipulation.

Because churches would push the governments shit in if given the opportunity, either directly or subversively....

And marriage tax breaks are to promote families.... Not faggots pretending to be monogamous and have aids babies.

You can't establish the same legal benefits, which have existed and been legally defended for a long period of time, with any measure of ease.

Like?

>marriage is a legal contract
>churches are legal entities
>I don't how IRS exemptions work.
>non sequitur

You're Irish, you're disgusting and retarded. Only atheists are ubermensch tier

You mean 16%+ admitting to having sex with animals.

And 10% homosexuals is laughable, with even generous estimates putting the number closer to 3%, and more accurate estimates having the number beneath 2%.

As far as sex with animals, modern reports have the number near 6%, with it jumping to around 16% in rural areas.

Really, go on. Do some research, and enjoy realizing how silly treating the gay fetish as anything other than a fetish is.

>So update your constitution. You wont though, because there's not enough popular support to do so.
Here you misunderstand the problem. The abortion is not something the court can decide upon and decide that it is suddenly unconstitutional. It is a decision that should have been up to vote by the people and it is the same with marriage.

>You need someone independent of the legislature and executive to rule on the results of conflicting laws.
In theory, yes. In practice all those institutions however are one, no matter how much propaganda the state produces to obscure that fact.

The court however can't rule that marriage must be open to all sexes. It can give the opinion that it is unconstitutional to grant certain people privileges but it can't be allowed to make policies itself. That is beholden to the legislature.

You quoted the Kinsey study, and then say the 10% number is incorrect. You can't have it both ways.

There are more people that may read it than just a single troll.

>rabid secularist + stinerite
>unironically using le spook may may

Get back to /lit/, autist.

Because most churches are non-profit, do charity and community outreach. Meanwhile gays get a degenerate parade once a year?

Marriage is meant to promote having children and giving them a stable home. Two poz'd up faggots can't have kids or provide stability. Recognizing gay marriage does nothing for society and gay activists only argument in favor of it is vague bullshit like "love".

Privilege is forcing everyone to accept greased-up ass sex and faggy lisps and higher incidence of pedophilia as normal.

Gays are not non-profit inanimate objects that can't vote or even provide political opinion, and are supported almost exclusively through volunteer work and donations while organizing charities?

Then don't reply to him, frame your argument the way you want.

1.) Who the fuck calls it gay privilege?
>people who call it that
2.) Gays aren't usually monogamous.
baseless rhetoric
3.) Homosexuality is disgusting.
baseless rhetoric

>That is equal.
You don't have any idea what the legal idea of "equal" is. I'd bust out my textbook on constitutional law but it's in the basement at the moment. It would certainly help lead you towards some resources that might help you to understand how to interpret things.
I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm sorry you agree with someone who is so distinctly and obviously wrong.

I quoted it as an example of how even in liberal studies, the number of people having sex with animals is more than homosexuals. You can go ahead and look in any other study you want,

Basically, everyone who studies sex, conservative and liberal alike, cite numbers with homosexuals always vastly dwarfed by zoophiles. I'm actually surprised you needed a citation for what should be common knowledge to anyone who actually looks at these sorts of statistics. It's a consensus across the political spectrum, it's just that liberals don't really like to call attention to those two figures because it undermines parts of their agenda.

>Like?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

>I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm sorry you agree with someone who is so distinctly and obviously wrong.

This is some shit trolling, I deserve better quality than this. Step away from the keyboard if you can't bring your A-game.

Adding to this, even though certain people might deserve death for being the trash of society like rapists and murders, its not a good idea to let people kill them vigilante style even if the legal system can. This is because such chaos is harmful to society and the mentality within it, and would lead to people killing over lesser crimes.

It's the same for the fags. They are harmful to society and allowing them free rein to their perversions creates a similar type of chaos. And the snowball effect rides on with the transgenders.

There are no seriously regarded studies about zoophilia. I'd appreciate if you could show me any studies, especially any that compare rates of zoosexuality compared to homosexuality.

You don't understand. Let me frame it this way then:

Prior to same-sex marriage, could gays marry each other?

The answer is yes. A gay man could marry a gay woman. They already had "gay marriage". It was equal.

The argument has been, that they didn't want marriage, as it had been defined LEGALLY, CULTURALLY, and RELIGIOUSLY for thousands of years.

No, that was not good enough. They WANTED to redefine a word. It wasn't about marriage. It was about getting something they wanted that NOBODY ever had previously. It was not about equality... and to try and make that the argument is fallacious.

A-game effort requires a genuine argument. You've shown nothing beyond "OMG I'M BEING OPPRESSED"

Do you really want to give churches power? If they pay taxes, they'll demand the government serve them.

Don't forget the part about why the state is so eager to expand the definition of marriage (an institution neither developed or owned by them) beyond all recognition.

>Don't forget the part about why the state is so eager to expand the definition of marriage (an institution neither developed or owned by them) beyond all recognition.
Hahahaha my sides.

Is this a genuine conspiracy theory, or just some red herring tossed in to the ring for fun? I'm genuinely curious at this point.

You're starting to sound desperate for attention. You'll never get in my pants acting like that, it's not a good look for you.

"not an organization for making profit"

>A Senior Pastor earns an average salary of $55,983 per year.
>All Catholic churches are massive and opulent.
>The Vatican Bank has 8 billion in assets.
>The church has it's own fucking bank.

You dumb faggot.

If churches did pay taxes they could actually become outright political as no reason not to be. Second, the US doesn't understand original intent of separation of church and state. See Henry 8th to understand. Churches would simply claim no profit (expenses and stuff). Local government may get some property tax and you run the risk of every church becoming overtly political

If you want attention meet me behind the gym after school. (((kisses)))

>There are no seriously regarded studies about zoophilia

Well, la-dee-da, I've got someone doing their best to figure out some way around a daunting problem to their entire worldview.

Is this the part where you deny anything that contradicts what you believe?

Even if the various zoophillia percentage estimates were double what they actually were, we'd still see the low ball figures have more zoophiles than homosexuals in every study outside of those ridiculous ones that try and claim that 80% of all homosexuals are closeted.

You can compare figures from any sources you yourself trust, and wind up being forced to draw the same conclusions. I'm letting you go ahead and choose your own sources, because there's a nice fat consensus, regardless of what actual figures you want to cite.

We are getting organized beyond recognition. They are dividing us, destroying families, and mixing us together. They are blurring our words, censoring our opinions, destroying our culture, and balkanizing us politically... it is the only way they can take control.

The average lock-step liberal doesn't see this. They see the world through a kaleidoscope of naivety, ignorance, and the denial of the reality of the natural beauty of the world. They are soft, and impressionable. They have lost the ability to reason. They have lost their identity.

The people who don't see this way, are censored... accused of bigotry... racism... xenophobia... etc.

This must stop.

Pastors pay taxes. Source: your talking to one

pastor on Cred Forums.
my mind.
not sure if can believe.

I tried to read your post and you've said nothing. The only thing I could grasp is you tried to say "if you double zoophilia numbers there are more of them than homosexuals" which no study comes even close to saying.
Holy shit you're fucking retarded.

Nobody ever called it gay privilege

I know, it is pretty unbelievable. I mostly come for cfg thread and enjoy Tolkien discussions along with the usual pol is a Christian board

What is single mother privilege?
Anecdote: if I make 1600$ a month and pay 25% tax, 400$ a month, it would take me five months to cover a single month of housing allowance and food stamps of your average single mother with three kids on bennies

I guess seminary didn't include grammar?

But marriage does grant tax benefits. The state's interest in regulating marriage is to support the creation of more taxpayers through stable families. Faggots can't produce kids, so they have no need for any tax breaks. And even if they adopted, the "stable family" part applies--there is no good reason to promote unnatural and risky behavior in children.

You are a fool. He said "even if the estimates" were double, meaning that the actual number were halved.

Also, you're not taking into the account the variance in stigma associated with admitting to having zoophilia versus admitting you're a homosexual... in a society that applauds and over-represents homosexuality in every form of media.

Wow, you're pretty stupid.

What I said was that the zoophilia estimates are more than double the estimates for homosexuals.

I kind of wish there were state flags for Americans, because I want to know what part of the country has such inadequate reading levels.

And, yes, that's the consensus, with some studies putting it as much as five times greater (10%+ versus 2%). Admittedly those are likely skewed by rural numbers, but even if it was a measily 4% versus 3%, it would still mean more zoophiles than homosexuals, and I've yet to encounter a study that tried to cite a number for people who have had sex with animals below 5%.

It's a weird world we live in.

anonymous studies show very little variance in reporting acceptable and unacceptable behavior. your argument is moot.
if you double or halve any statistics, all others should suffer the same, which makes them equal. your argument is moot.
you're a faggot and the op is a faggot.

That's what I've always wondered. Then they wouldn't have to fight the church and can directly challenge the courts. Too bad it's literally just about tackling straight partnerships and the church. They're really fucking stupid and if they had a lick of sense or really cared about their alleged cause, they would have changed their approach years ago.

You can't state that in the same study if you double one number it equals another just because that's what you want to believe. you're a goddamned moron.

Holy shit.

You're actually retarded.

Oh my god, I'm so sorry, I thought you were just pretending.

That I actually did not know. I'm sure most people don't know what that entails either.

being gay isn't a religion fag

Nobody has ever called same sex marriage gay privilege. What privilege is there to it? Oh boy I sure do wish I could sleep next to a dude forever even though I'm into chicks! I would piss on the sign and I would piss on the stupid animal who penned this diarrhea prose upon it.

Nope. On a cell phone and have bad neuropathy so my typing is lame

I'm honestly not sure if you've mixed up my posts and yours but I think you have.
That's fucking adorable. ;)

Gay marriage is appropriating heterosexual culture.

gay marriage still receives the family benefits and prompts them to adopt a child to abuse then they are covered by the law because discrimination.

>seems priviledged to me.

this is the very first time i have ever heard the term gay privledge. ever. and it will likely be the last time.

My apologies for the shitposting then.

Not at all. It's entirely possible that a law can be in conflict with a "higher" law for a long time before the conflict is bought to the attention of the courts.
The fix is to use the "vote of the people" to change the higher law (the constitution)

Courts can and did rule that marriage must be open to both same- and different-sex couples, based on interpreting the constitution as prohibiting laws preventing same-sex marriages. The default position then won - it was open to all.

Also, in a Common Law system, which the US is, the courts can and do make law, with every ruling. If you'd prefer a Civil Law system, then try to change the legislation to create one.