Interesting. Why aren't they tax exempt? Political involvement?
We decided we didn't want to follow the 501c3 rules. We wanted to hold services and events on public school grounds for students, give each patron an individual candle to hold for the Christmas service, endorse or oppose politicians and laws, invite politicians to speak, etc.
We decided that the church we wanted to run was not the sort of 'business'
(using the term lightly again) the state wanted to promote. So we did not enter the legal institution. As a result we do not benefit from any of the financial buffs or legal protections, and that's our choice.
We have a cafe and book store attached to and run by the church, which pays the bills. We pay land tax, the clergy are "
employees" of the business and pay income tax, etc.
If a gay couple decided they don't want to be monogamous or raise children, that's fine, but they have no business entering a legal institution promoting monogamous couples raising children; just like our church has no business entering the 501c3 if we're not going to do what 501c3 is meant for.
What purpose is that that straight couple serve? Procreation? If so, I think it's a pretty hard case to make that we need to encourage more procreation... Regardless, what we encourage on this issue has no impact. Gay people are gay and they're going to be gay regardless of any marriage laws. It's just a question of how harsh we're going to make life for them.
Keep in mind that we are not speaking of any civil rights.
We are only talking about a word.
IMO gays can have all the same civil rights, but not the word.
That doesn't make sense... Of course the reason you support hetero marriage isn't equality. It's because you're hetero. That's sort of like saying I don't support allowing white people to attend college because of equality, so why should I be concerned about black people having equal access to colleges?
That's incredibly ignorant of you.
First, I do not oppose gay-rights. You may note that my objections regard each and every single couple who have no intention of being monogamous and raising children. That includes heteros. That includes mixed races. That includes gays. A childless gay couple is equal in every way to a childless hetero couple in that ALL childless couples are equally worthless.
Second, if I opposed gay "marriage" simply because I'm hetero, then gays only desire "marriage" because they're homo. As if that doesn't shut down your intellectual apathy, your reasoning fails to explain heteros who support gay "marriage", nor homosexuals who oppose gay "marriage".
You didn't respond to my last three points, but there is one that I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on. Why is this your business? If banning same sex marriage hurts gays and doesn't effect you at all, why should society take your opinion into account at all on the matter? Or do you feel it does effect you? If so, how?
Well if it doesn't affect me then I don't see why I should support it.
I'll just vote to oppose because what do I care, it doesn't affect me.
***
Could you please link to your post where you asked Dav why he made this thread, if gay-marriage is non of anyone's business?