I've been saying this for a LONG time now. Tax exempt organizations need to be forced to open their books up so that they may be reviewed by tax payers. As far as I'm concerned, they need to be just as conspicuous as publicly owned and traded companies.

Mormon = Hate Group

So does this mean we can revoke their tax exempt status?

They do have to open their books to every thing under court order, and proper warrant.

Tax exemption is always a bad thing.. eradicate the idea completely.

Of course LDS should lose its tax-exempt status. They're spending tax-exempt donations on the promotion of bigotry instead of actual charity work.

heh - to the title... yes and sort-of no

yes, they went too far in *opposing* same-sex marriage with prop 8

sort-of no, they should have joined together with the same-sex-marriage crowd, stipulating that they would *support* these non-traditional unions *if* said crowd also backed and pushed just as hard for other "eyebrow-raising" arrangements... namely polygamy

if, for instance, we were to allow (for the sake of "being in love" as the foundation of the defacto equal-rights challenge) he to marry him and she to marry her... then why stop at a simple *pairing*? who's to say that you can't "be in love" as a trio, quartet, quintet, etc? why the seemingly arbitrary domestic *duo*? seems to me that in an age of latch-key kids and with the prevalence of each parent to be career-oriented... that our kids may need a larger parental "pool" to meet their needs properly

imho, mormons and gays should join forces to settle this government interference once and for all, with the caveat that we draw the line at beastialiteurs and those wishing legalized bondings with the inanimate

Yes religion showing its true colors ones again. I thought that laying was part of the 10 KEY laws of God. I guess we are back to do as I say not as I do.

Religion is the Devil! They only want ignorant followers and power.

we draw the line at beastialiteurs and those wishing legalized bondings with the inanimate

Why? If we are going to allow legalized relationships between same sex partners, and multiple sex partners, then why not allow legalized relationships between humans and animals, or a human and a love-doll, or a human and a shampoo bottle? The same logic applies. If a person is feels he is getting love and happiness, then who are you to stand in thier way with your prejudiced laws and such? They aren't harming anyone.

mormon church = hate group

There's more actual legitimate 'hate' coming from the gay community towards Mormons to be honest. The gays and thier supporters are lying about Mormons, attacking their church members and buildings, and saying some pretty viscious hate speech about them. The Mormons politically opposed a law they diametrically disagreed with. They didn't go out and beat up gays, damage thier property, or anything of the sort. So the Mormons opposed a law using legal means and are getting REAL hate in response. Who is the real 'hate' group here, hmmmm?

Draw the line at beastialiteurs?

How slippery can the slope really be when a majority of attraction is chemical? If a few people want to marry soda cans, I wholly support that.

That soda can is not going to need my tax money or anything for that matter.

The problem is with the financial incentives/advantages of "marraige" being afforded to some and not others.

If you marry a dog, and the dog gets sick... well, your insurance would then cover it... and so fucking what??? Is that really the end of the world? Maybe someone loves their dog, sometimes literally. I do not care. I can't debate the merit of loving something relative to sticking your dick in it or it's dick in you.

Inanimate objects require no resources to be maintained so logically it is better to marry one from a financial standpoint.

What's with all the inanimate talk? Marriage is between persons, like humans, and corporations.

I'm going to marry Google, she has huge....tracts of land.

Marriage between two or more consenting adults is fine by me. Slippery slope arguments are retarded, and Diogenes/Winstonfield, you are truly demented.

Diogenes,

Are you as excited as I am that Big Love is coming back to HBO? Also Dgandhi you deserve kudos for recognizing marriage as a contract LAW.

I went to Wikipedia U. Lawschool and I learned:

Contract law regulates the exchange of promises between parties to perform or refrain from performing an act enforceable in a court of law.

So you probably have to be a party that can go to a court of law. Although there is that one tree that owns itself, so I guess you can marry that one tree. But probably only in Georgia.

Mormons!

I'm just talking about a civil union where the loving human can have his feelings recognized. Anything less than that is 'Sapienism'. Why should the relationship a person has with his animals or objects be denied the state's phyrric stamp of acknowledgement? It doesn't mean they get property rights or health care. It's just a symbolic ceremony. It does no one any harm. And I'm not slippery sloping. I'm serious. If person/person(s) relationships can get civil ceremonies that bestow no particular legal status, why not anything/everything?

You people arguing about animal marriage and inanimate objects are being stupid. Marriage requires (or should, in the modern world) the express consent of all parties involved. In the western world, you become an independent adult at the age of 18 (or somewhere near there), then you are able to consent to marriage or other contracts.

Animals, inanimate objects, or even people with serious mental problems, cannot consent to marriage, and therefor have no place in the gay vs straight marriage debate.

This does leave the door open to polygamy, which I have no problem with, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults. The problem with polygamy is there are very, very few cases of it outside of cultish remote religious compounds, where polygamy is typically combined with forced marriages. It's not the polygamy that is inherently immoral, but the forced marriage.

In other words, there is no slippery slope. The limit is "consenting adults", and that's as far as it goes.

LDS makes my pants all poopy.

1) i once had a marriage anoled because i married an unmedicated paranoid schizofrenic 4 hrs before i technically turned 18.... oh and we were both on drugs.

2) the video did not answer my question about private donations to the cause from private citizens, who may or may not be LDS. how much of that money was donated by citizens, church members and is that illegal or unethical?

3) mormons were told constitution gay marriage would take away their rights to marry in the temple. the slippery slope argument they concocted was that if the church refused to perform same sex marriage in the temple, they would lose the right to perform temple marriage period. thats of course ridiculous, but thats what the church told its members and thats what they believed.

4) i could talk to anyone for hours about mormons and polygamy.

5) a few weeks leading up to the election the LDS priesthood all over the country was told to "get their houses in order" because they knew this scrutiny was coming. and all this protesting and scrutiny, while i think its fine, only enhances the raging mormon persecution complex and makes them stronger.

6) ive always thought temple square was beautiful at christmas time. i bet it was even more stunning with 2000 homo protestors surrounding the perimeter. sorry i missed it.

7) the irs is never going to start stripping churches of their tax exempt status, or define what "substantial" means.

the church will not get in any trouble for this mess. guaranteed.

9) dont get your panties in a wad. im not a practicing TBL mormon. im a bonafide jack mormon. i 100% would like to see religion lose its tax exempt status and face prosecution for tampering in politics. im just saying, theres no way that will happen. the 2 depend too much on either.

>> ^peggedbea:
6) ive always thought temple square was beautiful at christmas time. i bet it was even more stunning with 2000 homo protestors surrounding the perimeter. sorry i missed it.

I bet it looked absolutely fabulous.


I wonder if it is actually possible (seriously, in terms of human behavior) for governments not to interfere in the private lives of their citizens.

heh heh - seems i touched a nerve

first of all, as mentioned previously, a marriage or civil union, etc, is a legally binding contract... which requires the consent of *all* parties - my caveat was merely restricting these contractual arrangements to those entities which can clearly express their consent

furthermore, careful reading and comprehension will show that i had no intention of evoking a "slippery slope" argument (pragmatically speaking)

from my point of view there is no downside, or rather downslope - inclusivity was my point, not exclusivity - thus mention of such an argument shows either a misunderstanding of the term, or a fallacious tendency to "pigeonhole" and dismiss any discussion that doesn't *solely* support the enfranchisement of gays -- i *do* support them fully, yet being an impatient sort, would rather more broadly interpret both the "love" and equal-rights issues in *any* (see above) legal union so as to save us all a bit of frustration and emotional distress further down the road

i would find it hypocritical to think that we, as an increasingly liberal society, cannot or will not consider the questions herein beyond the rights of gays

basically, i do not believe in the concept of "romantic love" - i do not think that science can qualify and/or quantify such an abstract emotion - thus i feel that unions between two or more individuals may as well be based on those situations through which we often misapply the term, namely: lust, passion, compassion, duty, honor and responsibility, etc

in the not so distant past, gays were far more stigmatized and discriminated against - as well they were sometimes prosecuted under archaic laws that, for the most part, have now been or are being struck down - *this* is precisely why we are now arguing for *further* gay rights -- consider how much more prejudiced we are as a society towards something like polygamy - or how much more prosecutorial scrutiny such practitioners face both now and in the past - this is certainly still the main deterrent towards such behavior, in the same manner (yet much more egregiously) as that suffered by gays in the past -- can we not look further forward and conjecture as to whether polygamous family units might become more commonplace and accepted if we were to decriminalize it, and perhaps even *reward* it with legal recognition?

i am not, nor do i plan to be a polygamist... but i do think that as our society evolves so too should our consideration of what is in the best interest of ourselves and of subsequent generations

put simply, i would like to see the word "marriage" used in two senses:

1. a *private* religious ceremony that should confer no additional legal rights or benefits, except satisfying your own *personal* family traditions and peace of mind

2. an arrangement recognized by the state which confers legal rights and benefits such as inheritance, health decisions, tax exemptions, childbearing and adoption, etc

in the latter case, and for the sake of the foundation of an ongoing civil society... the family, i would hope that whatever "familial" means produces the healthiest, best educated, and most well-adjusted *children* would be those legal unions that are recognized and rewarded by the state

the former should be private... and i mean that in the larger sense - no door-knocking, public proselytizing, or ad campaigns -- if we want religion kept out of our government and our *legal* lives... then we need to take a broader view, and that to me means taking a long look at the issues

let's look forward and really come up with a way of separating the two -- if you're like me (an agnostic cynic), then we might agree that what this all boils down to is money... we're all scrambling for a piece of the pie (make mine bigger than those folks', please) - so let's do that: let's reward those worth rewarding and tax those worth taxing -- are you providing a healthy and proactive environment for our next generation? reward! are you making more money than those around you? more tax! are the six of you using less energy than the couple next door? reward! are you living alone while owning and driving two cars? more tax! are you living a clean and healthy lifestyle? reward! are you a fat, lazy bastard wooing both heart disease and national healthcare? more tax! you get the picture

i hope this serves to help you understand my initial point better

M'eh - the whole point being that the gay community is incapable of crafting a piece of legislation that everyone can get behind. In their zeal to get 'gay marriage', the gay community tends to vastly over-reach and crafts legislation that opens churches & people open to legal proceedings.

If gays would just write a law that said, "OK - 'marriage' is a religious ceremony and we understand that religions have the right not to set thier own standards for who qualifies. Give us "civil unions" which are government approved certified legal households which confer the same legal rights and we'll do that. We acknowledge that it is wrong to try and sue churches for not wanting to marry gays. We also acknowledge that business owners are citizens too with rights, and that right includes the right to REFUSE service to whoever they want for whatever reason they want."

Craft the law that way, and you'd find resistance a lot less stiff.