State probes religious foster care agencies over [same sex parent] discrimination

[AcolyteLector]

This kind of is about taxes and where the money comes from. If I’m gay, and I pay my taxes, and those taxes go to fund a Catholic backed adoption agency, why should I not be able to adopt from that agency? If everyone is not treated equally by a facility that takes government funds then that’s wrong because the government is funded by everyone. If this catholic based agency wants to refuse government funding then that’s another story, but they can’t take taxes from gay tax payers and then refuse them for being gay (other reasons maybe). I guess the money isn’t gay enough for them to not accept it

Hahaha, nice closer.

Unfortunately, we pay a great deal of [tax] money for services that we cannot and will not use.

[Before continuing, I would highlight the fact that this issue is not about **gay people being denied because they’re gay, but people being denied because they’re not married by the Church’s standards. That was my impression from reading the heading of this article.]

Addressing your other assertions, namely the charge that people are being treated unequally, that’s actually not true at all. People are not being treated unequally–rather, there are two parallel definitions of what constitutes a marriage, and the State is insisting that it holds a monopoly on the ability to define what constitutes the union which the sacrament creates. Which is increasingly turning it into a glorified legal fiction.

 

[lynx]

why would a government who takes money the religious people dictate to them the atheists views?

Because it takes money from all religions. Which religion should be represented the most by our government? Would you feel differently if they were pushing an Islamic world view? Obviously pushing any kind of religious view is against the nature of the government which should treat all denominations equally. At the moment, the most fair way of doing this is to adhere to a secular view that favors no one. In this view even atheists are treated equally under the law

 

[lynx]

Masses tend to elect people who resemble them–welcome to democracy. Perhaps atheism should make its public utterances a little more compelling, to ‘convert’ more atheists?

Have a religion or don’t. As long you don’t negatively interfere in an atheist’s life they’ll generally not care. Why bother recruiting?

Who was the last black governor of South Dakota? There is a reason why a high proportion of Asian public officials hold office in Hawaii.

No doubt. My comment here was just to say that Christians hold a majority in our government. So, to think that Christians are not represented is beyond belief, at least to me.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Because it takes money from all religions. Which religion should be represented the most by our government? Would you feel differently if they were pushing an Islamic world view? Obviously pushing any kind of religious view is against the nature of the government which should treat all denominations equally. At the moment, the most fair way of doing this is to adhere to a secular view that favors no one. In this view even atheists are treated equally under the law

Oh but it does favors those who dont believe in God. tell me, why would atheists who know what the Church teaches would go to the Church to adopt children if no to cause trouble. Why would they not go to their atheists agencies? And if we pay taxes, we also have a say so.

 

[lynx]

Hahaha, nice closer.

Unfortunately, we pay a great deal of [tax] money for services that we cannot and will not use.

[Before continuing, I would highlight the fact that this issue is not about **gay people being denied because they’re gay

, but people being denied because they’re not married by the Church’s standards. That was my impression from reading the heading of this article.]

Ok, i’ll focus more on this. Be sure to keep me on track if I deviate too far, I do that sometimes

Addressing your other assertions, namely the charge that people are being treated unequally, that’s actually not true at all. People are not being treated unequally–rather, there are two parallel definitions of what constitutes a marriage, and the State is insisting that it holds a monopoly on the ability to define what constitutes the union which the sacrament creates. Which is increasingly turning it into a glorified legal fiction.

When marriage is incorporated into government benefits all people should be able to have those benefits if they meet a reasonable criteria. If two homosexuals wish to marry and have those benefits I see no problem with this. If a church doesn’t want to marry them i’m fine with that too. But there needs to be some method such that all people can have access to the same benefits as everyone else.

If you’re gay, then the institution of marriage as being defined by a man and woman is discriminatory to you. Now, since the government represents all people, why should it uphold this traditionally conservative view? There needs to be a secular reason for maintaining this view, which is why it is currently not being defended. This is almost the same reason DADT was overturned. There’s just no good secular reason to discriminate against this group of people.

 

[lynx]

Oh but it does favors those who dont believe in God. tell me, why would atheists who know what the Church teaches would go to the Church to adopt children if no to cause trouble. Why would they not go to their atheists agencies? And if we pay taxes, we also have a say so.

If I were to adopt, I personally wouldn’t care. A baby doesn’t know if it’s in a catholic agency or some other government agency (there is no atheist agency ), so what does it matter where I adopt them from? Do Catholics get a voice, yes you do, unfortunately atheists, gays and everyone else who might disagree with you also gets a voice. Now, since all voices are equal, no matter how many, how do we determine who is right? Currently, the best way to stay impartial and fair, is to rule from a secular standpoint.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Ok, i’ll focus more on this. Be sure to keep me on track if I deviate too far, I do that sometimes

When marriage is incorporated into government benefits all people should be able to have those benefits if they meet a reasonable criteria. If two homosexuals wish to marry and have those benefits I see no problem with this. If a church doesn’t want to marry them i’m fine with that too. But there needs to be some method such that all people can have access to the same benefits as everyone else.

If you’re gay, then the institution of marriage as being defined by a man and woman is discriminatory to you. Now, since the government represents all people, why should it uphold this traditionally conservative view? There needs to be a secular reason for maintaining this view, which is why it is currently not being defended. This is almost the same reason DADT was overturned. There’s just no good secular reason to discriminate against this group of people.

But these secular views should not be imposed on the Church. I call descrimination against what we believe.

 

[lynx]

But these secular views should not be imposed on the Church. I call descrimination against what we believe.

So you think a religious institution should be able to get government money paid by atheists, gays, pagans, satanists, etc and still be allowed to discriminate against these groups as their doctrine allows? This doesn’t make sense to me. If you want the government out of your business then don’t take the money, it’s just that easy, and if you really need to discriminate against someone then that group doesn’t deserve any additional government funding.

 

[wisdomseeker]

So you think a religious institution should be able to get government money paid by atheists, gays, pagans, satanists, etc and still be allowed to discriminate against these groups as their doctrine allows? This doesn’t make sense to me. If you want the government out of your business then don’t take the money, it’s just that easy, and if you really need to discriminate against someone then that group doesn’t deserve any additional government funding.

What about the money that we pay? should we separate who pay what? the money we pay is to help the Church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

If I were to adopt, I personally wouldn’t care. A baby doesn’t know if it’s in a catholic agency or some other government agency (there is no atheist agency ), so what does it matter where I adopt them from? Do Catholics get a voice, yes you do, unfortunately atheists, gays and everyone else who might disagree with you also gets a voice. Now, since all voices are equal, no matter how many, how do we determine who is right? Currently, the best way to stay impartial and fair, is to rule from a secular standpoint./QUOTE

Ah but that would be imposing their views in the Church. You know exactly what the Churchc teaches and that includes not giving children to gay couples. The Church is here to uphold the teachings of God and not of man. why cant atheists accept that?

 

[lynx]

What about the money that we pay? should we separate who pay what? the money we pay is to help the Church.

Separating who pays what would be the fairest of them all, but people might have different ideas of how much money they need to pay, which is why we have a tax system set up. If you want to donate privately to the church than do so, but tax dollars are money from everyone. As such, if you take tax dollars you can’t discriminate against anyone who adds to those taxes, it wouldn’t be fair.

 

[lynx]

Ah but that would be imposing their views in the Church. You know exactly what the Churchc teaches and that includes not giving children to gay couples. The Church is here to uphold the teachings of God and not of man. why cant atheists accept that?

I can accept most of that. I can’t accept the church taking government money from tax payers from all walks of life and then thinking they can provide a discriminatory service to the people who pay for that service. It’s simple, if you want the government out of your business don’t take the money.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Separating who pays what would be the fairest of them all, but people might have different ideas of how much money they need to pay, which is why we have a tax system set up. If you want to donate privately to the church than do so, but tax dollars are money from everyone. As such, if you take tax dollars you can’t discriminate against anyone who adds to those taxes, it wouldn’t be fair.

But I tell you that I pay taxes and I use discrimination process. I certainly dont want my money to go to the cause of atheists. is that simple. I want my money to be given to help the Church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I can accept most of that. I can’t accept the church taking government money from tax payers from all walks of life and then thinking they can provide a discriminatory service to the people who pay for that service. It’s simple, if you want the government out of your business don’t take the money.

the Church takes government money because the money is not government’s money at all, it is the peoples money.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Also by this logic, since the Catholic Church and other religions take tax breaks to maintain their houses of worship does that mean the government will have a say in forcing these religions to host gay marriages? They are getting supported by the government after all!

Again it’s win win for seculars and atheists. Either these religions sell their souls and morals to remain standing, or they get closed by the dozens as more and more fail to pay to maintain their churches/mosques/ect.

A few generations and either way it’ll be a godless paradise!

 

[lynx]

Also by this logic, since the Catholic Church and other religions take tax breaks to maintain their houses of worship does that mean the government will have a say in forcing these religions to host gay marriages? They are getting supported by the government after all!

While a break in tax is like taking money from the government, in a very direct way you’re not taking anything from the government. If a church needs to avoid taxes to stay afloat maybe its members should contribute more. It’s not the governments job to keep a church or church service running.

Again it’s win win for seculars and atheists. Either these religions sell their souls and morals to remain standing, or they get closed by the dozens as more and more fail to pay to maintain their churches/mosques/ect.

A few generations and either way it’ll be a godless paradise!

Why is it the governments job to maintain a church? We have so many other fiscal concerns in this nation, I think churches should start to share the burden and be taxed like the rest of us.