People who attend church already pay taxes, if that came into force then so be it but it would need to apply across all charities and not for profits and will cause the loss of many jobs, many services for the community and probably won’t generate anywhere near as much tax as forcing other companies who deliberatley flout the tax laws to avoid paying as much tax as they’re meant to from paying.
I believe that all legal rights should be extended. I’ve never denied that. But what about when those rights impinge on others? That’s where the definitions thing comes into play. If families and children are a part of your definition of marriage, what about their rights? They don’t get to vote so they need someone to support them. Same with abortion, where does a child’s right become worth more than a woman’s right?
I can’t quite see that there’s any benefit in the everyday suburban churches that do a lot for community aid paying tax. What income do they have to pay tax on?
Mostly just the giving from the parish, even though I hate that term because that’s usually for the older churches, but you get my drift.
From there it’s spent on keeping the lights on, the services going, the various ministries in the church, the various things supported in the communities and further afield.
Disclaimer: I am currently the treasurer for the church which I attend so while I can’t give specifics, I can give a general understanding of what comes in and what goes out and unfortunately, as much as we’d love to believe Today Tonight and the ACA I can safely say that our church and our pastors are not making millions of dollars and driving around BMW’s and Mercedes.
So marriage wouldn’t exist except for religion?
If you accept that it would exist anyway (using your words, as a social construct,) then religion shouldn’t be able to veto or control it. (They don’t own marriage, despite what they may think.)
Rubbish; that’s not a valid reason for discrimination.
However, why should a religious organisation be forced to provide service (including marriage) to those who don’t follow their religion? That’s going to be a reason.
The argument can be made that partial/selective acceptance of a religion isn’t really/fully living by their beliefs, so that’s why a priest, etc. shouldn’t be required to marry a gay couple.
With that exception in there the rest is just a distraction (including the nonsense about kids and slippery slope), there’s no justification for not allowing marriage equality.
You don’t know that, and by that reasoning why do I have to pay GST, fuel excise, stamp duty, the ‘luxury car’ tax, when I’ve already paid income tax?
Charities should be exempt provided they are non-commercial (why is Sanitarium exempt?), not pushing a religion on people (or political belief either).
I shouldn’t be forced to subsidise by those tax ememptions the legal fees for pedophile priests. If you want to donate to them, do it our of your own pocket not out of other taxpayers pockets, just like for any other club or private association.
Nor should I. Completely agree with that example but you need to remember that the overwhelming majority of churches have had absolutely nothing to do with the recent Royal Commission into child abuse, they find it as abhorrent as anybody would and expect everyone to be fully punished. The good news is from what I understand, all these cases are quite old and there has been nothing from within the last 20+ years showing that measures put into place to prevent those of bad character being able to use the churches as a cover for getting access to kids have been working. It’s unfortunate though that a few people from a few churches have caused so much anguish for so many families and tarnished the reputation of the 95% or whatever it is of good churches.
Not necessarily, Rotary and the other service clubs don’t pay taxes either and there would be many others.
Excellent article in The Saturday Paper today (open in a private session if you’ve already read another of theirs this week).
In examining the arguments made, an important element can be easily overlooked: homophobia.
One “Yes” campaigner tells me that in focus groups the image that resonates most with people who are against change is men with children.
It is no accident that in 2015 the Australian Marriage Forum, which is now part of the Coalition For Marriage, ran an ad showing two men pushing a pram. The ad was broadcast on commercial television, but SBS refused to screen it. The dog-whistle was obvious: gay men cannot be trusted with children.
Well I will be voting “yes” in the postal survey. I respect other people’s own beliefs and views, however I personally don’t understand how anyone can deny someone else the opportunity to marry the love of their life. It’s morally and ethically unfair.
Ha, one second we have JBar telling us debate about religious freedom is “scaremongering”, the next second we have you telling us that of course religious heads shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate. Gee, this isn’t going to be an issue 5 minutes after same-sex marriage is legalised.
I didn’t say it should veto or control it. I said, as a religious AND social construct, there should be BROAD ACCEPTANCE in both areas for there to be a change - and a plebiscite will be a good indication of the social acceptance.
What? Where’s that exception provided for once same-sex marriage is legislated? Are you telling me that, for example, two men that identify as Catholic or Orthodox are not going to have a massive gripe when the local church refuses to perform a service?
Yawn. That’s all classless Aussies know about religion - “paedophiles”.
It’s so funny - westerners view the religious, and those from religious nations more broadly, as dim, uneducated and themselves as oh so very enlightened - and on the other hand we just view you as second-rate valueless bogans.
Lol yeah nah no one has that option when 95% of the population is straight.
Beating up, withholding rights away from or being coerced into fearing a minority though? Muslims, homosexuals and transgenders have become targets from a right-wing group of rabids.
So no reason to wasts millions of taxpayers’ money on a survey when existing surveys (opinion polls) have shown overwhelming support for how many years now?
How about you look at the detail provided on the LNP private member’s bill recently proposed to be the basis following this stupid survey.
The survey is for the overall question (as has been said many times).
Details of a bill implementing it, including saying a religious organisation doesn’t have to marry people who don’t (fully) conform to their religion, is something only parliament can enact.
I never claimed there wouldn’t be publicity seekers whinging, about anything.
Many religious people have a strong case of cognitive dissonance and so will insist on their religion be the word of their imaginary friend (which must be perfect & true), yet they will ignore the parts of their religion which they find inconvenient, but that’s a matter for them to argue within their religion.
People’s stupidity, bigotry, xenophobia, etc. does not justify for legislated discrimination.
Thanks for the insults, and assumptions (I wonder who you imagine I am, from what background, etc.)
I notice that again you’ve decided to play the man instead of the ball:
You haven’t addressed the basis of my point; why should I be forced to subsidise your religion?
(Including but not limited to its illegal activities, the example I cited emphasising how a blanket tax exemption is wrong.)
Well they shouldn’t because they should already be aware that those churches discriminate against homosexuals and still teach their congregations to be against it. I’ve witnessed it myself in a Sunday sermon in the past year and it would not surprise me if they were encouraging their parishioners to vote against it. That’s why most homosexuals turn their back on those churches.
Hang on - you labelled priests as paedophiles, I addressed that point, and I’m the one being insulting and playing the man? Gee some people are hypocritical…
Why don’t you label all Muslim Imams in a particular derogatory way too?
Or does the tax exemption of just one religion particularly bother you?
