The church won’t marry them. Simple. The law applies to marriages being recognised by the State not forcing churches to perform a ceremony they don’t agree with. There is a separation of Church and State.
How many different ways does that have to be explained to you?
Not necessarily
And I’m sure this church won’t be alone
You know nothing about me lol, wtf is wrong with you?
Indeed but that’s a case of the church wanting to change…
Doubt we’ll see St Patrick’s putting their hand up. St Michael’s are supporting ssm. Take a look at their Facebook page for some hateful vitriol from people purporting to be Christians.
Exactly; I think we need to avoid leaping to conclusions about people here as we’re only exposed to very little of a person here.
So (@Firetorch) you’re saying @pelican is afraid of heterosexuals and Christians? (A phobia being a fear of… ‘homophobia’ only makes sense because of the fear of difference leading to hate/persecution/violence.)
Since I’ve also said some unflattering things about religion I suppose you think I’m afraid of religious people? (All of them, not just terrorists, or think that all religious people are terrorists?)
In all practical senses yes it is a subsidy.
By giving religious organisations tax exemptions not only are they not paying tax like others, but we are all paying more (by higher tax rates/additional taxes having been introduced) to make up for each tax-exempt donation they receive.
Effectively the donated money comes out of consolidated revenue, not from the people who make the individual donations (unless the individuals don’t claim the donations on their tax returns).
Not all of them (obviously); I didn’t say all priests are pedophiles.
As I’ve clearly stated in the past I’m against all religion; I think it’s all nonsense.
I am also offended that Islamists preaching hate may benefit from tax exemptions, and that cults like Scientology are effectively being subsidised by everyone.
And of course you’ve avoided the substantive matters raised; the postal survey is a waste of money required only by the factional nonsense inside the LNP, and no justification of the a blanket tax exemption for religion (as opposed to just for charitable activities where religion isn’t pushed on people).
I don’t and I don’t think there are many who do. As I said earlier, financially it’d be much better targeting the businesses doing dodgy things to avoid paying the tax they should be paying rather than penalising the churches who are actually helping the communities on limited funds.
No, not paying tax is not a subsidy. An example of a subsidy is what tax collected is for the most part used for - that is, it subsidises the lifestyle of Labour voters who don’t work. 
So, why make the linkage? How many priests are pedophiles? Isn’t this akin to the silly Muslim / terrorist linkage people make? Yes, all pedophile priests are obviously priests, that doesn’t mean most or anywhere near a substantial number of priests are pedophiles…
And yet, until prompted, you only mentioned pedophile Christian priests in your rant against the tax status of religious institutions…
We’ve talked about the postal survey before. I think it’s a silly waste of money BUT that doesn’t mean the actual information it delivers is not the most comprehensive gauge of social acceptance of same sex marriage possible.
As for the tax treatment of religious institutions - why should this change? Why should the $5 I donate on a collection plate be taxed for governments to play around with? As for limiting tax concessions to charities, why on earth should, for example, the now militant, far-left RSPCA enjoy this status, yet churches that do good work in the community not? I go to church once a year, if that, yet it is far more important to me than a charity for dogs (Aussies and their dogs 
). Why should I be subsidising that organisation?
You’re only concerned re: religious institutions because its fashionable for the far-left to attack them. However, let’s stop subsiding and strip far-left institutions of their tax exemptions too. You don’t want to be hypocritical, right?
Off-topic, but:
That’s not how hypocrisy works.
Hypocrisy is granting tax exemptions to one denomination of church but not another, for example. Your assumption here is that religious institutions are somehow ‘right-wing’, which certainly isn’t the case for all of them.
As for the RSPCA: no legitimate charity needs to branch out into pet insurance. Plenty of other organisations that support animal welfare without being inherently useless, but that’s a topic for another day.
True, but the RSPCA does great work. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
By that token the Salvos shouldn’t run shops, the YMCA run recreation centres or Jesuit Social Services run a cafe. They do it to fund their charitable work.
Hypocrisy is how the right have hijacked one of the original lefties in Jesus Christ and distorted his teaching. Surely they’ve read the gospels or haven’t they got that far yet?
“I only follow the New Testament”.
What about gays?
“Well, the Old Testament says…”
Glad there are people who know how to separate the Old and New Testaments. Quoting Deutoronomy and Leviticus verses are completely irrelevant from both sides.
Of course its how hypocrisy works. TV-ACT was ranting about the fact he and others have to subsidise, through higher tax payments, those organisations which are given tax exemptions or concessions. Somehow, only certain organisations raised his ire…which presumably means everyone else subsidising other organisations is fine (even where those organisations are far-left and certain taxpayers may wish not to do so).
And not all charities are left-wing…
It’s outrageous that we’re subsidising organisations that advocate discrimination, fear, even hatred towards other people, and if you want to talk about hypocrisy look at some of those people who’ve been preaching to others about what’s good & evil while raping children, and their associates who’ve covered up their colleagues’ crimes to protect the image of their organisation instead of protecting the victims.
Yet presumably you think those organisations haven’t presided over enough evil to justify removing their concessional tax status… wow.
If so I wonder what they would have to do to justify it?
Feel free to add some examples of organisations (or categories of) for which you believe donations should no longer be tax deductible (ideally with comparable examples of repeated criminal activity).
Oh and not everything is a right/left issue.
Birmingham. Head. Nail.
It’s more than a little disingenuous of marriage equality opponents to claim for themselves the sole right of being allowed to speak. It seems when they put their opinions out there, that’s just free speech. But should anybody respond, especially if that response is direct and critical… well that’s intolerance and oppression and… and… and… by golly it’s hateful.
While the far-left post childish remarks about wambulances, Dr Pansy Lai actually hits the nail on the head:
I’m not particular concerned about their tax status - you raised the issue. In any case, I had already talked about an example of an organisation in this thread, before you even asked.
And yes, not everything is a right/left issue for most people, except for the far-left. That’s why TV-ACT rants about the tax status of “pedophile priests” (as you say, Christianity is apparently an organisation that “advocates discrimination, fear, even hatred towards other people” and “presides over enough evil”), while in contrast Firetorch is not particularly bothered if far-left organisations continue to receive tax concessions (but does highlight the hypocrisy in some complaining about “subsidising” only when it comes to tax concessions for certain organisations).
