# Should churches that refuse to perform gay marriages lose tax exempt status? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 19, 2014, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742 "2014-02-19T23:54:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/562 "2014-03-14T13:30:13Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > But this relies on an assumption which is common in these debates, and in the government’s policies. It defines ‘freedom of religion’ as strictly applying not even just to religious organizations, but even just to their religious functions. This is seen for example wrt abortion and the Affordable Care Act. The government seeks to define religious freedom as pretty mush _just_ the freedom to conduct religious services. If the organization hires people, then it has to violate it principals to meet the requirements of the act. By further extension if individuals are forced to go against their religious views in business, that’s viewed as a totally different topic. But to actually religious people it’s not some totally different topic. Of course there’s a gray area. But you wouldn’t go the other way and say that anyone is exempt from any law if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Nor would you say a business is exempt from any law because of the beliefs of its owners. > [@](#): > > Secular type progressives, even of good will, carry their own assumption that strict organized religion is at best a nice show or symbol, or just BS that other people are entitled to foolishly believe in as long as it’s strictly hidden away in a church. They have consistent trouble seeing things from the POV of people who actually believe. Okay. But that’s not me. It’s certainly a great description of Steophan. > [@](#): > > And in the general the argument ‘oh that’s not going to happen’ lacks credibility. Punishing religious organizations for not performing same sex marriages is clearly a somewhat popular view on the web, still outside the ‘electable spectrum’ of Democratic candidates for major office, for now perhaps…but so was same sex marriage itself not that long ago. I wouldn’t cite popular views on the web as something to worry about becoming reality. The web is teeming with idiotic, unworkable, unlikely and just plain crazy opinions that will never see the light of day. We have a First Amendment for a reason. > [@](#): > > On the comparison of discrimination against blacks to holding Biblical views on homosexuality, it begs the whole question. If you think those two things are really the same, you probably put no weight on what the Bible (Abrahamic religious scripture in general) says\*. The comparison isn’t a religious one, it’s a legal one. > [@](#): > > But the issue is religious freedom for who those who do place weight on that. Likewise arguments like ‘what if I made up a new religion which said white people are untouchable’ assumes the centuries old religion at the core of our culture (and it’s relatively similar cousins) is the same as some casual ‘what if’. It again assumes the conclusion that traditional religious belief is BS. Again, it’s purely a legal comparison to compare how we treat discrimination in law. > [@](#): > > And I don’t agree that the cases of wedding providers successfully sued were people who ‘didn’t want to serve gays’ rather than objecting to a particular event. It was the opposite. They didn’t want to participate in a wedding ceremony they felt, for religious reasons, was a sacrilege. And that’s too damn bad. The difference is that their business is a business, not a religion or religious group. Businesses are subject to non-discrimination laws, and the beliefs of the owners or employers don’t override that. This is far different from a church being required to comply. > [@](#): > > There’s no indication they sought the right not to take photographs or bake cakes for homosexual clients wrt any other event. What’s the difference? > [@](#): > > \*racists in the modern West (ie the age of African slaves sent to the New World, and even after) tried to justify racism with the Bible but it’s actually a very long stretch. But they did do it, and many people did embrace the logic. > [@](#): > > Liberal Christians construct various arguments to justify ignoring those passages (context, translation issues, etc) with plausibility that could be debated separately. Just like the racists did. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/563 "2014-03-14T14:10:25Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > 1. It’s just the opposite AFAIK in the cases actually brought to court. Small businesses like photographer and baker didn’t want to take part in a same sex marriage ceremony. There was no indication they were in the habit of turning down business from homosexual clients in any other context. Cites, please. > [@](#): > > 1. ‘Proportional numbers’ where people admit they just have a bug up their ass about religion would presumably be in the same study with the proportional numbers where people admit they just don’t like certain other races. So, if you surveyed a large group of people on the latter question and nobody or a tiny fraction admitted to racial hatred, would the ‘scientific’ approach then be to reject the hypothesis that anyone is a racist, for ‘lack of proof’. IOW sorry, it’s not serious to come back with ‘cite source’ as the response for a statement such as I made. If you really think there isn’t now a lot of hostility to traditional religious belief, per se, in this society, you can just say so and each person can decide if that’s a plausible or ridiculous statement. You seem to have missed the part of my post where I pointed out that I was simply interested in your opinion, if you didn’t think that numbers were avaliable. I did already give you that as an option. I don’t believe there is a lot of hostility to traditional religious beliefs in society, to be honest, in comparison with the level of hostility towards gay people. Laws have been passed, specifically, to stop gays marrying. In the not-too-distant past, things were considerably worse, and the evidence for that lies in the ability for those who were hostile to put that hostility into law, as one point. Things are a lot better, thankfully, but still, there are such laws, still people with a good chance to make such laws. Whereas your suggested alternative - fundamentalist religious beliefs not having free speech protection - is simply holding religious speech to the same standards as _any_ speech. On the one hand, we have “You have the same rights as everyone else, no more, no less.” On the other, it’s “You have less rights than anyone else, and just to make damn sure of that, we’re going to pass legislation just to beef up our bulwarks against you getting those rights”. I don’t deny the existence of hostility to religion, or religious belief, but in comparison to that directed at gays it pales both in number and in practical effect. That’s why I disagreed with your assumption of the “‘real’ corollary”. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/564 "2014-03-16T13:42:15Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Yes, this is the best answer given here yet. > > I don’t especially care what **Steophan** might consider ‘bigotry’ or not. Christian marriage isn’t just about romantic-comedy clichés, it’s about procreation and defined gender roles, and a gay couple is flatly incapable of fulfilling what a Christian marriage is supposed to be about. That isn’t bigotry, it is a statement of fact. There’s a significant difference between your religious belief about what a Christian marriage is, and something that’s a fact. Beliefs are personal and somehwhat subjective , facts, not so much. I know people want to believe that if their attitiudes about homosexuals and SSM is based in their religious beliefs then it can’t be bigotry but that’s simply not true. Bigotry has a specific definition and it applies. It may not be malicious , but it is still bigotry born of generations of religious and societal indoctrination. I see you’re repeating the nonsense that SS couples cannot procreate. Are you going to address any of the posters pointing out how wrong that is? Do you know any churches who refuse to allow couples to marry who choose not to have children, or where one partner is unable? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/565 "2014-03-16T13:57:17Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Without making any defense of various Catholic actions, it should be noted that **Corry El** ’s claim was that the church has not changed a core teaching, not that it has always followed those same teachings. A distinction without a difference IMHO. If a practice is widespread and accpeted by church officials it is their de facto doctrine. > [@](#): > > This distorts history. There were several English translations that preceded and followed Tyndale (and Wyclif). Wyclif was censured and Tyndale executed for having preached ideas considered heretical and for having created translations that differed remarkably from the approved translations in support of their ideas, not for having translated the bible, _per se_. (England was one of the last countries in Europe to get a bible in the vernacular, most other countries having already created their own (church approved) translations.) > It should be noted that the Catholic Douai-Rheims English translation was actually created and published before the Authorized/King James Version. (Both were attempts to improve upon (or correct) Henry VIII’s Great Bible using more direct translations from the Hebrew and Greek than the Great Bible had employed.) Would you say the church encouraged or discouraged the Bible being translated into common languages? Is it that they wanted only church approved versions available? Weren’t several reformers/translators concerned that the Latin versions were corrupt and very different than the original greek? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/566 "2014-03-16T14:31:33Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Nothing is, by default, beneficial to society when you cherry pick individual counterexamples. In general, our society has benefited from encouraging people to form organizations where they can share common interests. It has added to the civil welfare of our communities. This has value. I see the value in certain groups but without some kind of guidelines it seems any group could claim NPO to avoid taxes. I assume that’s why there are forms and guidelines. > [@](#): > > Additionally, like I have said before: I can’t imagine the howl that would go up if it was actually attempted, but that’s not the discussion. I never proposed we actually do it. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me. Remove reliigious from the list of things that qualify and leave charitable, educational, and scientific. All that said, if we are going to allow any group that promotes a POV to be an NPO under the guise of “education” then churches certainly meet that criteria. Also, I can see that any NPO group that truly exists for a non profit reason and survives on donations should not have to pay frederal income tax or state income tax on those donations. The employees should have to pay income tax, and IMHO they should pay sales tax on what they purchase. > [@](#): > > “But…Westboro Baptist Church” is not an adequate justification for such a blatant breach of the 14th Amendment. How is it a breach of the 14th amendment? > [@](#): > > Then maybe I misunderstood the reason you said “That said I do realize that many churches do charity work.” Maybe you could clarify. Simple, in the same way I get a tax break if I run a home business and have an office at home, if churhes were not exempt for religious reasons, churches who operate a charity and use a protion of their building and funds to do so would get a break. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/567 "2014-03-16T15:13:50Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > How is it a breach of the 14th amendment? Treating an otherwise-equivalent organization differently specifically because of their religious status? You don’t see an equal protection violation there? > [@](#): > > churches who operate a charity and use a protion of their building and funds to do so would get a break. Churches are a charity. Full stop. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/568 "2014-03-16T15:26:33Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Treating an otherwise-equivalent organization differently specifically because of their religious status? You don’t see an equal protection violation there? You, and others, have been arguing constantly in favour of treating religious organisations differently from others _solely_ because they are religious. This, like many things in the US, does not accept “religious freedom” as including the freedom to be free of religion. True “freedom of religion” comes from treating everyone the same regardless of their religion or lack of it. Something you continue to argue against. > [@](#): > > Churches are a charity. Full stop. Nope. Many churches hold vast wealth, and take in far more than they give out. Also, a charity is, at least in theory, a public good, and the vast majority of churches are not that. If you amend your statement to say that some churches, in some jurisdictions, are legally charities, you might be more accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/569 "2014-03-16T15:33:13Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > There’s a significant difference between your religious belief about what a Christian marriage is, and something that’s a fact. Beliefs are personal and somehwhat subjective , facts, not so much. > > I know people want to believe that if their attitiudes about homosexuals and SSM is based in their religious beliefs then it can’t be bigotry but that’s simply not true. Bigotry has a specific definition and it applies. It may not be malicious , but it is still bigotry born of generations of religious and societal indoctrination. > > I see you’re repeating the nonsense that SS couples cannot procreate. Are you going to address any of the posters pointing out how wrong that is? Do you know any churches who refuse to allow couples to marry who choose not to have children, or where one partner is unable? Yes, the Roman Catholic Church. As previously stated. (Inability to have children is not a problem, though impotence or equivalent female conditions which make sex impossible, are disquialifications. Absolute unwillingness to have children is also a disqualification, since it casts into doubt the participant’s ability and willingness to consent to a Catholic marriage. Same-sex couples absolutely cannot procreate with each other, any more than (OK, let’s drop Tolkien for a bit), say, the two intelligent species in Mary Doria Russell’s “The Sparrow” can procreate with each other. Hence, they are incapable of doing what a Christian marriage is supposed to do. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/570 "2014-03-16T15:38:16Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > You, and others, have been arguing constantly in favour of treating religious organisations differently from others _solely_ because they are religious. This, like many things in the US, does not accept “religious freedom” as including the freedom to be free of religion. If same-sex couples (or interfaith couples, or what have you) want to be free of religion, they have a simple solution- _leave the church, and don’t try to get married in it_. The lunacy on display here reminds me a bit of what G. K. Chesterton said about Tolstoy, who was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church, and whose followers complained that he was denied an Orthodox funeral. If you refuse to abide by Catholic teachings about marriage (or the teachings of any other church), then don’t complain when the church refuses to marry you. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, at least not if you’re more mature than a kindegarten student. > [@Steophan](#): > > True “freedom of religion” comes from treating everyone the same regardless of their religion or lack of it. Something you continue to argue against. > . No, that’s _one_ reading of ‘freedom of religion’. There’s an alternative conception of freedom of religion (which originates in the Muslim world, but is used today in the legal system of countries like India, which is both unquestionable a secular country and a mostly non-Muslim one), which revolves around treating people (in matters of personal law) differently according to the tenets of the religion that they freely choose to belong to. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/571 "2014-03-16T15:43:07Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > No, that’s _one_ reading of ‘freedom of religion’. There’s an alternative conception of freedom of religion (which originates in the Muslim world, but is used today in the legal system of countries like India, which is both unquestionable a secular country and a mostly non-Muslim one), which revolves around treating people (in matters of personal law) differently according to the tenets of the religion that they freely choose to belong to. That’s no form of “freedom” whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/572 "2014-03-16T15:47:48Z")
Says you. The citizens of a lot of countries would disagree. In fact, the Muslim minority of India would be, in large part, outraged if you said that to them. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/573 "2014-03-16T16:13:17Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > This, like many things in the US, does not accept “religious freedom” as including the freedom to be free of religion. True “freedom of religion” comes from treating everyone the same regardless of their religion or lack of it. Something you continue to argue against. Nonsense. Being “free of religion” to the extent that you’re advocating is an absurd exaggeration of any working understanding of our liberties. > [@](#): > > Nope. Many churches hold vast wealth, and take in far more than they give out. Also, a charity is, at least in theory, a public good, and the vast majority of churches are not that. For someone who insists on using their own made-up definition of “business” it does not surprise me that you’re now coming up with your own for “charity”. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/574 "2014-03-16T18:34:48Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > A distinction without a difference IMHO. If a practice is widespread and accpeted by church officials it is their de facto doctrine. The irony of you posting this immediately after distinguishing between fact and opinion is amusing. You are welcome to your belief, but that, (and your new definition of doctrine), is not fact. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Would you say the church encouraged or discouraged the Bible being translated into common languages? Is it that they wanted only church approved versions available? Weren’t several reformers/translators concerned that the Latin versions were corrupt and very different than the original greek? The church encouraged vernacular translations. They did want too much control over those translations. Some of the objections from the church were that the Latin interpretation was “better” than the more recent translations from the Greek (since the Latin had been created at a time that was closer to the Greek usage and, from their viewpoint, more likely to have understood the original Greek better–sixteenth century Greek was no longer Koine Greek any more than sixteenth century English is the same as the language we speak). Both sides wished to claim that the others’ translation was corrupt, usually based more on their preferred theology than on linguistic concerns. (Neither side, for example, corrected Isaiah 7:14 from “virgin” to “young woman.”) The issue is not whether the Church wanted excessive control over both the words and the interpretations of scripture (based on its own developed theology). It clearly was (depending on one’s definition of “excessive”). The issue is that false claims by various Reformers the the Catholic Church wanted no vernacular translations has made it into popular culture. This includes incorrect claims that Wyclif and Tyndale were persecuted merely for trying to publish English translations when the objections to their translations was explicitly to changes those men made to the scripture to support their theology. Wyclif’s translation–itself based on the Vulgate, not Greek or Hebrew texts–was criticized for its errors by Protestant theologians, (when they were not using his example to bash the Catholics). Tyndale’s translation was also recognized has having errors, although it was close enough to provide a base line on which the Great Bible and the Authorized Version (KJV) each relied. Tyndale was executed for heresy, the charge being the publication of “Lutheran” works, not for publishing an English bible over which the church in Europe never raised its hand. While his (incomplete) bible was raising hackles throughout the power structure of England, it should be noted that the final authority was Henry VIII, who had already broken with Rome, not the Vatican. Given the number of languages into which the bible had been translated without comment by the church, it is clear that while the church wanted control over the wording, there was always a willingness to have the bible translated into the various vernaculars and the claim that the church opposed vernacular translations is nothing more than anti-Catholic propaganda. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/575 "2014-03-16T18:47:24Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Yes, the Roman Catholic Church. As previously stated. (Inability to have children is not a problem, though impotence or equivalent female conditions which make sex impossible, are disquialifications. Absolute unwillingness to have children is also a disqualification, since it casts into doubt the participant’s ability and willingness to consent to a Catholic marriage. > > Same-sex couples absolutely cannot procreate with each other, any more than (OK, let’s drop Tolkien for a bit), say, the two intelligent species in Mary Doria Russell’s “The Sparrow” can procreate with each other. Hence, they are incapable of doing what a Christian marriage is supposed to do. So no, not the Roman Catholic Church, if “Inability to have children is not a problem”. So what happens if a married couple later becomes infertile? I mean, eventually every woman goes through menopause, but let’s imagine that some unfortunate event leaves either or both of the couple physically unable to have children, and they don’t already have any. Does the annulment go through automatically at the moment they become infertile, or do they need to go see their priest in order to update their unmarried status? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/576 "2014-03-16T18:50:13Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > . . . Tyndale was executed for heresy, the charge being the publication of “Lutheran” works, not for publishing an English bible over which the church in Europe never raised its hand. While his (incomplete) bible was raising hackles throughout the power structure of England, it should be noted that the final authority was Henry VIII, who had already broken with Rome, not the Vatican. . . . Just poking in to say thank you for this. I hadn’t known it. I’d always held the “usual opinion” that Tyndale was executed for translating the Bible into English. Good to learn otherwise before I posted something to that effect. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/577 "2014-03-17T13:28:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The irony of you posting this immediately after distinguishing between fact and opinion is amusing. You are welcome to your belief, but that, (and your new definition of doctrine), is not fact. There’s a pretty obvious IMHO there so it may not be as ironic as you think. The discussion I was having leading into this was about churches having to change their practices and traditional beliefs as society changes what is seen as just. IMO the technical fact that detailed doctrine hasn’t changed is insignificant. I’m going to assume that church officials assumed they had some divine authority and duty to execute people while defending the faith. It wasn’t a isolated incident or two from some rogue priest or bishop was it? ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/578 "2014-03-17T13:42:48Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > There’s a pretty obvious IMHO there so it may not be as ironic as you think. > The discussion I was having leading into this was about churches having to change their practices and traditional beliefs as society changes what is seen as just. IMO the technical fact that detailed doctrine hasn’t changed is insignificant. I’m going to assume that church officials assumed they had some divine authority and duty to execute people while defending the faith. It wasn’t a isolated incident or two from some rogue priest or bishop was it? **tomndebb** has replied to you succinctly and admirably, so I just have a they things to add. There’s a difference between teaching something evil as doctrine, and doing evil things in spite of your doctrines. On an issue like ‘is it legitimate to forcibly convert Jews, or to take away their children’, for example , Roman Catholic doctrinal teaching has always been clear. Lots of abuses happened, of course, but they happened in contradiction to what the church taught , not because of it. Now, I’m not Catholic, and I do think there are cases where there has been an actual change in what the church teaches. not many, but a few. The best example I can think of is regarding the question of whether those who are not members, during their earthly lives, of the a Catholic Church have the possibility of salvation. the modern Catholic Church says yes, but I don’t think Boniface VIII would have agreed. there are of course Catholics who would try manfully to reconcile the two, but I think it would be more honest to say, yes, in this case doctrine has changed. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/579 "2014-03-17T13:46:09Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Same-sex couples absolutely cannot procreate with each other, and some hetero couples cannot procreate with each other but can and do make the extra effort nessecary to have children. This extra effort is applauded and celebrated. again, I realize religious tradition dies hard but history demonstrates that practices do change over time, not on a whim or modern fad but based on an overall sense of justice grounded in facts. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/580 "2014-03-17T13:56:41Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > and some hetero couples cannot procreate with each other but can and do make the extra effort nessecary to have children. This extra effort is applauded and celebrated. Do you mean adoption. OK, sure. Do you mean IVF? The Roman Catholic Church bitterly opposes IVF, as they oppose all forms of artifcially assisted reproduction. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > again, I realize religious tradition dies hard but history demonstrates that practices do change over time, not on a whim or modern fad but based on an overall sense of justice grounded in facts. History demonstrates no such thing. The Catholic and Orthodox churches have actually changed surprisingly few of their teachings (although there are some, as I point out), and to the etxent that they do change, its not always in directions you would approve of. Until the fifth century (?) IIRC, Christianity was mostly a pacificst faith and mostly opposed to things like war and the death penalty. That changed when Christians became responsible for running governments and the attendant responsibilities of state. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/581 "2014-03-17T13:57:43Z")
**cosmosdan** I also disagree with you that ‘justice’ or ‘facts’ call for the church to allow gay couples to marry. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=30)