Active Users:405 Time:16/09/2026 07:48:23 AM
Re: You're still wrong. MalkierKnight Send a noteboard - 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
As Sareitha points out, I am firmly of the opinion that the State should provide for the marriage of all consenting adults of all orientations.

I am also firmly of the opinion that the State should keep its legislation out of private institutions - homes, churches, clubs, etc - unless what is happening there causes harm to people or their property.

My church will not marry (perform the ceremony for) people who are not members of the church. My church will not marry a Christian to a non-Christian (my husband is an athiest; we got married in the state church of England but I go to a Free Church of Scotland congregation). And my church will not perform weddings for homosexuals. All of those things are based on our reading of the Bible.

BUT: let me reiterate: I believe the State has a duty to provide marriage for all consenting adults of all orientations. Just the State should not force churches to perform those marriages which do not agree with their doctrine.

Is that clear enough for you?


Maybe it's because I'm not clear enough. I believe that IN ADDITION to having a secular, state oriented marriage for all consenting adults, private institutions like churches ought not be allowed to ban gay marriage.

It seems like you're not from the US so my points may not apply, but this post was directed at America. There are clear legal grounds for government interfering with private institutions. If there weren't, we'd still have segregation.

My point is that banning gay marriage on a religious level amounts to discrimination because gay marriage does not alter the essence of a religion.


The Supreme Court recently ruled that private institutions are allowed to discriminate on who they allow to be members. The case was about the Boy Scouts kicking out a gay man. The court decided that as a private institution, they have a right based on the right to freedom of association to decide with whom they will associate. They don't want to associate with queer folks, so they don't have to do so.

The same obviously applies to churches.


I don't know the circumstances of that case nor do I know the background. I've heard a lot of supreme court cases misinterpreted on this site and others, so if you don't mind I'd like you to give me the name of that case.

Also, Brown v. Board of Education pretty clearly stated that discrimination of certain brands was not permitted.

Whether or not discrimination is permitted on this level in churches is at question. I believe it is not because gay marriage does nothing to alter the essence of christianity.


Look at the link below. It clearly lays out the fact that the Boy Scout's first amendment right to freedom of association trumped the State's decision to force them to accept an openly homosexual troop leader.

Brown v. BoE limited the discrimination public entities could engage in and did away with the doctrine of separate but equal. It did not have an effect on private entities. Public schools were desegregated. Public pools were desegregated. Public busses and trains had their seats integrated.

Private companies, truly private companies that did not accept any public money, could continue to do as they pleased. And they did.

Whatever your beliefs on the essence of christianity, they don't matter. Each church is a private organization that is free to define themselves. If they accept public money for something, to provide a service, then they must follow public policies in doing so, but as for their membership and the rights and rituals they perform within themselves, the government has no business telling them what to do.

Let's take another example. It is known that smoking cigarettes leads to lung, and other cancers. Many state and local governments have therefore banned smoking tobacco products in public areas for the public's safety. They have not banned smoking in private clubs, where members know that smoking is allowed. They have not banned smoking in private homes, where the owner/renter/individual makes the choice.

Do you see the parallel?


It's also illegal to refuse to seat someone at a restaurant because they're black. It's illegal to only hire men (unless the job requires a man). It's illegal to only accept white kids into a college.

While brown v board did pertain to public facilities. The Civil Rights Act pertained to much more.

My mistake for using Brown v. Board as an example.
You must unlearn what you have learned.
Reply to message
Gay Marriage - 12/08/2010 10:23:19 AM 2134 Views
I disagree on the latter part - 12/08/2010 12:04:15 PM 1465 Views
I follow your point... - 12/08/2010 12:14:17 PM 1461 Views
Suspect you would find plenty of denominations that would argue with you rather strenuously. - 12/08/2010 12:24:55 PM 1500 Views
See, that's what I'm saying... - 12/08/2010 07:37:26 PM 1412 Views
She didn't say that gays ought not be married. - 12/08/2010 07:45:37 PM 1293 Views
You didn't read my post. - 12/08/2010 09:10:21 PM 1340 Views
Actually, you didn't read my post - 12/08/2010 09:23:54 PM 1426 Views
Um, you're wrong. - 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM 1362 Views
Re: Um, you're wrong. - 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM 1324 Views
You're still wrong. - 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM 1470 Views
Re: You're still wrong. - 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM 1320 Views
Again, you are still wrong. - 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM 1394 Views
Re: Again, you are still wrong. - 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM 1220 Views
Wrong definition of "club" - 12/08/2010 10:30:52 PM 1490 Views
My clubs are cooler than yours. *NM* - 12/08/2010 10:35:13 PM 716 Views
I play golf with mine. *NM* - 12/08/2010 10:43:01 PM 733 Views
Re: Wrong definition of "club" - 12/08/2010 10:40:55 PM 1408 Views
Are you a member of one of those churches? - 12/08/2010 10:44:12 PM 1384 Views
Also also: - 12/08/2010 10:46:05 PM 1372 Views
Re: Are you a member of one of those churches? - 12/08/2010 10:49:44 PM 1367 Views
Re: Wrong definition of "club" - 12/08/2010 10:47:20 PM 1402 Views
I don't think he means that kind of club. - 12/08/2010 10:31:41 PM 1290 Views
Also - 12/08/2010 10:02:44 PM 1442 Views
And wrong again. - 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM 1452 Views
Not so quick! - 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM 1284 Views
Yes, so quick! - 12/08/2010 10:32:13 PM 1233 Views
Let's be reasonable here - 12/08/2010 10:41:53 PM 1342 Views
Why do you get to judge? - 12/08/2010 10:48:57 PM 1377 Views
I don't - 12/08/2010 10:53:21 PM 1278 Views
OK. - 12/08/2010 10:58:22 PM 1372 Views
Re: OK. - 12/08/2010 11:03:50 PM 1341 Views
Then please stop. - 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM 1346 Views
What's wrong with discussion? - 12/08/2010 11:05:48 PM 1302 Views
Discussion? Nothing. Your assertions about other people's views, something. - 12/08/2010 11:09:48 PM 1307 Views
Really? - 12/08/2010 11:13:46 PM 1340 Views
Yes. That is incorrect. - 12/08/2010 11:18:05 PM 1302 Views
What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay? - 12/08/2010 10:12:54 PM 1195 Views
Re: What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay? - 12/08/2010 10:23:36 PM 1320 Views
Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer. - 12/08/2010 10:36:48 PM 1317 Views
Re: Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer. - 12/08/2010 10:46:22 PM 1417 Views
Apparently you do believe that you are more qualified - 12/08/2010 10:57:00 PM 1271 Views
You are wrong - 12/08/2010 11:11:37 PM 1127 Views
Really? - 12/08/2010 11:19:10 PM 1195 Views
Not entirely true either... or, well, true as far as Brown goes. - 12/08/2010 10:08:42 PM 1289 Views
Heh... we discuss restaurants a post or two over there.. ---> - 12/08/2010 10:10:26 PM 1374 Views
Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need - 12/08/2010 09:38:33 PM 1389 Views
Re: Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need - 12/08/2010 09:55:05 PM 1291 Views
Gah. - 12/08/2010 09:59:45 PM 1243 Views
Yes yes yes. It was ungracious. I got bored. *NM* - 12/08/2010 10:03:17 PM 658 Views
What a mature response. - 12/08/2010 10:11:00 PM 1462 Views
Yes. - 12/08/2010 10:21:38 PM 1400 Views
Re: Yes. - 12/08/2010 10:35:51 PM 1356 Views
I can't speak for Rebekah, but I don't think the issue is that your points are invalid per se. - 12/08/2010 10:22:30 PM 1256 Views
I think my point was unclear in that post - 12/08/2010 10:55:34 PM 1333 Views
It seems that by your (to me nebulous) definition - 12/08/2010 11:05:01 PM 1364 Views
Re: I think my point was unclear in that post - 13/08/2010 10:58:28 AM 1252 Views
+1 - 13/08/2010 09:16:24 AM 1141 Views
Hehe - 13/08/2010 10:46:25 AM 1184 Views
Um - 12/08/2010 09:46:43 PM 1409 Views
That's a very good question. *NM* - 12/08/2010 09:49:05 PM 662 Views
So good it doesn't even need an answer, apparently *NM* - 12/08/2010 10:26:41 PM 714 Views
So good I responded to it someplace else. *NM* - 12/08/2010 10:56:05 PM 599 Views
It makes no sense - 12/08/2010 04:29:24 PM 1247 Views
Re: It makes no sense - 12/08/2010 07:39:25 PM 1311 Views
Re: It makes no sense - 12/08/2010 07:41:02 PM 1411 Views
It's not sanctioning anything - 12/08/2010 09:25:44 PM 1344 Views
Re: It's not sanctioning anything - 12/08/2010 09:28:45 PM 1330 Views
Nonsense - 12/08/2010 09:35:25 PM 1253 Views
Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder... - 12/08/2010 09:08:53 PM 1232 Views
Re: Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder... - 12/08/2010 09:42:21 PM 1362 Views
Suspect you've not read that either. - 12/08/2010 09:43:32 PM 1273 Views
What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin? - 12/08/2010 09:45:33 PM 1398 Views
Infant baptism, obviously. - 12/08/2010 09:51:48 PM 1384 Views
*NM* - 12/08/2010 09:53:17 PM 492 Views
*groan* I forgot that one! - 12/08/2010 10:09:07 PM 1362 Views
Re: What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin? - 13/08/2010 11:04:02 AM 1392 Views
Wow, it's almost like an entire denomination believes that! *NM* - 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM 654 Views
really? - 13/08/2010 03:42:42 PM 1220 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM 1142 Views
Yeah, that's the Roman Catholic basis against masturbation and contraception. *NM* - 13/08/2010 04:12:00 PM 622 Views
Yes - 13/08/2010 04:22:58 PM 1197 Views
Which is interesting - 13/08/2010 04:28:09 PM 1169 Views
Yes - 13/08/2010 04:29:25 PM 1151 Views
Original poster. *NM* - 13/08/2010 04:32:18 PM 706 Views
- 13/08/2010 04:34:30 PM 1200 Views
Dude....please at least have a working knowledge of the Bible before you spout off. - 12/08/2010 10:47:13 PM 1213 Views
I like the part in 1 Corinthians (is it chapter 6?) - 12/08/2010 10:49:55 PM 1114 Views
Ya know?!? - 12/08/2010 10:55:27 PM 1237 Views
I'm not sure you're correct there. - 12/08/2010 04:33:02 PM 1333 Views
Re: I'm not sure you're correct there. - 12/08/2010 07:40:16 PM 1342 Views
There is a difference... - 12/08/2010 09:02:20 PM 1379 Views
No you don't. - 12/08/2010 09:16:52 PM 1376 Views
That's another concern - 12/08/2010 12:39:53 PM 1430 Views
Not quite my point - 12/08/2010 09:19:50 PM 1289 Views
secular marriage is decoupled from religious marriage - 12/08/2010 02:50:43 PM 1432 Views
Simple, require the legal and religious marriage to be performed separately. - 12/08/2010 02:58:43 PM 1264 Views
What in the world would that accomplish? - 12/08/2010 03:44:32 PM 1343 Views
Provide some much-needed clarity, evidently. - 12/08/2010 03:49:33 PM 1171 Views
the problem is it would be changing a centuries old tradition.. - 12/08/2010 04:26:47 PM 1215 Views
heheheheheheheHAHAHAHEHEHehehehehahheeh*cough* - 12/08/2010 04:55:09 PM 1228 Views
thats OK I am sure you will get over it - 12/08/2010 05:22:08 PM 1243 Views
Just guessing, but I think it was the "centuries old tradition" that set off the giggle fit. - 12/08/2010 07:25:38 PM 1342 Views
Really? I was hoping for something better - 12/08/2010 10:06:00 PM 1289 Views
So government recognition makes your religion meaningful? - 12/08/2010 10:11:54 PM 1403 Views
not my religion I'm agnostic - 12/08/2010 10:34:40 PM 1234 Views
OK, but the point remains the same. - 12/08/2010 10:51:59 PM 1347 Views
Of course it would - 12/08/2010 11:10:03 PM 1434 Views
I'm not far left, thank you very much. *NM* - 12/08/2010 10:20:31 PM 718 Views
no but your are European and that slants your views *NM* - 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM 699 Views
Sure, but in this case it has little to do with left or right. - 12/08/2010 10:40:42 PM 1299 Views
that is what I said when I metioned you were European *NM* - 12/08/2010 11:11:31 PM 691 Views
Simples - 12/08/2010 09:30:31 PM 1323 Views
there are about 140 post ranging from boyscouts to infant babtism - 12/08/2010 10:57:46 PM 1286 Views
So. - 14/08/2010 01:27:59 AM 1166 Views
sorry I responded I forgot what a tool you are. my bad - 14/08/2010 02:48:57 AM 1679 Views
Agreed *NM* - 12/08/2010 03:45:04 PM 577 Views
I love you, Camilla - 12/08/2010 04:02:15 PM 1115 Views
Re: I love you, Camilla - 12/08/2010 04:04:10 PM 1310 Views
Is there an all above option? *NM* - 12/08/2010 04:23:24 PM 730 Views
Naturally. - 12/08/2010 04:25:14 PM 1302 Views
I know I do *NM* - 12/08/2010 05:17:35 PM 672 Views
Another thing - 12/08/2010 07:42:21 PM 1409 Views
A couple of things - 12/08/2010 12:58:09 PM 1303 Views
I disagree - 12/08/2010 07:47:26 PM 1440 Views
Well, you're within your rights to certainly - 12/08/2010 08:24:30 PM 1386 Views
there is major flaw in your argument - 12/08/2010 03:31:45 PM 1435 Views
Re: there is major flaw in your argument - 12/08/2010 04:01:32 PM 1315 Views
I should clarify that I support gay marriage - 12/08/2010 05:20:36 PM 1259 Views
One point about Prop. 8 - 12/08/2010 07:38:55 PM 1276 Views
I know that is the commonl;y held belief but I thinkit is wrong - 12/08/2010 10:32:58 PM 1205 Views
Religious institutions, though, pushed hard to pass it. - 12/08/2010 10:42:33 PM 1299 Views
that doesn’t translate into people voting for religious reasons - 12/08/2010 11:19:48 PM 1107 Views
there are major flaws in your argument - 12/08/2010 07:51:52 PM 1439 Views
Women can't be priests in the Catholic church. - 12/08/2010 08:00:24 PM 1061 Views
Hehe. You beat me by 6 seconds. *NM* - 12/08/2010 08:03:28 PM 615 Views
Great minds and all. *NM* - 12/08/2010 08:06:01 PM 619 Views
I was writing a reply to this post... - 12/08/2010 03:51:01 PM 1323 Views
I feel your pain *NM* - 12/08/2010 07:52:28 PM 703 Views
Forcing religious institutions to marry gay couples is hideously unconstitutional. - 12/08/2010 04:18:59 PM 1380 Views
100% agreed. - 12/08/2010 05:05:35 PM 1423 Views
This. *NM* - 12/08/2010 07:36:57 PM 536 Views
You are absolutely wrong - 12/08/2010 07:57:19 PM 1347 Views
By that token - 12/08/2010 08:00:30 PM 1217 Views
My God.... - 12/08/2010 09:49:18 PM 1300 Views
no You are absolutely wrong - 12/08/2010 10:08:57 PM 1224 Views
Well, that was horrifyingly stupid. - 13/08/2010 12:57:46 AM 1341 Views
I am a Christian who wholeheartedly supports Gay Marriage. - 12/08/2010 06:49:28 PM 1419 Views
Fair enough. - 12/08/2010 08:01:37 PM 1359 Views
Why do people equate.... - 12/08/2010 07:11:15 PM 1302 Views
Because "homophobic", like "xenophobic", has shifted a bit in meaning... - 12/08/2010 07:33:56 PM 1324 Views
So then.... - 12/08/2010 07:39:24 PM 1273 Views
Well, strongly anti-gay, yes. - 12/08/2010 07:43:40 PM 1108 Views
Homophobic is generally "anti-gay" or "anti-queer"... - 12/08/2010 07:46:22 PM 1426 Views
Re: Why do people equate.... - 12/08/2010 08:04:24 PM 1497 Views
+1 - 12/08/2010 08:06:19 PM 1441 Views
Stop with the pile on Camilla. - 12/08/2010 09:22:35 PM 1369 Views
You would have said nothing if I had just said "agreed" - 12/08/2010 09:27:33 PM 1190 Views
Which speaks highly of you.... - 12/08/2010 09:36:30 PM 1388 Views
This is being very petty. *NM* - 12/08/2010 09:41:26 PM 684 Views
As opposed to a snarky +1 comment? *NM* - 12/08/2010 09:45:02 PM 702 Views
It's not snarky. - 12/08/2010 09:47:47 PM 1351 Views
Its a +1 shorthand comment... - 12/08/2010 09:52:04 PM 1606 Views
Wow. Those two characters allowed you to read Camilla's motivations? - 12/08/2010 09:54:25 PM 1228 Views
*shrug* - 12/08/2010 09:58:42 PM 1421 Views
Yes, I am terribly selfish - 13/08/2010 09:10:54 AM 1217 Views
Re: Why do people equate.... - 12/08/2010 09:13:07 PM 1435 Views
Re: Why do people equate.... - 12/08/2010 09:26:41 PM 1318 Views
LOL - 12/08/2010 09:42:32 PM 1282 Views
Re: LOL - 13/08/2010 09:12:29 AM 1228 Views
you are exactly why the state needs to make a clear seperation between the secular and religious - 12/08/2010 09:33:22 PM 1285 Views
Ok, so if the state does then... - 12/08/2010 09:44:31 PM 1205 Views
No, marriage started because of property. - 12/08/2010 09:59:14 PM 1321 Views
So then two things come to mind... - 12/08/2010 10:04:39 PM 1287 Views
Only two? - 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM 1293 Views
Is this the same guy... - 12/08/2010 10:43:02 PM 1192 Views
I thought the cow died in an accident, but yes... that guy. - 12/08/2010 10:58:46 PM 1270 Views
That's a little difficult to do - 13/08/2010 03:19:32 PM 1503 Views
Re: That's a little difficult to do - 13/08/2010 03:30:14 PM 1355 Views
Oh, I hope not - 13/08/2010 04:19:47 PM 1313 Views
I may be wrong - 13/08/2010 04:24:28 PM 1307 Views
Property isn't just agricultural. - 13/08/2010 06:11:12 PM 1241 Views
True enough - 16/08/2010 03:12:31 PM 1512 Views
yes but about half of the old testament deals with protecting those rights - 13/08/2010 05:16:09 PM 1287 Views
The relationship between religion and rain go even farther back... - 13/08/2010 06:15:32 PM 1283 Views
to me it is a beside the point when it comes to the law - 13/08/2010 06:25:50 PM 1263 Views
moot, not mute - 13/08/2010 08:48:04 PM 1565 Views
damn - 13/08/2010 08:52:23 PM 1365 Views
Actually, I agree with that - 12/08/2010 10:01:37 PM 1178 Views
See, now this, I could deal with.... - 12/08/2010 10:06:15 PM 1183 Views
So is it that you are hung up on the name then? - 13/08/2010 03:29:02 PM 1240 Views
Rights.... - 12/08/2010 09:34:45 PM 1266 Views
See, what I don't get is why gay people care about - 12/08/2010 08:18:45 PM 1280 Views
It's mostly about getting married in the eyes of the state. - 12/08/2010 08:42:52 PM 1388 Views
I'm fairly sure Jonte was referring only to the "churches have to accept gay marriages" bit. *NM* - 12/08/2010 08:44:52 PM 715 Views
Hmmm... Then I shall reply to that part here. - 12/08/2010 08:50:10 PM 1401 Views
Oh, so it is an american thing, then. *NM* - 14/08/2010 08:58:28 AM 656 Views
Starting again - 12/08/2010 08:23:08 PM 1402 Views
Not at all - 12/08/2010 10:58:45 PM 1325 Views
Re: Not at all - 13/08/2010 09:14:48 AM 1098 Views
Agreed *NM* - 13/08/2010 10:21:06 AM 578 Views
Oh dear - 13/08/2010 10:30:45 AM 1199 Views
But what if I like being selfish and evil? *NM* - 13/08/2010 11:25:01 AM 703 Views
Well, being English might help you get away with it - 13/08/2010 11:26:17 AM 1146 Views
I'm curious - 13/08/2010 01:49:15 PM 1281 Views
- 13/08/2010 01:54:19 PM 1147 Views
Okay, good. - 13/08/2010 01:58:14 PM 1311 Views
I suppose you also think that religious Pacifists should be eligible for the draft? - 12/08/2010 08:42:21 PM 1361 Views
very nicely said *NM* - 13/08/2010 02:16:53 PM 565 Views

Reply to Message