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?
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.
Gay Marriage
12/08/2010 10:23:19 AM
- 1835 Views
I disagree on the latter part
12/08/2010 12:04:15 PM
- 1211 Views
I follow your point...
12/08/2010 12:14:17 PM
- 1193 Views
Suspect you would find plenty of denominations that would argue with you rather strenuously.
12/08/2010 12:24:55 PM
- 1190 Views
See, that's what I'm saying...
12/08/2010 07:37:26 PM
- 1154 Views
You didn't read my post.
12/08/2010 09:10:21 PM
- 1067 Views
Actually, you didn't read my post
12/08/2010 09:23:54 PM
- 1107 Views
Um, you're wrong.
12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
- 1117 Views
Re: Um, you're wrong.
12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
- 1074 Views
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. And no, he described it accurately. *NM*
12/08/2010 09:53:31 PM
- 564 Views
You're still wrong.
12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
- 1210 Views
Re: You're still wrong.
12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
- 1067 Views
Again, you are still wrong.
12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
- 1115 Views
Re: Again, you are still wrong.
12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
- 964 Views
Wrong definition of "club"
12/08/2010 10:30:52 PM
- 1212 Views
Re: Wrong definition of "club"
12/08/2010 10:40:55 PM
- 1119 Views
Also
12/08/2010 10:02:44 PM
- 1162 Views
And wrong again.
12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
- 1184 Views
Not so quick!
12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
- 1020 Views
Yes, so quick!
12/08/2010 10:32:13 PM
- 967 Views
Let's be reasonable here
12/08/2010 10:41:53 PM
- 1078 Views
Why do you get to judge?
12/08/2010 10:48:57 PM
- 1105 Views
I don't
12/08/2010 10:53:21 PM
- 998 Views
OK.
12/08/2010 10:58:22 PM
- 1112 Views
Re: OK.
12/08/2010 11:03:50 PM
- 1042 Views
Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
12/08/2010 11:14:03 PM
- 1006 Views
Re: Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
12/08/2010 11:23:35 PM
- 1123 Views
Then please stop.
12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
- 1081 Views
What's wrong with discussion?
12/08/2010 11:05:48 PM
- 1019 Views
Discussion? Nothing. Your assertions about other people's views, something.
12/08/2010 11:09:48 PM
- 1048 Views
What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
12/08/2010 10:12:54 PM
- 921 Views
Re: What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
12/08/2010 10:23:36 PM
- 1066 Views
Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
12/08/2010 10:36:48 PM
- 1023 Views
Re: Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
12/08/2010 10:46:22 PM
- 1138 Views
Not entirely true either... or, well, true as far as Brown goes.
12/08/2010 10:08:42 PM
- 1032 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
- 1105 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
- 1039 Views
Gah.
12/08/2010 09:59:45 PM
- 990 Views
What a mature response.
12/08/2010 10:11:00 PM
- 1173 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
- 1012 Views
Um
12/08/2010 09:46:43 PM
- 1139 Views
That's a very good question. *NM*
12/08/2010 09:49:05 PM
- 532 Views
It makes no sense
12/08/2010 04:29:24 PM
- 975 Views
Re: It makes no sense
12/08/2010 07:39:25 PM
- 1054 Views
Re: It makes no sense
12/08/2010 07:41:02 PM
- 1130 Views
Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
12/08/2010 09:08:53 PM
- 970 Views
Re: Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
12/08/2010 09:42:21 PM
- 1084 Views
What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
12/08/2010 09:45:33 PM
- 1138 Views
Re: What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
13/08/2010 11:04:02 AM
- 1074 Views
Wow, it's almost like an entire denomination believes that! *NM*
13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
- 517 Views
13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
- 879 Views
Yeah, that's the Roman Catholic basis against masturbation and contraception. *NM*
13/08/2010 04:12:00 PM
- 516 Views
Yes
13/08/2010 04:22:58 PM
- 927 Views
Dude....please at least have a working knowledge of the Bible before you spout off.
12/08/2010 10:47:13 PM
- 960 Views
secular marriage is decoupled from religious marriage
12/08/2010 02:50:43 PM
- 1151 Views
Simple, require the legal and religious marriage to be performed separately.
12/08/2010 02:58:43 PM
- 987 Views
And they are, in fact, separate right now in the US. They're just called the same thing.
12/08/2010 03:29:26 PM
- 1034 Views
It's not the same name that's confusing so much as the single ceremony. Or so it seems to me.
12/08/2010 03:37:20 PM
- 1044 Views
I disagree. I think giving the legal institution the same name as the sacrament is the problem.
12/08/2010 03:59:43 PM
- 1057 Views
What in the world would that accomplish?
12/08/2010 03:44:32 PM
- 1070 Views
Provide some much-needed clarity, evidently.
12/08/2010 03:49:33 PM
- 920 Views
the problem is it would be changing a centuries old tradition..
12/08/2010 04:26:47 PM
- 932 Views
heheheheheheheHAHAHAHEHEHehehehehahheeh*cough*
12/08/2010 04:55:09 PM
- 941 Views
thats OK I am sure you will get over it
12/08/2010 05:22:08 PM
- 977 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
- 1099 Views
Really? I was hoping for something better
12/08/2010 10:06:00 PM
- 1031 Views
So government recognition makes your religion meaningful?
12/08/2010 10:11:54 PM
- 1117 Views
not my religion I'm agnostic
12/08/2010 10:34:40 PM
- 980 Views
I'm not far left, thank you very much. *NM*
12/08/2010 10:20:31 PM
- 588 Views
no but your are European and that slants your views *NM*
12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
- 579 Views
Simples
12/08/2010 09:30:31 PM
- 1061 Views
there are about 140 post ranging from boyscouts to infant babtism
12/08/2010 10:57:46 PM
- 1059 Views
So.
14/08/2010 01:27:59 AM
- 898 Views
sorry I responded I forgot what a tool you are. my bad
14/08/2010 02:48:57 AM
- 1416 Views
You spout some utter gibberish then dish out insults when called on it? Very funny
15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
- 1243 Views
Agreed *NM*
12/08/2010 03:45:04 PM
- 466 Views
I love you, Camilla
12/08/2010 04:02:15 PM
- 860 Views
Re: I love you, Camilla
12/08/2010 04:04:10 PM
- 1049 Views
A couple of things
12/08/2010 12:58:09 PM
- 1029 Views
there is major flaw in your argument
12/08/2010 03:31:45 PM
- 1165 Views
Re: there is major flaw in your argument
12/08/2010 04:01:32 PM
- 1050 Views
I should clarify that I support gay marriage
12/08/2010 05:20:36 PM
- 986 Views
One point about Prop. 8
12/08/2010 07:38:55 PM
- 1029 Views
I know that is the commonl;y held belief but I thinkit is wrong
12/08/2010 10:32:58 PM
- 951 Views
Religious institutions, though, pushed hard to pass it.
12/08/2010 10:42:33 PM
- 1037 Views
that doesn’t translate into people voting for religious reasons
12/08/2010 11:19:48 PM
- 858 Views
Bigotry and Fear that are supported and encouraged by religious institutions.
12/08/2010 11:32:30 PM
- 1018 Views
there are major flaws in your argument
12/08/2010 07:51:52 PM
- 1128 Views
Women can't be priests in the Catholic church.
12/08/2010 08:00:24 PM
- 809 Views
Forcing religious institutions to marry gay couples is hideously unconstitutional.
12/08/2010 04:18:59 PM
- 1076 Views
You are absolutely wrong
12/08/2010 07:57:19 PM
- 1072 Views
Your arguments are so specious and stupid I don't know where to begin.
13/08/2010 05:04:17 AM
- 991 Views
Why do people equate....
12/08/2010 07:11:15 PM
- 986 Views
Because "homophobic", like "xenophobic", has shifted a bit in meaning...
12/08/2010 07:33:56 PM
- 1068 Views
Because your reasons for being against gay marriage are so specious *NM*
12/08/2010 07:59:42 PM
- 596 Views
I particularly enjoy the implied assumption that your a good enough judge of my motivations. *NM*
12/08/2010 09:24:14 PM
- 563 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
12/08/2010 08:04:24 PM
- 1139 Views
+1
12/08/2010 08:06:19 PM
- 1177 Views
Stop with the pile on Camilla.
12/08/2010 09:22:35 PM
- 1105 Views
You would have said nothing if I had just said "agreed"
12/08/2010 09:27:33 PM
- 927 Views
Which speaks highly of you....
12/08/2010 09:36:30 PM
- 1106 Views
This is being very petty. *NM*
12/08/2010 09:41:26 PM
- 551 Views
As opposed to a snarky +1 comment? *NM*
12/08/2010 09:45:02 PM
- 570 Views
It's not snarky.
12/08/2010 09:47:47 PM
- 1043 Views
Its a +1 shorthand comment...
12/08/2010 09:52:04 PM
- 1332 Views
Wow. Those two characters allowed you to read Camilla's motivations?
12/08/2010 09:54:25 PM
- 959 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
12/08/2010 09:13:07 PM
- 1138 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
- 1017 Views
Ok, so if the state does then...
12/08/2010 09:44:31 PM
- 957 Views
No, marriage started because of property.
12/08/2010 09:59:14 PM
- 1054 Views
So then two things come to mind...
12/08/2010 10:04:39 PM
- 1031 Views
Only two?
12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
- 1028 Views
That's a little difficult to do
13/08/2010 03:19:32 PM
- 1188 Views
Re: That's a little difficult to do
13/08/2010 03:30:14 PM
- 1056 Views
yes but about half of the old testament deals with protecting those rights
13/08/2010 05:16:09 PM
- 1016 Views
The relationship between religion and rain go even farther back...
13/08/2010 06:15:32 PM
- 1003 Views
Actually, I agree with that
12/08/2010 10:01:37 PM
- 905 Views
See, what I don't get is why gay people care about
12/08/2010 08:18:45 PM
- 1013 Views
It's mostly about getting married in the eyes of the state.
12/08/2010 08:42:52 PM
- 1128 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
- 600 Views
Starting again
12/08/2010 08:23:08 PM
- 1100 Views
Not at all
12/08/2010 10:58:45 PM
- 1040 Views
Re: Not at all
13/08/2010 09:14:48 AM
- 836 Views
Agreed *NM*
13/08/2010 10:21:06 AM
- 435 Views
Oh dear
13/08/2010 10:30:45 AM
- 951 Views
I suppose you also think that religious Pacifists should be eligible for the draft?
12/08/2010 08:42:21 PM
- 1110 Views