shamus414: You mean like that pesky "some paper somewhere" called "the Constitution"? Without that "paper" you have no rights at all in this country. The "reality" is that all of our "rights" are defined and created and codied on "some paper somewhere" without which there is no law or rights.

Wow, you're an idiot - the Constitution does not define rights. It only defines limits on governmental authority. Did they not teach basic Civics in your school?

Sloth: "Ah, my favorite logical fallacy: "'Every church since the beginning of time has been just like my church, because I can't possibly conceive of anything being different."'

Well it is certainly that needs to be addressed if one claims that one's teaches derive from a similar source.

It doesn't need to be addressed at all - the groups religious source is not at issue here, their discrimination with public funds is at issue.

Sloth_DC

Get over your narrow view of reality that all Christians are a bunch of fools, like you are assuming I am.

Historically the Episcopalians viewed homosexuality as a sin. I am aware of the change. I want to know their theology in this area and I was hoping that there might be a gay Episcopalian who could shed some light on it for me.

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It has not been anywhere ratified in either statute or case law that engaging in homosexual sex is among the privlieges and immunities of a citizen, or that it is an aspect of life, liberty, or property. Indeed, American law has consistently tended to teh opposite.

Oh, so in the liberal mecca of Berkeley, they give away gross amounts of free $$$ in food, shelter, and aid in welfare...but they won't help out with an exorbinant dock fee ($500/mo for a small slip?!?) so 5 little kids can go sailing their boat. Nice.

I swear if I lived there I'd either move or go on a shooting spree...I'd get away with the shooting spree too because I'd be the only one with a gun for 100 miles.

"Wow, you're an idiot - the Constitution does not define rights. It only defines limits on governmental authority. Did they not teach basic Civics in your school?"

So I guess the Bill of Rights is not in the Constitution? It appearedto be in the back of that Civics book you apparently have not consulted.

Why the heck is the government subsidising any non-profits? Eliminate the government as the source of money, and you eliminate the problem. Everybody can believe, or not believe, whatever they want on their own dime. Public Facilities should be open to the public, and they should be open on the same terms for groups you agree with, as for groups you don't. Should members of groups who discriminate pay more at parking meters?

Everybody gets the same access on the same terms, period. That way the nazis can march in Skokie, the homeless can march on Washington; gay pride and the Rev. Phelps can each have a parade down main street, although I'd suggest separate dates. And John Doe, Lizzie Glutz, IBM, Microsoft, the First Wasp Anglican Church, and GLAAD all pay the same fee to use the park for their summer picnic.

/Excellent flame war by the way, people.
//Makes me proud to be a Farker(jg).

TheGoblinKing

I'll play your game... so the government spends hundreds billions of dollars on waging an irrelevant war... but they won't help out with exorbinant health care costs so citizens can live their lives... Nice.

/obvious

shamus414: You mean like that pesky "some paper somewhere" called "the Constitution"? Without that "paper" you have no rights at all in this country. The "reality" is that all of our "rights" are defined and created and codied on "some paper somewhere" without which there is no law or rights.

So what "paper" guarantees the Boy Scouts the right to tax money?

Basically, where is it said that the government, at the federal OR state level, cannot refuse to disperse tax money to organizations who discriminate by sexual preference?

I dunno, maybe I'm missing your point.

As far as the rest of your points in that post, I more or less agree.

shamus414: The Episcopal Church does not officially teach that homosexuality is not a sin.

Actually, they do - and you ignored the other two on my list.

PeopleFirst

The_Pole_Of_Justice

You are right. I assumed a Christian perspective because my question was about Christian churches. Look at my original post, it was all about orthodox Christianity. Of course I know other churches are okay with it. The Venus temples in Greece used to have prostitute/priestesses. There are Hindu sects that concentrate on the sexual aspect of reality. I'm not asking about them. I'm specifically asking about gay Christian churches and their theology.

Yes, and in doing so, completely ignored what Sloth_DC was saying.

He said, quote:

Ah, my favorite logical fallacy: "Every church since the beginning of time has been just like my church, because I can't possibly conceive of anything being different."

I'll own up to the Christian goof, but his point still stands: you can't think outside an Orthodox system. The main messages of the Christian Faith have been (theoretically, anyway) love and peace. Your initial missive regarded confusion because something hadn't been tried before, had no precedent. As if everything existed because it, y'know, just did.

mrexcess: The_Pole_Of_Justice: Church of the FSM for the win? ;)

Let me see:

Pirates, pastafarianism and stripper factories

vs.

Knots, woggles and buggery.

I think it's pretty clear :-)

/prefers the noodly type appendage
//was a scout until the district scoutmaster aired his penchant for small boys at a camp once..

shamus414: It has not been anywhere ratified in either statute or case law that engaging in homosexual sex is among the privlieges and immunities of a citizen

Lawrence v. Texas

Because big daddy government should dictate what everyone thinks and use people's own tax money to force them to do it.

I am willing to bet that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Scouts, and find the edict unconstitutional.

after reading some of these things I really feel sorry for some of you folks and the life that led you to be bitter fun hating farkers instead of just fun farkers.

I was a scout leader for years and some of the boys that came to our group had no good examples to follow. Several of these young men came from broken homes and had no clue how to do anything except turn on the TV and eat cheetos.

I heard from one recently who directly credits his time in scouting with being able to 1) get THROUGH high school; 2) get into college & 3) get a $100k+ job (wow) and he is not afraid of situations because of the 'RESPECT' he learned while in scouting.

ok, so it takes leaders that can provide the kid with opportunities and VOLUNTEER their time to helping these kids become better people.

I call a number of openly gay individuals as friends, but knowing how a number of them (not all of course) look at any younger boys that just walk by - disghusts me.

I support scouting with time & money - I do not support the gay commuity with either

so - Farkers - which do you want to do? support an organization that is truely trying to do the right thing for a world (ok - some is a bit mis-directed, but...) or sit with your own cheetos and foobies? Your choice.

"Actually, they do - and you ignored the other two on my list."

Oh? Can you locate anything in the official formularies, doctrinal statements, or Prayer Book that suppors this?

I didn't ignore them, I just don't know about them.

shamus
It has not been anywhere ratified in either statute or case law that engaging in homosexual sex is among the privlieges and immunities of a citizen, or that it is an aspect of life, liberty, or property. Indeed, American law has consistently tended to teh opposite.

However, it has been ruled that the government infringes on people's inherent privacy rights when they try to regulate something like sex.

See: Lawrence v. Texas

shamus414

"Basically, you're saying that since the stuff written down doesn't say it, it doesn't exist. Those of us who go by "reality" and not "some paper somewhere" have issue with that assessment."

You mean like that pesky "some paper somewhere" called "the Constitution"? Without that "paper" you have no rights at all in this country. The "reality" is that all of our "rights" are defined and created and codied on "some paper somewhere" without which there is no law or rights.

Uh, the Constitution is there to outline and define rights. It attempted to define a reality. Your post essentially ignored reality in favor of semantics. Hence, the "going by reality" comment.

Yes, I am aware that true stuff is often written down. You have made an irrefutable point that has nothing whatsoever to do with the dialogue at hand, much like your initial post. You were arguing semantics at the expense of reality, then argued that reality is often written down...as if the simple fact of having it written down must mean it's real.

You also completely ignored my other point, but hey, I shouldn't expect too much from someone who just mindlessly lashes out at stuff that rubs them the wrong way.

tarrant84: I am willing to bet that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Scouts, and find the edict unconstitutional.

How much you want to bet?

The city may not give free berthing to some citizens, and charge others, when the sole difference is religion or sexual orientation. Therefore, the city cannot give money to a group which is going to do those things, because that is the same as the city doing it.

Major Thomb: Because big daddy government should dictate what everyone thinks and use people's own tax money to force them to do it.

Yeah, we have a big problem with federally-funded organizations forcing people to be gay.

It oughtta be stopped ASAP.

Mantanga: I call a number of openly gay individuals as friends, but knowing how a number of them (not all of course) look at any younger boys that just walk by - disghusts me.

And how do you feel about straight guys that look at younger girls?

/*tweet* False conflation of issues, 15 yard penalty

Mantanga

I call a number of openly gay individuals as friends, but knowing how a number of them (not all of course) look at any younger boys that just walk by - disghusts me.

so - Farkers - which do you want to do? support an organization that is truely trying to do the right thing for a world (ok - some is a bit mis-directed, but...) or sit with your own cheetos and foobies? Your choice.

Considering that more sexual predators are 'straight' men, someone's generalizing a bit too much

I choose to support groups that achieve the same goals as the Boy Scouts without discrimination. Such as Big Brother and Boys and Girls clubs. There's no need to discriminate.

/obvious

From their own sight:

The Unitarians in Britain are a creedless religious movement of people who encourage freedom of thought...

The Unitarians are not Christian. You have to believe what is in the Christian Creeds to be Christian.

The Cathedral of Hope by their own admission is not orthodox Christianity:

http://www.cathedralofhope.com/canons/index.php#values

So that leaves the Episcopalians. I can't find an official document about homosexuality no longer being a sin, but it most certainly was for centuries if they changed it now. My questions aren't just about being gay, but about sexuality in general. If they are going to change the rules for homosexuality, then what about hetrosexuality? If permarital gay sex is okay, then hetrosexual premarital sex must be too. I've never seen this addressed and that is what I am specifically looking for.

Sloth DC

Kennedy is going to be the swing Justice on this one...

But I'm willing to bet it violates (a) the establishment clause as churches would be denied tax exemption based on their beliefs and (b) freedom of association, as the Scouts should be able to associate with whomever and not be penalized.

Furthermore, there is no rational government objective at hand, as the law does not recognize special protection for gays and atheists.

Scalia writing for the majority.

"Basically, where is it said that the government, at the federal OR state level, cannot refuse to disperse tax money to organizations who discriminate by sexual preference?"

As far as I know, it doesn't say that anywhere, but the federal government has not made that decision yet and only a few state/local governments have. All I was addressing was thr throwing around terms like "discrimination" and how this not permitted. I was merely pointing out that under the law it isn't discrimination - if you want it to be then write your legislator.

Man, Bevets has made the thread.

Mantanga: I call a number of openly gay individuals as friends, but knowing how a number of them (not all of course) look at any younger boys that just walk by - disghusts me.

Do your friends who look at younger girls "disghust" you as well?

BTW, my scout troop was run out of my house growing up.

shamus414
In addition, it is a quasi-religious organization and, as a result, it may make decisions acording to its religious tenants.

Indeed, just like the KKK. But the council needn't support either with waived fees for government services.

TheGoblinKing
I'd get away with the shooting spree too because I'd be the only one with a gun for 100 miles.

Hint: The police carry guns in Berkeley.

PeopleFirst: If permarital gay sex is okay, then hetrosexual premarital sex must be too.

There's no Biblical injunction against premarital sex, just adultery. Of course, in OT terms, having sex with a chick was tantamount to marrying her.

My opinion...

Legally-- the city should win. If they feel this is a legitimate way of accomplishing something, then so be it. They have every right to pass a law like this.

Morally-- Boy Scouts. The government should not be forcing their PC agenda on everyone. (however, this is why I will never live in California)

I mean, exactly who the hell was that show marketed to? I'm gay, and I farking hated it. Every gay guy and lesbian I know hated it. My straight friends hated it. Exactly who the hell would sit through that crap?

Straight women who are into the boy on boy action. It's a larger market than you might think.

RocketRod - I was going to award you only 6/10 for obviousness but you get an extra point for a refreshing take on the old "I work for..." cliche so 7/10.

tarrant84: But I'm willing to bet it violates (a) the establishment clause as churches would be denied tax exemption based on their beliefs

Not the issue at hand - a berthing fee is being waived for non-profits which don't discriminate. The Scouts do not meet the requirements for the waiver.

and (b) freedom of association, as the Scouts should be able to associate with whomever and not be penalized.

Again, not the issue at hand - nobody is penalized the Scouts for associating with whom they choose. They simply are not being granted special rights - in this case, exemption from the berthing fee.

Furthermore, there is no rational government objective at hand, as the law does not recognize special protection for gays and atheists.

Ah, not the issue at hand - the issue at hand is special protection for straights and Christians. No such special protection is supportable under law.

PeopleFirst

The Unitarians are not Christian. You have to believe what is in the Christian Creeds to be Christian.

Actually, you have to believe in Christ to be Christian.

Unless my Bible AND the Nuns at the Seminary lied to me.

Tell ya what: let go of that death grip you have on orthodoxy and we'll talk. Until then, you're like the kid that would only play a game if the deck was stacked in his favor. Yeah, I KNOW the orthodox are, well, orthodox.

You keep challenging people to an arm-wrestling match, but you won't put out your hand.

In the distance, I hear a symphony of one million microscopic violins wheedling and squeaking away a sad dirge for the poor little Sea Scouts and their lost $550/month. My goodness. What a colossal tragedy. The Sea Scouts no longer get their gravy train ride on the backs of the local taxpayers. I think my heart is breeaking. Such a sad, sad day for the human race. I need a tissue to dab at my tears.

tarrant84: Morally-- Boy Scouts. The government should not be forcing their PC agenda on everyone. (however, this is why I will never live in California)

How is anyone forcing any agenda onto the Scouts? The issue at hand is that the Scouts may not be granted special privileges by the City if they do not meet the same standards as the city.

tarrant84: Morally-- Boy Scouts. The government should not be forcing their PC agenda on everyone. (however, this is why I will never live in California)

If they had been forcing their opinion, they would have said that the scouts HAD to accept gays, no matter what. All they've said is that they won't give them tax money if they choose to discriminate.

There's a difference between choosing not to support something and forbidding it.

people

whaa?

Let me spell it out for you. The scouts practice freedom of association. The government insists that they do not, and that instead they (the government) choose with whom scouts can associate. They enforce this economically, by denying common access to publicly held assets (For which the individual scouts' families pay in taxes). Therefore, the freedom of association is reserved to those who can afford to resist the government's efforts to deny that freedom by charging for it.

2006-07-12 08:58:03 AM Bevets

You're going to HELL!

tarrant84

My opinion...

Legally-- the city should win. If they feel this is a legitimate way of accomplishing something, then so be it. They have every right to pass a law like this.

Morally-- Boy Scouts. The government should not be forcing their PC agenda on everyone. (however, this is why I will never live in California)

GAHH!!!

GAH! GAH! GAH! GAH!!

What is SO farkING DIFFICULT to understand that you are not pushing an agenda by simply following the farking by-laws?

Keeping things above board and equal before the law is not "pushing an agenda," unless you consider actually following the rules an "agenda."

the_Pole_Of_Justice - actually I think PeopleFirst is just looking for an answer to his question, not engage in all of this debate.

mciann: Let me spell it out for you. The scouts practice freedom of association. The government insists that they do not, and that instead they (the government) choose with whom scouts can associate. They enforce this economically, by denying common access to publicly held assets (For which the individual scouts' families pay in taxes).

Incorrect. The City is simply saying they will not give public funds to an organization that discriminates, because that would be the same as the City discriminating. The Scouts are not being denied access to publicly held assets (the marina), they are simply not being given special privileges of having the normal fee that everyone else pays waived.

I'm putting my neck out right now. Here is orthodoxy:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell. [See Calvin]

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

If a church denies any of these tenents it is not Christian. I know the nuns taught you this creed. A creed is simply a summary of beliefs. This creed is the absolute minimum you have to believe to be a Christian.

What you are asking for is an "anything goes" faith. Well in that case a Hindu is Christian because he believes that Christ was a guru, and a Mormon is Christian because he believes Christ forgives sins, a Muslim is Christian because he views Christ as a prophet.

I was Boy Scout and I'm proud to have served with as fine a group of pre-pubescent sadists as ever roamed the earth.

Here's to Pellegrino, who urinted in Winkler's canteen our first night at Wauweepex... Schlackman, who threw frogs into the campfire and laughed maniacally... Berman the Magnificent, 200 pounds of malevolent blubber who made me hold two heavy rocks out at arm's length until I fell to the ground, exhausted... ah, good times, good times.

"Incorrect. The City is simply saying they will not give public funds to an organization that discriminates, because that would be the same as the City discriminating. The Scouts are not being denied access to publicly held assets (the marina), they are simply not being given special privileges of having the normal fee that everyone else pays waived."

You have to admit, at least, that the City is pursuing an "agenda" that differs from that of the Scouts and is using economic weaponry against the Scouts for its differing from the City's agenda.

mciann: Therefore, the freedom of association is reserved to those who can afford to resist the government's efforts to deny that freedom by charging for it.

So you're' being discriminated against for not having free use of this marina?

I mean, I sure would like to have that service provided to me for free, but I don't claim to have my rights violated when it doesn't materialize.