Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is there a large problem of crime by single mother cildren?

Is there a similar problem of crime by single father children?

What is the proposed solution: force single mothers/fathers to marry, or take their children into care?

Is there a problem of crime by children in care?

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Your graphs are pretty bad, one for interpreting correlation as casuality, and because they don't go enough back in time. I would also like to see their sources.

Your response is woeful, because I stated no causative mechanism at all. I merely responded to factual statement, that things are worse now, with some facts that establish that claim was bs. As such, the claim made by the other poster, that things were so much worse now because of a decline in morals, becomes entirely wrong. Whatever has caused the improvement doesn't matter, his narrative falls apart when evidence is provided that things aren't actually getting worse.

And the sources can be traced from the url code. Learn to internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
I always thought this was the worst argument. A Power of Attorney fixes it and is available to everyone, regardless of sexual preferences. The argument seems to imply homosexual partners were either unwilling or unable to get each other a POA (and get god wills/living wills put in place) to protect them and their loved ones. I just don't buy that. Wether you are for, against, or completely uncaring about it, the argument just doesn't hold up.

There is nothing magical about marriage in the argument that POAs and other documents can't fix.

Sure, it can be fixed by organising another legal document. The reality is, though, that most people don't go about organising a lot of legal documents just in case something goes wrong. It's pretty rare, for instance, for people to have a will until they have kids. And that's really the issue - for straight marriages this is handled by having POA assumed by the spouse by default, because the alternative is unworkable and unrealistic given how most people go about their lives.

I do agree, though, that in the list of reasons for gay marriage it's a pretty weak one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Interesting question.

G couple wants to have a wedding at a specific church. One of the couple is a member.

Priest says has to be a members but that doesn't work. Church also has a day care welcome to all, and occasionally permits other small congregations to meet in the central meeting area downstairs.
Priest says he won't do it, but they denote they can bring their own priest in.
Can the G couple force the ceremony there if the head priest refuses to permit?

I have no idea about the legal argument, but from a personal POV... for feth's sake why do people feel the need to sue over this stuff? If a church doesn't want to marry you, what is the mindset behind making the church do it through the law? Just move on, there's churches out there that will do the job without being forced.

And for what it's worth, my wife and I got knocked back from two churches. One because she hadn't attended that church in years, and one because I wasn't Catholic*. We never even thought of challenging them..


*Though apparently that might have been a miscommunication - they might have been looking for confirmation that we would raise our kids Catholic... it all got very confused.

 sebster wrote:
If a church doesn't want to marry you, what is the mindset behind making the church do it through the law?

In the case of that example it's someone who is already a member of that church. If you've been putting money in the collection plate every week, volunteered your time, etc, while the church has said "you can have your weddings here" then you might want the church to honor that promise even if it takes legal action to do it. The hypothetical example isn't the (IMO much less understandable) case of a couple picking a random anti-gay church and demanding its services.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Interesting article for Canada, but here's an article that Corroborates, at least partially what I was saying:

Interesting pieces, but you'll note the studies there, like most studies on the issue, don't control for family income. Studies that have controlled for that find that single parent status is actually not much of a predictor of delinquency in children. The far stronger predictor is household income - so a middle class single parent household is about the same likelihood of having a delinquent child as a middle class two parent household. And a poor family is much more likely to have a delinquent child, whether there's one parent or two.

Most of the correlation between single households and delinquent children is explained by the fact that poor households are so much more likely to be single parent households.

This is why the prediction that more single parents households would drive up the number of delinquent children never happened. Because they weren't looking at the real underlying cause, household wealth.



And it's why, ultimately, people who claim to be for family values but fight social benefits for poor families are just completely and utterly wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
In the case of that example it's someone who is already a member of that church. If you've been putting money in the collection plate every week, volunteered your time, etc, while the church has said "you can have your weddings here" then you might want the church to honor that promise even if it takes legal action to do it. The hypothetical example isn't the (IMO much less understandable) case of a couple picking a random anti-gay church and demanding its services.

I get why someone might be pissed, and I'd likely sympathise with them in most cases. But between the choice of just accepting it and getting married somewhere else (and likely leaving that church), and taking that church to court just seems kind of obvious to me.

It's like when some kid is sad because he wasn't invited to a birthday. It was rude to exclude him, but the answer isn't for his mum to ring up and make the other mother invite that kid. You can't make people include you, basically.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A bakery was ruined because they didn't want to bake a cake. Another fanatic went into a church and killed 9 people because they had more melanin in their skin and teeth in their mouth than he did. 6 people stood up in a Joel Osteen church service and disrupted it, because he wasn't being conservative enough.

You can't tell me fanatics are not out there on all sides.

I'm fairly certain that shooting people is a tad more extreme than wanting someone to bake you a cake.

Cake is serious business bro.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A bakery was ruined because they didn't want to bake a cake. Another fanatic went into a church and killed 9 people because they had more melanin in their skin and teeth in their mouth than he did. 6 people stood up in a Joel Osteen church service and disrupted it, because he wasn't being conservative enough.

You can't tell me fanatics are not out there on all sides.

I'm fairly certain that shooting people is a tad more extreme than wanting someone to bake you a cake.

And, you know, the bakery was found to be in the wrong.

It's not really being fanatical to call out discrimination based on your sexuality.

Why were they in the wrong? Why destroy an entire business that was literally minding its own business?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Why the hell are people who are anti-gay marriage speaking of homosexuals like they are monsters lying in wait to either steal or subvert children?

A gay couple are not bogeymen (or women), they are goddamn people who are consenting adults that love each other and should be treated fairly like all others.

If two gay people love each other for years and years, and finally can get married and legally protect each other from a big, bad mean world, I hope some of those old crones and wretches out there can someday find that kind of love.

Agreed.

 sebster wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Your graphs are pretty bad, one for interpreting correlation as casuality, and because they don't go enough back in time. I would also like to see their sources.

Your response is woeful, because I stated no causative mechanism at all. I merely responded to factual statement, that things are worse now, with some facts that establish that claim was bs. As such, the claim made by the other poster, that things were so much worse now because of a decline in morals, becomes entirely wrong. Whatever has caused the improvement doesn't matter, his narrative falls apart when evidence is provided that things aren't actually getting worse.

You implied the casuation quite heavily though, or are you admitting that modern family model might be inferior to the old one, as the things might be better overall due to technology, which could have compensated for the worse family model. I do not know what you were arguing before, but from a quick look it appears that you were arguing simply about is the modern family model better or worse, and not about are things overall better or worse. Might be a misunderstanding though from you or me.

And the sources can be traced from the url code. Learn to internet.

I looked at this URL: https://dalrock.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/divorcesper1000marriedwomen1.png?w=640&h=385 and it doesn't seem like it could be very easily traced to its original source.

 Peregrine wrote:

 sebster wrote:
If a church doesn't want to marry you, what is the mindset behind making the church do it through the law?

In the case of that example it's someone who is already a member of that church. If you've been putting money in the collection plate every week, volunteered your time, etc, while the church has said "you can have your weddings here" then you might want the church to honor that promise even if it takes legal action to do it. The hypothetical example isn't the (IMO much less understandable) case of a couple picking a random anti-gay church and demanding its services.

If churches begin to be sued to force gay marriages, then that right there would prove many opponents correct in their stated fears. That being said, I don't see that happening in the context of forcing a religion to turn over their buildings for such activities. If a person is a member of a religion whose doctrine prohibits gay marriage, it doesn't matter how much of what they donate' they can 't force the church 's hand.
I don't know of any case of a church saying someone can have a gay wedding and then all off sudden saying no because someone is gay.

Depends on what the courts do. Do I believe this is an issue for normal people of all sexual persuasions? Heck no.

Do I believe radical agitators will try it? You betcha.

 Jambles wrote:
Benefits? Legal recourse? Visitation hours?

How about... being able to be married to the person you love? Not enough for some, I suppose?

That has nothing to do with equal protection under the law.

It's the cuddly center of this, but has no bearing on prohibiting gays from marrying and the violation of the 14th amendment.

 Frazzled wrote:
Depends on what the courts do. Do I believe this is an issue for normal people of all sexual persuasions? Heck no.

Do I believe radical agitators will try it? You betcha.

In which case the backlash will be horrific.

To be fair, the bakery could have just baked the cake.

However if it is God's command that you should not bake a gay cake, the bakery should have been glad of the opportunity for righteous martyrdom.

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Depends on what the courts do. Do I believe this is an issue for normal people of all sexual persuasions? Heck no.

Do I believe radical agitators will try it? You betcha.

In which case the backlash will be horrific.

I suspect any 'radical agitators' attempting a stunt like this will want the backlash. The backlash will prove the haters are out there and justify further stunts.

 sebster wrote:

It's like when some kid is sad because he wasn't invited to a birthday. It was rude to exclude him, but the answer isn't for his mum to ring up and make the other mother invite that kid. You can't make people include you, basically.

While I agree with you in full, that's sadly not how it seems to work anymore in the United States.

FWIW, Catholic Churches in Cincinnati are incredibly strict about their wedding policies. Most of them have, at minimum, a 6 month "member of the parish" requirement, in addition to the requirements of pre-Cana, multiple meetings with the priest, etc.

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Depends on what the courts do. Do I believe this is an issue for normal people of all sexual persuasions? Heck no.

Do I believe radical agitators will try it? You betcha.

In which case the backlash will be horrific.

Here's some of the issues:
*Should religious schools be forced to open married housing to same sex marrieds?
*Should schools or churches lose their tax exempt status if they advocate against same sex issues?
*Can religious based adoption or other services be forced to not discriminate against same sex marrieds for those services?

Note #2 and #3 have already occurred in several instances, so this is not a slippery slope argument.

And I just came across this:
http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-your-church-ban-gay-marriage-then-it-should-start-paying-taxes/

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, the bakery could have just baked the cake.

To be fair, the couple could have just found a bakery that wanted to take their money.....

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, the bakery could have just baked the cake.

To be fair, the couple could have just found a bakery that wanted to take their money.....

indeed.

 sebster wrote:


Interesting pieces, but you'll note the studies there, like most studies on the issue, don't control for family income. Studies that have controlled for that find that single parent status is actually not much of a predictor of delinquency in children. The far stronger predictor is household income - so a middle class single parent household is about the same likelihood of having a delinquent child as a middle class two parent household. And a poor family is much more likely to have a delinquent child, whether there's one parent or two.

Most of the correlation between single households and delinquent children is explained by the fact that poor households are so much more likely to be single parent households.

This is why the prediction that more single parents households would drive up the number of delinquent children never happened. Because they weren't looking at the real underlying cause, household wealth.



And it's why, ultimately, people who claim to be for family values but fight social benefits for poor families are just completely and utterly wrong.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.html

According to this, which I know is Slate, and not really a "peer reviewed, industry standard" academic publication, income levels actually do not matter much at all in regards to the odds of children of single-parent households becoming a part of "the system"

However, I do agree with you that economic "freedom" and income are probably the biggest factor in nearly any crime statistics, and not just whether we're looking at where a criminal "comes from"

And the hometown economy gets a boost. Cake!
http://kxan.com/2015/06/29/austin-businesses-see-boost-from-same-sex-marriages/

 Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Depends on what the courts do. Do I believe this is an issue for normal people of all sexual persuasions? Heck no.

Do I believe radical agitators will try it? You betcha.

In which case the backlash will be horrific.

Here's some of the issues:
*Should religious schools be forced to open married housing to same sex marrieds?
*Should schools or churches lose their tax exempt status if they advocate against same sex issues?
*Can religious based adoption or other services be forced to not discriminate against same sex marrieds for those services?

Note #2 and #3 have already occurred in several instances, so this is not a slippery slope argument.

And I just came across this:
http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-your-church-ban-gay-marriage-then-it-should-start-paying-taxes/

I've always felt that if churches want to involve themselves in politics, then they need to pay the price of admission. Otherwise, politicians will still continue to seek endorsements from prominent church leaders, because many people will vote for who their church leader tells them to vote for.

How is that getting involved in politics if your church doesn't permit gay weddings? Thats nonsensical.

 Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Depends on what the courts do. Do I believe this is an issue for normal people of all sexual persuasions? Heck no.

Do I believe radical agitators will try it? You betcha.

In which case the backlash will be horrific.

Here's some of the issues:
*Should religious schools be forced to open married housing to same sex marrieds?
*Should schools or churches lose their tax exempt status if they advocate against same sex issues?
*Can religious based adoption or other services be forced to not discriminate against same sex marrieds for those services?

Note #2 and #3 have already occurred in several instances, so this is not a slippery slope argument.

And I just came across this:
http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-your-church-ban-gay-marriage-then-it-should-start-paying-taxes/

#1 - yes, religious schools should provide the same housing to all married couples.

#2 - Churches shouldn't have tax exempt status to begin with. Churches are businesses, sometimes they run charity programs. They should create separate non-profits to deal with taxes for their charity programs, but treat the profitable part of their business as a taxable business like any other.

#3 - Adoption services available to the public should be available to all qualified members of the public, not just a special subset, which would be discriminatory.

My 2 cents.

 Frazzled wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, the bakery could have just baked the cake.

To be fair, the couple could have just found a bakery that wanted to take their money.....

indeed.

Obviously they of course were forced to go and do that since the first bakery refused to bake a cake for them.

What they were forced to sue the bakery?

This thread is literally riddled with inconsistencies, lies and just down right mis-information:

So:

Lets get going.

The number of single parent households is steadily climbing NOT dropping. God only knows where you dragged up your graphs, because they aren't measuring the right thing that's for sure



Second: Divorce "rates" dropping - you cannot look at the RATE - this is a misnomer because divorce incidence is dropping only because marriage incidence is dropping , if you look at the number of nuclear families (two parents living with their own children no step children or re-marriage) what is know as "serial monogamous relationship" you can see that nuclear families are n utter disarray - I know of schools where only two children in the entire school have got the same mum and dad and all 4 live together. ONE in the whole school.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/dec/29/two-thirds-british-children-live-parents

What does any of this have to do with gay marriage?

(PS: the answer is "absolutely nothing".)

Not at all, there is no indication that further undermining the socio-relational contract of marriage (it is already butchered beyond belief) would have any positive effect on any of this and every reason to expect it would further dis-enfranchise the average member of the population to give even less credence to valuing traditional values. (traditions that WORK and are USEFUL).

I am sick to the back teeth of people wading into a debate they simply have no part in how many people on this post are even married? How many have done youth work? How many work with at risk young people?

The last part:

No-one here can actually agree what marriage actually is, none of you (all your definitions are as varied as they are based on garbage, sorry to be blunt)

So let me tell you:

MARRIAGE is a legal embodiment of a PHYSICAL reality namely that two parents WHO ARE ALWAYS a man and woman are ALWAYS the cause of a child, it is TRANSGENERATIONAL in that it anchors the responsibility of the family into a ceremony among peers, and the community itself helps hold it together and that that child is safest and best care for in every statistical analysis EVER done if both those parent s are together, legally protected to bring up a CHILD together, in one home, you cannot argue your way out of it, you can name call against it, squeeze stats, lie, make stuff up, be appalled all you want but you are going to convince a room filled with your own type of idiot if you do not take seriously all the other things I have mentioned.

In other words MARRIAGE is a legal mirror of a physical reality surrounding a BABY'S birth

The fact that owe cannot t even recognise this definition, and are incapable of agreeing what *IS* marriage any more - THAT IS the problem, because you who don't know will outnumber those that do to all our detriment

Flat out calling other users liars multiple times in a post is most definitely pushing Rule 1, if not breaking it. This is a warning for the thread as a whole. Don't. Go with something more polite, as per the requirements of the rule.

"I believe your graph was inaccurate, my data shows X Y Z [insert graph/link]"

"I think your definition is missing several key points, and adding in others that are unnecessary, like X Y Z"

But most certainly not

"You're liars who are wrong and are liars and [definition with more accusations of lying]"

Clear guys? This thread is going to go the way of the dodo eventually, but if we all behave and stick to the rules then it'll do that because conversation petered out naturally, rather than because it became such a mess it needed to be taken out back and shot. Thanks

ConanMan wrote:

No-one here can actually agree what marriage actually is, none of you (all your definitions are as varied as they are based on garbage, sorry to be blunt)

So let me tell you:

MARRIAGE is a legal embodiment of a PHYSICAL reality namely that two parents WHO ARE ALWAYS a man and woman are ALWAYS the cause of a child, it is TRANSGENERATIONAL in that it anchors the responsibility of the family into a ceremony among peers, and the community itself helps hold it together and that that child is safest and best care for in every statistical analysis EVER done if both those parent s are together, legally protected to bring up a CHILD together, in one home, you cannot argue your way out of it, you can name call against it, squeeze stats, lie, make stuff up, be appalled all you want but you are going to convince a room filled with your own type of idiot if you do not take seriously all the other things I have mentioned.

In other words MARRIAGE is a legal mirror of a physical reality surrounding a BABY'S birth

The fact that owe cannot t even recognise this definition, and are incapable of agreeing what *IS* marriage any more - THAT IS the problem, because you who don't know will outnumber those that do to all our detriment

My reading comprehension is a bit off. Are you saying marriage relies on a child being born (or maybe adopted)? And only parents can be correctly called 'married'? Childless couples even if they were married in a church and/or got the JOP to do a marriage license and ceremony are not actually married?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, the bakery could have just baked the cake.

To be fair, the couple could have just found a bakery that wanted to take their money.....

indeed.

Obviously they of course were forced to go and do that since the first bakery refused to bake a cake for them.

That case, and the similar florist case, actually are closer calls than you might think.

There is ancient common law that "common carriers" must accept all who come by. Public transit, shipping, taverns, inns, that sort of thing have to be open to all, as they are necessary for travel.

Under most civil rights laws, that's been expanded to so call "public accomodations," which include nearly all businesses that are non-selective. So department stores, malls, restaurants, etc.

However, the laws have always allowed professionals to be selective on what clients they take, meaning a anti-pornography lawyer cannot be compelled to take on a client charged with obscenity.

Is baking a custom cake a public accomodation? I read the Oregon ruling on the florist, and I found their arguments somewhat unpersuasive.

TL;DR: I feel there is a difference between a business saying "we don't serve that kind of customer" and a contractor saying "we don't take those kinds of jobs."

There's also a nasty First Amendment compelled speech issue in here somewhere.

 CptJake wrote:

ConanMan wrote:

No-one here can actually agree what marriage actually is, none of you (all your definitions are as varied as they are based on garbage, sorry to be blunt)

So let me tell you:

MARRIAGE is a legal embodiment of a PHYSICAL reality namely that two parents WHO ARE ALWAYS a man and woman are ALWAYS the cause of a child, it is TRANSGENERATIONAL in that it anchors the responsibility of the family into a ceremony among peers, and the community itself helps hold it together and that that child is safest and best care for in every statistical analysis EVER done if both those parent s are together, legally protected to bring up a CHILD together, in one home, you cannot argue your way out of it, you can name call against it, squeeze stats, lie, make stuff up, be appalled all you want but you are going to convince a room filled with your own type of idiot if you do not take seriously all the other things I have mentioned.

In other words MARRIAGE is a legal mirror of a physical reality surrounding a BABY'S birth

The fact that owe cannot t even recognise this definition, and are incapable of agreeing what *IS* marriage any more - THAT IS the problem, because you who don't know will outnumber those that do to all our detriment

My reading comprehension is a bit off. Are you saying marriage relies on a child being born (or maybe adopted)? And only parents can be correctly called 'married'? Childless couples even if they were married in a church and/or got the JOP to do a marriage license and ceremony are not actually married?

i was going to ask the very same.

is this written in statute anywhere in the UK? Please cite such a reference if you have it please.

What happens if two people never marry, but have a child toegther. Who, together have rich fullfilling lives? is that....bad?

What about step parents?

edit: irrelevant.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

I am sick to the back teeth of people wading into a debate they simply have no part in how many people on this post are even married? How many have done youth work? How many work with at risk young people?

And what is your background?

 Frazzled wrote:
Why were they in the wrong? Why destroy an entire business that was literally minding its own business?

They were in the wrong because the law says "you can't do this". And the reason to destroy their business is, again, that they were breaking the law.

 Frazzled wrote:
*Should religious schools be forced to open married housing to same sex marrieds?

I'm not sure. The bigger question, IMO, is why the school is hiring a gay employee when their beliefs clearly don't approve of being gay. But if they're going to hire that person there's a decent argument that they should receive the same benefits as any other employee.

*Should schools or churches lose their tax exempt status if they advocate against same sex issues?

Depends on exactly how they advocate. If they limit their advocacy to statements of their religion's beliefs then that's fine. If they start telling people how to vote or endorsing specific candidates then they've crossed the line into political activity and should lose their tax-exempt status. And note that this is already what the law says in theory, the US government is just incredibly bad about enforcing the law and won't even remove tax-exempt status from churches that openly say "we're breaking this law because we hate it".

*Can religious based adoption or other services be forced to not discriminate against same sex marrieds for those services?

Yes. This is a case where the religious organization is no longer a private club (which indisputably has the right to limit who participates in it) and is acting as a business serving the general public. And, much like providing marriage paperwork, they're doing it in an area where they're acting as a representative of the government. If they don't want to serve everyone without discrimination then they should get out of the adoption business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ConanMan wrote:
Not at all, there is no indication that further undermining the socio-relational contract of marriage (it is already butchered beyond belief) would have any positive effect on any of this and every reason to expect it would further dis-enfranchise the average member of the population to give even less credence to valuing traditional values. (traditions that WORK and are USEFUL).

This is only true when you define "traditional values" to include "gay people are filthy sinners and should be constantly reminded that they will soon be burning in hell (if not beaten to death to send them there faster)". With any reasonable non-bigoted definition of "traditional values" there is no threat at all. In fact, by giving formal recognition to gay couples (who already exist and are not going to stop existing just because they don't get a legal contract) you're bringing them into "traditional values" and giving them the same stability and support that every other marriage provides.

MARRIAGE is a legal embodiment of a PHYSICAL reality namely that two parents WHO ARE ALWAYS a man and woman are ALWAYS the cause of a child, it is TRANSGENERATIONAL in that it anchors the responsibility of the family into a ceremony among peers, and the community itself helps hold it together and that that child is safest and best care for in every statistical analysis EVER done if both those parent s are together, legally protected to bring up a CHILD together, in one home, you cannot argue your way out of it, you can name call against it, squeeze stats, lie, make stuff up, be appalled all you want but you are going to convince a room filled with your own type of idiot if you do not take seriously all the other things I have mentioned.

Lol no.

We allow infertile M+F couples to marry.

We allow M+F couples who don't want to have kids to marry.

We allow M+F couples with children from previous relationships to marry.

We allow M+F couples who adopt children to marry.

We allow M+F couples to permanently remove their ability to have children without any effect on their marriage.

This claim that marriage is inherently about the genetic parents of a child raising that child is completely ing absurd. The only real question here is whether you're genuinely ignorant of all of the many ways that your definition doesn't match reality, or if your entire reason for opposing gay marriage is "eww, gay is gross" and you're just looking for a way to argue against it without getting banned.

 Frazzled wrote:
How is that getting involved in politics if your church doesn't permit gay weddings? Thats nonsensical.

It was in response primarily to your second point asking if churches should lose their tax exempt status if they advocate against same sex. Peregrine already expanded on it in his post, as in it's one thing to simply release a statement or create rules for the use of their private church, but to actively advocate by telling people how to vote or endorsing candidates, that's different.