Peregrinator

... and attacking religion in general on the basis that one doesn't believe that the Earth was created in six days is attacking a straw man.

mistakes were made That's a really unfortunate turn of phrase. Much better would be to say, "We made mistakes."

Would it not make sense to treat a married woman under the age of 21 as an adult and let her register as such?

As the Republican party moves farther right, moderate conservatives, like myself, are being pushed out by the neo-conservatives. The GOP is moving left, not right. Neoconservatism is basically a centrist movement.

I find it funny: 3) Co-ed - YUP, have a scout fair day every year here in San Diego that has Mexican units showup. All co-ed, down to the 1st graders. I believe the same is true for Canada and many of the European countries as well. Yes, Scouts Canada forced co-education on local groups, even those who did not want it. Is that one of the things you find funny? http://www.scoutscan.com/resources/coedqa.html

My thought experiment shows that rights exist in a society; remove the society, and you no longer have rights. No, your thought experiment shows that rights can be (but may not be) recognized and exercised in a society; it says nothing about whether or not they actually exist.

In what sense do you have any rights in the two thought experiments above? In what way do those thought experiments comport with reality?

You don't understand how the US legal system works. On the contrary, I understand how it "works" quite well -- but the U.S. legal system can't change reality. Those who think it can are the ones who are denying reality. In case you haven't noticed, rights ARE ephemeral; they're social constructs that can and do change, and have changed over just the history of the US, never mind other places in the world. You've just successfully argued that rights are not rights at all. Rights do not depend on whether society or the State recognizes them.

'Duty' is something which we impose on ourselves by choice. Some duties we impose upon ourselves, others are imposed upon us by our Creator. I suppose one might argue that I have a duty to my children from my own free choice to get married; but their duty to me and my wife remains whether they choose it or not. "Race" = human race by the way.(This message has been edited by Peregrinator)

You can argue that if you like, but there's no requirement for US law to follow any particular legal theory for justification, and some state supreme courts have already ruled that gay marriage is a right. They can rule until they are blue in the face, it won't change the fact that no one has a right to any kind of homosexual union. And a right is ephemeral in any case if you can't answer the question of why there should be such a right.

I don't know. I do, in fact, find it very odd. I guess one could go with the theory that some Buddhists might also claim that they have a duty to God, and any Buddhist willing to sign up as a member of the BSA is signing a document that says that he or she does have a duty to God. That's the only way that I can see it being consistent. Some Buddhists do believe in God. Buddhism is one of those religions that really lends itself to syncretism.

If marriage is a right, where do you get off saying you can't marry your brother, sister, several wives (or husbands) or whatever? It's a thoroughly modern idea to consider rights as absolutes. As far as several wives or husbands are concerned, those aren't marriages at all after the first so no rights are being violated in not permitting bigamy. I believe you're chartered out of a Catholic parish - I don't know whether you are Catholic yourself - but the Church teaches that the faithful have a right to the Sacraments (including marriage) and must be given them as long as they are d

Cambridgeskip, I'm looking forward to that answer to your question about 'natural law'. I just wish he'd keep his sexual obsessions more to himself - it begs the question: how does he know so much about this stuff? You mean it raises the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy that relies on an implicit premise within a proposition to "prove" the proposition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Modern_usage

1. Define "Natural law". I can find you US federal law, state law of the various US states, UK law, laws of various religions all written down because they are laws created by various groups of people to givern the way their communities live. So what is natural law? I am confused. I can see why you're confused because everything you've listed is positive law, which may or may not reflect the natural law.

You can't, because marriage isn't a right. SP, I am usually on board with you, but you are wrong here. There is a general duty to get married (in order to propagate the race), therefore marriage is a right. That doesn't mean it is an absolute -- you can't marry a sheep, a pig, a child, someone who is already married, or a member of the same sex -- but it is a right nevertheless.

You can't, because marriage isn't a right. SP, I am usually on board with you, but you are wrong here. There is a general duty to get married (in order to propagate the race), therefore marriage is a right. That doesn't mean it is an absolute -- you can't marry a sheep, a pig, a child, someone who is already married, or a member of the same sex -- but it is a right nevertheless.

Not to poke a hornets' nest, but is the type of service project described in the cited article typical?

So, Merlyn, you believe that a mark of good character is to assume the worst about people? Do I have that right? Please correct me if I've misunderstood. In other words, rather than assume that the policy is being applied appropriately in this case because the young man is (a) an open homosexual, whatever that might mean for someone of his age, and (b) disagrees with the Scout Oath, the taking of which is necessary for membership, you've chosen to assume that the Scoutmaster in question, and the organization of which he is a part, are acting in a capricious and arbitrary manner. But perha

So you would rather assume that he's being denied something arbitrarily? Is that indicative of good character on your part?

Merlyn, do you believe it is a mark of good character to allow someone to retain membership in a private organization when he does not meet the membership requirements?

How would your black employees feel if you joined the KKK? Do you really think the BSA can be compared to the KKK? If you do think that, how can you in good conscience remain a member of the BSA? The KKK isn't merely an organization that doesn't allow African Americans to join.

Yes, we should all be opposing the attempt to redifing marriage from "Marry the person you love" to "Marry a person of the opposite sex" It's only very recently that anyone has even associated marriage with the modern conception of love. People have been marrying for reasons other than love since time immemorial. Besides, love is an act of the will; it's not like we have no control over whom we love. If I fall in love with a married woman do I have the right to marry her? Is that part of the definition of "marriage" to which you adhere?

I don't know whether it might work for Scouts or not. I suspect it would depend on the story and who's telling it. Rikki-tikki-tavi is great for Cubs. Kotick the White Seal would be another good one. You can probably find more good stories at The Dump (http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/nonfict.html), e.g., "Woodsmoke at Twilight" - http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/woodsmoke.pdf The one issue with using my Kindle was that bugs tended to gather 'round the reading light....

Is there an exception for communion? I know your tongue is in your cheek and I've never been to Rome, but my guess is that the ushers look out for people trying to take the Host out of churches.

Albert Einstein may have mentioned God every now and then but he wasn't particularly religious.