SeattlePioneer

> Thank you for finally accepting the point I was making.

It's quite clearly a throw away line in the decision. The result of the decision effectively nullified laws preventing marriages based on race. It didn't outlaw limitations on marriage in general, did it? You are simply reading something into the decision that isn't intended. Grasping at straws.

Hello Merlyn, I suggest you go back and read the decision yourself. You will find that the arguments presented revolve around race and whether race can be a reason to prohibit interracial marriages:

Consider the extent to which young people are deemed by law to be competent to consent to various activities: Below age 21 they can't drink, but in increasing numbers of areas they are competent to buy and use marijuana. Below age 18 they can't sign contracts or vote, at age twelve or thirteen, they are deemed competent to consent to having an abortion, but their ability to consent to having the sex that got them pregnant may be limited. The law doesn't trust a parent who might refuse permission to their child to have an abortion. BSA has no legal obligation to make reports to police about hearsay reports of child abuse, but is attacked when it doesn't even though parents made no such report to police and may not have wanted to make such reports either. Unfortunately, the public and the law wants what it wants even and wants someone to hang when something happens that they don't like. This seems to be fanned mostly by a conspiracy between sensation seeking columnists and commentators and money hungry plaintiff's lawyers. Nothing new there.

> So you are acknowledging that marriage isn't a general right. You are claiming that homosexuals have special rights that other groups that "love" each other do not have.

> It wouldn't bother me. In my view, JTE is a management tool that units can use to set goals and monitor the achievement of those goals. It's not a UC's job to set those goals.

Hello Merlyn, Your claim that marriage laws must "comport with the constitution" is just an appeal to another political process --- you hope the Supreme Court will support your political position by a 5-4 vote or whatever. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has anointed itself as an unelected, super legislature. Of course, you aren't about to wait for the Supreme Court to do that, you have also anointed YOURSELF to decide that homosexual marriage is a right. And to be more clear about the issue, you aren't claiming that MARRIAGE is a right. You are claiming that HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE is a right. In your scheme of rights, homosexuals would join the very small club of human social relationships eligible for legal marriage. In fact, they would become a new privileged group.

I'm guessing that they are the forces of tolerance and diversity.

Hello Merlyn, I've never claimed I speak for any supernatural being. I anchor my beliefs in the rational concept of natural law, as I've described earlier. However --- still no answer to my earlier question: > My liberal friends like to suggest there is an obvious bright line where their arguments for sexual liberation stop. From what I see, there is none. If someone loves their brother or sister, why shouldn't they be able to marry them?

You return to your chartered organization after an outing. Parents stop by to pick up their Scout. One Scout is left over --- no parent has appeared to pick him up and you have no contact with the parent. What would you do?

In the Northwest, the Seattle Mountaineers and Portland Mazamas climbing clubs developed and sponsor "Mountaineering Oriented First Aid." This combines a standard first aid course with an emphasis on dealing with mountaineering accidents, including multiple casualties and the kind of paralysis and disorganization that can happen to a climbing group when an accident occurs. When I took the class thirty years ago, the instructors were delighted when an outdoor night time simulated injury situation was accompanied by a steady rain! http://www.mazamas.org/your/adventure/starts-here/C60/

Hello Merlyn,

> Lust is a natural human emotion. Nevertheless, we expect people to control their lust. The same is true for other human appetites. A person may have an orientation towards violence, theft or exotic sexual practices. However, it is reasonable for society to expect people to control such impulses. Unfortunately, the sexual liberation movement now refuses to recognize that placing limits on sexual impulses is reasonable and to be expected. The basic theory of the sexual liberation movement seems to be "If it feels good, do it." There really is no limit on how sexual impulses are to be respected. While even advocates of the sexual liberation movement will acknowledge certain limits on sexual expression, tomorrow they will use the same old arguments to undermine any existing social consensus and limit on sexual expression. By contrast, advocates of natural law have looked to the intended uses of sexual genitalia, which has been as a means of reproduction, not entertainment. Uses of sexual genitalia for reproduction are approved, and uses not aimed at that purpose are not. It really doesn't matter what someone lusts or passions may be directed at. Most human passions need to be controlled, not indulged. Controlling such things is an aspect of human reason and is a large part of what separates human beings from other animals.

If the Supreme Court deemed a horse to have three legs, how many legs would a horse have? > Still no reply to my question.

If the Supreme Court deemed a horse to have three legs, how many legs would a horse have? > Still no reply to my question.

On of the best experiences in Scouting is having Scouts who are doing a capable job of looking after themselves and don't need the supervision of adults.

I was contacted a couple of days ago by a pack Committee Chair who asked for help to get their Tiger Cub Den started for the year. Four new families recruited, but no leader identified and no program in place other than the pack program. Since I feel that launching a good Tiger Cub program each year is an essential skill, a feeling shared by others posting on this thread, I was casting about for a method I could use to get things started and then leave to the regular pack leaders. A couple of comments on this thread have led me to the plan I intenbd to use: drmbear: > And Scout Nut: > While I don't agree that the Tiger Cub Program is simple, I'm planning to use a canned BSA Tiger Cub program. It cans the complexities of the program in a recipe a new leader can follow, I hope. So my plan is to lead the first Tiger Cub Den meeting Wednesday, to show Tiger Cubs a fun time and show the Tiger Cub partners what a quality program should look like and feel like, so they will have a model for future meetings. I'll be asking for a Tiger Cub partner to take charge of the meeting the next Wednesday, and someone to plan the first go see it the following weekend. I'll see if I can get someone to take charge of the den at the pack meeting two weeks from Wednesday. And with this start, I'm expecting that the Cubmaster or Committee Chair (an experienced Tiger Cub Den Leader) will step in to provide some guidance and support to the new people leading the den. While I'm confident I can design a better Tiger Cub program than the BSA cans, there no denying that takes time and skill to do. I'm hoping the canned program will allow Tiger Cub partners to take charge of meetings since they will have a reasonably detailed guide of what to do. So I will be giving the methods suggested by drmbear and Scout Nut a trial ,to see if I can make them work.

> Hello Peregrinator, If marriage is a right, where do you get off saying you can't marry your brother, sister, several wives (or husbands) or whatever? Please explain how you draw such a line in a way that wouldn't be undermined by exactly the same line of argument that is used to promote marriage between homosexuals.

Once you've made yourself a public figure, your expectation of privacy is pretty much history, I think. If you are busily throwing rocks at others as fast as you can with both hands, don't be too surprised if a rock or two comes back your way.

I heard some good news on the situation of my nephew today. Apparently he's coming up with a couple of gigs as a music director and a friend of his is leaving the area and bequeathing him a bunch of people taking piano lessons. That's a start, it sounds like. I have a friend from high school who has made this kind of music career work. I asked him what it was like and he said, "Forty years of struggle." I'm hoping for the best.

In the early 1960s my brother was transported to Camp Parsons from Seattle, a distance of thirty miles or so on a Sea Scout Ship. They unloaded in camp on the Camp Parsons pier: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/VM10MfXoD24Cd3ihjZi0BtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0 I think that was pretty classy.

In the early 1960s my brother was transported to Camp Parsons from Seattle, a distance of thirty miles or so on a Sea Scout Ship. They unloaded in camp on the Camp Parsons pier: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/VM10MfXoD24Cd3ihjZi0BtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0 I think that was pretty classy.

That's great news, Beaver! Meanwhile my nephew the music major quit his job as a Customer Service Rep a couple of months ago in order to spend full time promoting himself as a musician/composer. He has given notice that he is moving out of his apartment at the end of the month because playing his piano raises complaints by neighbors. He wants to rent a small house where he and his piano can move into and live in peace together. Whether he will find a landlord willing to rent to someone without a regular job is something he will be finding out shortly. I contrast the experience of your son who is on a career track with my nephew, who followed the common advice to follow his interests and passions and pay little or no attention to economic reality. That's easy advice to give, provided you don't stick around to see what often happens in the end. While I wish my nephew nothing but the best, I'm very concerned about his future. Perhaps his parents will bail him out with Economic Outpatient Care. If so, any difficulties can be postponed indefinitely, I suppose. Seattle Pioneer

I think Scouting functions as character development, leadership training and just plain fund for adults, just like youth. It often also function as training in parenting skills as well, in my opinion. I know Scouting has improved my character and taught me leadership skills, and I've had plenty of fun along the way. Personally, I've never met anyone who was in Scouting just for themselves, though. I hear there are some of those out there though, mostly from what I've read on this board.

I agree with Baden P. I was AS from 1981-1982 and SM from 1982-1987. By that time I was exhausted and left Scouting until 2004. If I'd been paying more attention to the idea of succession, there was a parent who was AS who would have been interested in being Scoutmaster earlier. He never brought up the issue, it didn't occur to me and no one on the Committee brought it up either. There are some Scoutmasters who go on and on, decade after decade. I wonder if even in those cases it wouldn't be wise to encourage giving such people a break and giving new people an opportunity to fill the position and bring in fresh ideas. Capable, trained people should not be shut out of that position if they want to give it a try, is my opinion. (This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)