Gay marriage backing

[nolesrule 58]

I'm on the board of my synagogue, so I didn't drop out. :-)

 

Yeah, your theory is more or less correct, except it wasn't a middle-age rabbi. Most of rabbinical Judaism's laws were codfied (put into written form) in the Mishnah around 200CE, so not long after the destruction of the 2nd Temple, but pretty much all of it was already in practice when the kingdom of Judah was in existence. There seems to be an incorrect theory that rabinical Judaism arose only after the start of Christianity, but that's not the case, as what we now know as rabbis (or teachers) were originally commissioned as judges all the way back in the book of Exodus as a way to keep Moses from tearing his beard out in settling legal matters (which in Judaism were also religious matters). In the case where some things were vague, it was hashed out in ways not too different from the U.S. appeals court system. The Talmud includes dissenting rabbinical opinions right next to the accepted ones.

[Lisabob 13]

"gritty mean street smart man -killer lesbians"

 

Well you just never know what you'll find on the scouter forum, now do you. Seems to me, we've strayed rather far from the original starting point of this thread.

 

 

[sherminator505 10]

Some folks tend to wander a bit, dont they...

[packsaddle 753]

...wandering...straying...

Well, if you've read enough threads on this topic you'll understand that the conversation always does that eventually. But I think there remains a common 'thread' in that those who oppose gay marriage do have a sense of moral offense when confronted with that idea. And believe it or not, I can see the link between the stated topic of this thread and the recent litany of moral offenses (such as "gritty mean street smart man -killer lesbians") and NJ's evident truancy from Hebrew school. Not that there's a causal link between those examples, at least not that I know of...

 

But Nolesrule and NJ describe the roots of morality for some persons and NJ's note about the practical contradictions between what is written and what is today's practice are echoed in grmaerika's lament over the conflict between the view that there are moral absolutes and the moral relativist view (although with slightly less of a sense of humor).

 

I don't dismiss grmaerika's concerns. I think grmaerika is struggling with the obvious conflict and I can only add to that conflict by saying that it is very easy to destroy the good feeling that someone feels when clinging to moral absolutes. One doesn't even need to invoke modern technology to do this. This is done by posing fairly simple choices in which the basis for those 'absolutes' either cannot provide the answer for which is the best choice or else provides an answer that contradicts its own values.

This is the weakness of such 'absolutes'...they are not absolute at all but rather leave unthinking people unprepared to make those hard choices.

[nolesrule 58]

Just wanted to point out that in Jewish religious law from back in the day, for someone to be convicted of a crime required two (male) witnesses to be present that testify to the Bet Din (court). In the case of homosexuality, that meant that the witnesses had to see, well, you can paint that picture yourself.

 

Which is the reason that while homosexuality is forbidden by Jewish law, open homosexuals are accepted by most Jewish denominations to participate in the community without conflicting with the Torah.

 

So it's not "don't ask, don't tell", but rather "out of sight, out of mind".

[acco40 95]

So, for all you moral relativists out there, do you think any sort of "morals" have a place in in scouting? Yes.

 

Do you have any sort of moral compass? Yes, the Boy Scout Oath (or Promise) and Law.

 

Now I have issues if someone tries to tell me that "clean" means we should not admit homosexuals, that "reverent" means we must go to church on Sunday, that "thrifty" means we should stop supporting social services, etc.

 

What do you consider sexually moral? I think that what is important between two (or three) consenting adults is that they have somewhat similar thoughts about what they are doing. I believe it is wrong to lie or make promises one has no real desire to keep to persuade others to do "something" sexual. Like all things, moderation is probably best. (This message has been edited by acco40)

[packsaddle 753]

Acco40, you have failed to respond in a moral relativist manner. Tsk, tsk.

[acco40 95]

That's okay, I'll change my mind tomorrow as more data comes in.

 

As my dad used to say ...

 

The preacher was up at the pulpit addressing his flock and stated quite vociferously - "I've got some good news and some bad news. "Tell us the good news!", his flock demanded. "Jesus is coming down from the heavens this week!", exclaimed the preacher. The (Christian) congregation started crying tears of joy, high fived each other and generally whooped it up in celebration for almost a complete hour. Finally, after they calmed down somewhat, a lone voice called out, "What's the bad news?"

 

"He's pissed!", said the preacher.

[Oak Tree 15]

So, for all you moral relativists out there, do you have any sort of moral compass? I thought that is what the Boy Scout insignia stood for--a moral compass pointing true north. I'd be curious to know what sort of behavior you deem "good" or "exemplary"

 

My experience is that most people have some sort of fundamental principle(s) that they use as the basis for deciding whether something is good. They tend to be something like:Truth is good. The more people who believe the truth, the better.Suffering is bad. You should take the action that causes fewer people to suffer. No one should ever intentionally increase another's suffering (barring some overwhelming societal goal of long-term reduction in suffering).Freedom is good. People should be able to make their own choices and live with the consequences.God is good by definition. He has provided us with holy texts. Anything that God has told us to do we should do.Peace and harmony are good. We should look to reduce conflict.I should do what's best for me, so long as it doesn't interfere with other fundamental principles I hold. (and some people may not have any other such principles.)But just to say that because someone doesn't believe that the word of God is an absolute good, that doesn't mean that they have no principles whatsoever.

[Oak Tree 15]

Check out the graphic in this article. Something of a trend here.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/

 

 

[Scoutfish 16]

"and if all these things are good or ok, why isn't it good to shoot your mother? People get hurt in all of these other circumstances. Why not just go around stabbing people? Is it ok just because the wounds don't show?"

 

Wow, I didn't know that not caring if a gay man kissed another was the same as killing my mom or going around and stabbing people!

 

I'd think it it was that bad, then there would be some kind of spontaneous combustion every time a gay person kissed!

 

I forgot to flush the toilet last night too...does this mean I might as well dump 1,000 gallons of biotoxin into the city drinking supply?

 

 

The point...which you missed is this:

 

Two men or women does not affect my life or the sanctity of my marrage. If I think that a gay couple next door is the reason behinmd all my marrage woes... then maybe I think Ford is responcible for people going to bars and getting drunk and driving too.

 

 

BUT WAIT A MINUTE! Since I have not stood up and asked my government to ban all alcohol..isn't that the same as supporting murder by drunks? Why, I might as well just go around and start stabbing people! But first, I have to snuff out my mom!

[SeattlePioneer 144]

>

 

 

Ummm. My liberal friends made essentially the same argument about no fault divorce. Does someone ELSE getting a divorce affect YOUR marriage?

 

After forty plud years of experience with no fault divorce and the plague of divorce that has occurred, which has redefined and greatly cheapened marriage, I think the answer is clearly YES.

 

And I personally don't doubt that gay marriage will continue that cultural trend.

 

Already the Black community has 70% of children born outside of marriage. The warnings of about that date back to the Moynahan report of 1965, which was ridiculed and trivialized, but has proven to be WORSE than Moynihan predicted, with Whites and other races following along that trend twenty or so years behind the dissolution of the pioneering Black family.

 

As a practical matter, we have already abolished marriage. If anyone can get a divorce for any reason or no reason at all, marriage is already an illusion.

 

The Black family used to be the rock of the Black community. Now it is the rope of sand that contributes mightily to the dissolution of the Black community.

 

That wasn't the INTENTION of those advocating no fault divorce, but the forces let loose in society continue to undermine marriage, a trend which is going to see college educated White women joining their Black sisters in having children without marriage. Marriage is increasingly seen as being trivial and unimportant, which is why gay marriage is gaining traction.

 

Long term, gay marriage will continue to erode marriage as an institution of society, and liberals will continue to be surprised when that happens. If they can't learn from the last forty years of history there is no reason to suppose than will learn from fifty or sixty years of history either.

[Scoutfish 16]

Sorry Seattle, gay marrage will not change, cheapen or affect MY marrage to my wife. heterosexuals get married for the wrong reasons, too quickly, for monetary gain instead of love and then they divorce over kids, money, cheating, etc....

 

Still, none of that has had a single effect on how I feel about or how I act towards my wife. If a gay man or a gay woman move in next door and get married by virtue of love or just by a piece of state issued paper..it still will not change how my wife feels about me or how I feel about her.

 

Now, It was to blame anybody other than my wife or myself for a failed marrage, then all I am doing is looking for a copout.

 

Poor ole me...I't all "X's" fault!

 

Bull s***! My marrage is what it is because of who I am, what I believe and who my wife is and what she believes.

 

Point in case: Lets look at you fopr example. Gay people are living together, they are getting married in some states. People get married and divorced for the wrong reasons every day. People have children out of wedlock every day.

 

How's your marrage doing and how much has it been affect by those other people?

 

I imagine it has been affected just as much as mine has, which so far is......ZIP!

 

How much have your beliefs been affected, changed or compromised?

 

Again, just like me......NOT AT ALLO!

[Oak Tree 15]

http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci111/m17/hs13012a.gif

 

By looking at this graph you'd think that marriage was headed for the trash heap and that soon all marriages would end in divorce.

 

But as the graph on this page shows:

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2010/01/fact_checking_t.html

the divorce rate actually peaked in 1980 and has declined ever since (you can verify with other web sites) - even as No-fault divorce spread across all 50 states.

 

Turns out that no-fault divorce was not actually the cause. I doubt that gay marriage will do it either.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

>

 

 

Hello Scoutfish,

 

 

In my post I noted that exactly the same argument was made for no fault divorce ---- that what someone else does does not affect MY marriage. Except that it did, by profoundly changing the culture and expectations of those in the culture.

 

Now you are repeating the same arguments again, in exactly the same way.