Honorary president of the BSA comes out in favor of gay marriage

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

IMHO there are 3 facets (at least)to marriage.

 

The Legal one--I have seen live-ins of many years break up when one partner quits with little consequence. I know the legal property mess alone has caused Mr and Mrs Turtle enough delay to work through something. (Of course we also have common law marriage somewhere--correct? I guess this is the Civil one.

 

The Social One--Marriage is an act in front of community. It is two people publicly committing to being one unit.

 

The Sexual/Procreative One--the traditional view that marriage was required before procreative sex. Not always strictly adhered to and taking quite a beating these days.

 

The Religious One--That marriage is also a covenant, sacrament, or event before god or between the couple and God. Varies greatly between religions and denominations. I was married in a Methodist church but my (old) Catholic church does not recognize it. The Methodists think divorce is sad but OK but my "hard" Baptist friends think you get one marriage only.

 

When we say "marriage" we may be talking about one or all of these parts. I think in reality most of the traditional marriage concept was a blend of most of these parts woven together...kinda like lays of a rope. Take one out and the whole thing may unravel...I think that is the fear of some.

 

Like or not the times are changing. The religious pollster George Barna finds almost no difference in views toward marriage between self-identified "born-agains" and the general public (except for african americans where support for marriage is very low, and new Hispanoc immigrants where it is very high). The view of casualness of marriage seems to be a generational thing with the youngest cohort having very weak support.

 

I liked how Barna said (to a Christian audience)"we need to stop talking about a culture war; the war is over and we lost. We need to concentrate where we went wrong with several generations of Christians."

 

I have been married 28 years--it is a wonder to me that we haven't killed each other my now.

 

(As for Fry in Hell. Last night my SPL-wanna be son (who has Tourettes) tells me when I say he needs to finish his homework "I hate you, fry in hell!". I was pretty pissed and later he apologizes--sort of. "I didn't mean it when I said I want you to fry in hell; I just want you to shut the hell up.")

[packsaddle 753]

Moosetracker! Wake up! Look around you! This is AMERICA! This is the American Economic System!

Are you daft? Money IS what it's all about! ALL of it.

So come on, now...love it or leave it.

 

Tampa Turtle, you sad reptilian creature. You're actually being sincere aren't you? Here's what happened to those generations of Christians that we've produced. They ignored what came from our mouths but paid attention and learned from what we actually DID. They're smart and perhaps less hypocritical than we are. Plus, sacred cows make fine BBQ after all.

 

The beauty of biology is that regardless of how we treat each other, the basic process is probably going to continue no matter what. As Paul Ehrlich said, people can be produced in vast quantities by unskilled labor who enjoy their work. One of the few correct statements he ever made.

Who knows...maybe I AM beginning to understand why religion is so infused and obsessed with sex.

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

Sad reptilian creature, indeed. Oh yeah...the Turtle thing. Yeah I was honestly pondering.

 

I totally agree with the fact that deeds not words set the example. My wife complained last night about her very-fundamental minister "divorce is not an option" friends who then get divorced.

 

I do not think the next generation will be more sincere. They will just find different issues to be hypocritical about. And so it goes.

[fred8033 1596]

I hate getting into discussions like this. It's a no-win situation. Torn on one side to be kind and loving to others. Torn on the other side to be true to my faith and to teach my faith to my family.

 

I think the only answer is as Beavah said. Get government out of marriage. I can easily accept two other people having the sample legal rights as my wife and I. I can accept teaching my children that others have the same legal rights and we treat everyone with love and respect. But I can't accept teaching my children it's the same as marriage. I can't teach them it's right. It's not according to my faith and not according to most of the faiths in this world.

 

Heck, simply as an engineer and someone who's also done plumbing and electrical work, it's just not how the parts work. Sure, you can jury rig things and sort of make it look okay. But I'd rather assemble the parts as they naturally work together. Requires less duct tape.

 

Anyway, I always regret getting into these debates.

 

....

 

I was thinking how this debate affects the terms mother and father. We have a scout who says he has two mothers and two fathers. Divorce yes, but the two moms are together and the two dads are together. It's weird. But it's not a discussion topic in the troop and just doesn't come up. Most of the younger scouts don't realize the situation. Most of the older scouts and adults just ignore the situation.

 

BUT ... the government birth certificate lists MOTHER and FATHER. One of each. I knew adoption can change things. But what I didn't realize is other states have already changed the original birth certificates to reflect mother/parent and father/parent? Interesting. It's like the state is giving up tracking the biological parents. IMHO, that's interesting and not smart. It's important to know who the biologicial parents are as it is useful in future genetic screening, tracking and analysis.

 

Plus, what happens in the situation we have? Do you basically have an add-on form for parent 1, parent 2, parent 3 and parent 4? And a random odds generator to figure out who the biological parents are?

 

....

 

I can only think back to the many years of the Maury Povich show. "You are the father!" Now, what do you mean by father?

 

Maybe in the future we'll have Maury Povich show saying "You are the mother!" Ummm... what do you mean by mother?

 

Ummm... what do you mean by marriage? Big M or little m?

 

....

 

Good luck with the debate everyone. It is an interesting time. I think I'll get back to focusing on scouting topics.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, well, this has sort of developed into unusually incoherent babble.

 

No, moosetracker, again yeh haven't read me right, because my position hasn't changed. I believe da only reason the gay community wants to appropriate the word "marriage" is to try to convey a sense of legitimacy to their lifestyle which it does not merit on its own. It's the same reason that companies have trademark protection, eh? So that others who aren't able to generate their own customer satisfaction and recognition by havin' a good product can't deceptively piggy-back off da reputation of an established brand. Patents, of course, are completely unrelated.

 

So what we see is that even in places where gay couples were accorded all of the legal rights of married couples through civil unions, they still want to force the government to call them "married", because that government endorsement of marriage can be used against those who believe in traditional, religious marriage. It has nuthin' to do with rights, and everything to do with stealin' the societal view of marriage.

 

My preference would be that they call gay unions "blingering" or some other word and try to build up acceptance for "blingering" by demonstratin' that it is more effective than marriage at creatin' social and family stability. Of course, that's not as easy, eh? It requires work and commitment. So we want instead to use the government to change the definition of marriage so as to extend pseudo-legitimacy.

 

In a lot of ways it's similar to the groups that can't start their own youth outdoors movement "for all", and want to instead grab the legitimacy "scouting" has built up over the last 100 years, again by usin' government coercion.

 

In this case, to prevent government establishment of a definition of marriage contrary to the beliefs of the vast majority of the religions and cultures of the world, I reckon the government should just get out of the business entirely. Remove the incentive for a vocal minority to try to use da government to establish social legitimacy over da objections of the majority. Just say "nope, marriage is a religious thing, the government has no say in it."

 

I believe that in the end returns things to the status quo. Can't stop people from callin' themselves married, but then gay couples could call themselves married now, eh? Nobody would stop 'em. So no change there. What it does do is eliminate what they really want - the endorsement by the state. That leaves the churches as the major social institution on the issue. Aside from the fringe churches, the vast majority of religions aren't goin' to change on their position, so that avenue to borrowin' legitimacy is mostly closed off. Everyone will feel like they "won", but nothing at all will have changed.

 

And if one of the elder churches like da Catholics wants to assert a trademark claim to "marriage" and "matrimony", more power to 'em. Those are, after all, Latin words referin' to makin' a woman a mother which quite probably originated with da Roman Catholics before da Reformation. So da Catholics trademark the term in da U.S. and license it to anybody who they want.

 

No more problem, except for da anti-Catholic folks like moosetracker.

 

This is essentially da Libertarian position that BS-87 espouses and that resonates with true conservatives. Big government provides a dangerous mechanism for one group to manipulate society and try to impose its will on others. Freedom is better served by restricting the scope of government. Let da LGBT community compete in da marketplace of ideas instead of in da courts. I believe history across all world cultures has shown that on that kind of basis they can't compete.

 

Nero aside, of course.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I have never been a real "Trekkie" although I do enjoy the Star Trek series. I seem to remember a quick exchange between Capt Kirk and someone about "love" and whether or not there should be emotional attachments between Officers and the enlisted. I seem to recall Kirk saying something like "Star Fleet learned years ago they could not control love, so they stopped trying" or something like that.

 

Anybody know which episode that was?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Eagledad asks:

 

I'm courious, does anyone know any other country now or in history where marriage was anything other than a man and wife?

 

Apparently, Merlyn interpreted this to include "multiple marriages" and other exotic relationships, and focused on a more historical perspective (i.e. concubinage in the Bible, etc.) I, on the other hand, assume that Eagledad was more straightforwardly asking whether anyone knows of any countries where same-gender marriage is (or has been) permitted. (And after all, same-gender marriage is the subject of this thread, though I realize that sticking to the subject of a thread is sort of a novelty around here.)

 

Here is what Wikipedia has to say on the subject (and I think someone else posted part of this):

 

Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. Same-sex marriages are also performed and recognized in the Brazilian state of Alagoas,[2] Mexico City and parts of the United States. Some jurisdictions that do not perform same-sex marriages recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere: Israel, the Caribbean countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, parts of the United States, and all states of Brazil and Mexico. Australia recognises same-sex marriages only by one partner changing their sex after marriage.[3] As of 2012, proposals exist to introduce same-sex marriage in at least ten other countries.

 

The entire article, including the footnotes, and a lot more detail and links to articles about same-sex marriage in many of the individual countries, is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage (By the way, I am a firm believer in the idea that "you can't always believe what you read on Wikipedia", but in fact this article seems to be well-researched and there is no reason to believe it is not accurate.) It is an interesting article, containing among many other tidbits that one of the first couples to become married under Iceland's new same-gender marriage law was the current Prime Minister and her partner.

 

So the answer to Eagledad's question is, yes, there are some countries, and there are likely to be more as time goes on -- including more and more parts of this country.

[Papadaddy 121]

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is the second largest mainline protestant denomination with approx 5 million members. I'd hardly call that "fringe". They changed their policy in 2009 and now allow homosexual clergy as long as they are in a "monogamous committed relationship". The previous policy was they had to be celibate if gay. I haven't figured out yet how they reconcile that with scripture, which in my mind is pretty clear. It's kind of an awkward thing to bring up, since my Pastor's son has recently graduated from seminary and is "married" to his partner. Hence my question a few months back about the "IH" being a registered member of the BSA, should a church with a gay Pastor choose to become a Chartered Organization. A sticky wicket indeed. I'm not coming down on either side of the issue...just trying to sort out the mixed messages from the two institutions that had the most influence on who I am.

[packsaddle 753]

Fred8033, just a quick correction...it was BS-87 who came up with the idea, not Beavah.

 

But Beavah wrote,

"I believe da only reason the gay community wants to appropriate the word "marriage" is to try to convey a sense of legitimacy to their lifestyle which it does not merit on its own."

Perhaps, or it could be that these citizens would merely like to have the same rights as other citizens. As shown by the shifting attitudes in the public, that 'sense of legitimacy' is already largely in place, at least among the people who are still going to be alive in 20-30 years. Getting government OUT of the picture would take care of everything.

 

"So what we see is that even in places where gay couples were accorded all of the legal rights of married couples through civil unions..."

Which places are these? Name them please.

 

Edit: This must have arrived later: "Let da LGBT community compete in da marketplace of ideas instead of in da courts. I believe history across all world cultures has shown that on that kind of basis they can't compete."

 

I think they'll do as well as they want. They might occupy a niche in the market but I suspect that would be just fine. The important thing is for the market to be free.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[moosetracker 132]

Oh sure.. Now you want to cut the Orthodox Jews out of their take on the patent..

 

Hey actually I did have a Catholic Priest preform part of my marriage, and my father (who is a Protestant minister) performed the other part.. Even went to one of those weekend retreat marriage classes, so the Catholic Priest could take part in the marriage. That was where the discussion came up about how I could promise to raise my children to the best of my ability in the Catholic faith, when I knew I was not going to raise them in the Catholic faith.. I was told by the preist best of my ability is just that.. Best of my ability..

 

So you can't rip my marriage away from me!.. But, it would be an interesting court battle, and I think you would have many protesting the RC claims to it.. Sort of like if I tried to now patent all the making of fire, because it was my great-great (1000 times great) grandfather caveman Moose, who first discovered fire..

[packsaddle 753]

Moosetracker, my family is traditionally Catholic and I was married in a strictly Catholic ceremony after all the traditional preparations. (But I was raised in the Presbyterian church...talk about burning...long story...still not using the 'M' word)

 

Anyway, I want you to know that I am not seeing the "anti-Catholic" thing that Beavah claims to see in your posts. I've re-read several of them to try to detect what he's talking about and I'm obviously not seeing it the same way he is.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, moosetracker, again this has nuthin' to do with patents. Da issue is trademarks. Very different! If you're goin' to take my tongue in cheek comments literally, at least get da law right. Otherwise I'll feel professionally inadequate. And Orthodox Jews are welcome to the trademarked use of da Hebrew word for marriage, of course, since that's what they use anyway.

 

Yah, ELCA is fringe, Pappadaddy. Five million nominal members means a much smaller number of active members. In a nation of 300 million, maybe 1%. In a world of 6+ billion, a tiny fraction. In both cases, fringe. And shrinking.

 

Takin' the long view, these fringes are strongly selected against. Da nations that NJCubScouter points to as having allowed same sex marriage in the last decade are for the most part in various stages of demographic collapse. Their populations are bein' replaced by immigrants who believe in traditional marriage and have a stronger cultural cohesiveness. That's why as Eagledad points out yeh have to look far and wide historically to find any nation that embraces same-sex unions, and the ones yeh do find yeh discover disappeared relatively quickly. Natural Law wins out in the end, every time.

 

"So what we see is that even in places where gay couples were accorded all of the legal rights of married couples through civil unions..."

Which places are these? Name them please.

 

Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, California, New Jersey, ...

 

that 'sense of legitimacy' is already largely in place, at least among the people who are still going to be alive in 20-30 years.

 

Yeh really believe that young folks keep the same liberal positions that they picked up in college 20-30 years later? Really? And here I thought yeh actually paid attention to data.

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[moosetracker 132]

Thanks packsaddle.. I will admit to to not agreeing with the conservative views in the Catholic Faith (which became more conservative the newest Pope), and will admit I kindof do lump the Catholic clergy into believing those viewpoints.. And I had to just recently redifine my viewpoint that not all the clergy do follow that thinking.. But, I always knew most Catholics accept their religion by choosing ale cart, so never lumped ALL Catholics as the being similar to "THE BORG" (some star trek analog).. What is the poll? Something like 80% don't agree with the birth control thing. I don't know what the poll is of where they fall with the same-sex marriage thing. Tend to think there is more agreement there.. Maybe only 40-50 percent disagree..

 

Never met many Nuns, but I have met some Catholic priests, and personally like some of them (others were kindof pompous).. Like the guy who was at the Marriage retreat.. That was a really cool laid back preist.. So I really should not have assumed that they all were so conservative and stuffy.. And I must admit, although I have changed my impression of the nuns and preists as all of the same attitude (But still think their are many I may disagree with).. I do think I will still consider the Pope, Arch-Bishops & Bishops as people that I may like only as long as they don't get preaching on certain subject. In which case, we may have some words.

 

But hey my mother-in-law heard that political speech service that every priest was to give at every service they held on a given week about how nasty Obama is over birth-control issues. She and her son got into a debate about it.. Her believing the retoric her son not agreeing (I wasn't there).. I still love her though. After all she is from and older generation, and disagreement does not mean instant dislike..

 

I even like Beavah, more so when we are not knocking heads together in disagreement.. Besides my son & his fiance think Beavah is the greatest..

[Beavah 205]

Catholics are the BORG, eh?

 

Seein' it yet, packsaddle?

 

All wives want to remake their husbands in their own image, of course, so her husband's contrary faith just sticks in moosetracker's craw.

 

Wonder if that same phenomenon works for gay couples? Like, in a gay male marriage, how do yeh tell which person is always right?

 

Beavah

 

[moosetracker 132]

See you misread my messages as I misread yours.. I said I NEVER LUMPED THEM into that catagory.. I mean to be a bigot, don't you have to lump a full group into a "Borg" mentality, then you can pre-judge them..

 

But I will state I do predict if I discussed my views with and Arch-Bishop I would be surprised if he said he agreed with my viewpoint.. So with the upper-clergy, there I will say I could be prejudice.. Although if we do not broach the subject matter, I have no idea if we could get along or not.. I see little opportunity to sit down and shoot the breeze with them guys though.

 

So if I think they may be pleasent enough with casual conversation, but think we may class on ideology about Gay rights or birth control.. Does that make me a bigot?

 

Hmmm.. never saw my husbands faith as contrary.. Early on I knew he was an ale carte Catholic.. Everything he disagreed with made him perfectly at home in the Protestant Church.. We really have never argued about our ideas on faith. If asked he will still say he is Catholic though, makes him happy so I don't mind. I will still say I am protestant, makes me happy.. he dosen't mind.