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

[Peregrinator 85]

@moosetracker, this is the sort of thing I was referring to (comments on the North Carolina vote, not comments on the President's reaction to it):

http://twitchy.com/2012/05/08/north-carolina-bans-gay-marriage-liberals-freak-out/

 

(Bad language warning!)

 

I would agree that writing that the President will "fry in hell" is beyond the pale. But that is the nature of Internet communication, where people don't have to worry about p*ssing other people off and maybe getting punched in the face.(This message has been edited by Peregrinator)

[moosetracker 132]

Beavah likes to label me a bigot, because for all his logic and reasoning I just will not change sides and agree with him. Maybe, although I like alot of catholics, I was not so thrilled with the current Pope.. (The one before him was OK though, I liked him.).. Not so thrilled with his minions either..

 

Beavah! Did you miss my post where I conceded that there was alot of Nuns and some preist that get my admiration??.. The ones that are considered by the Pope to be rebels.. SWEET !!!

 

The commercial by Catholics is what it is.. You can decide for yourself as to it's merits..

 

The comments by the individuals, may be from whackos.. I don't know.. Definately did not leave any comment of what faith they were, or if they are of any faith..

 

Now I have stated that I don't think the church should be getting into the political arena, but that is my opinion.. Yours is different.. By my not agreeing with you, does that make me a bigot?

 

The Catholic church is definately a place I could not feel at home in (today, with this current Pope) as my viewpoints do not line up with his.. But, I have lots of friends who are Catholic, my husband and his whole side of his family is Catholic.. We just can get into some debates on viewpoints, and alot of time we don't as they being Catholic, still agree with my viewpoints.. (I think the Pope John Paul II may have influenced their veiwpoints).. Does that make me a bigot?

 

Oh well.. I guess I am content to be a bigot.. Sure am not going to change my viewpoint on the subject in order to not be a bigot..

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes:

Here I agree with BS-87. Marriage recognized by the government is at its heart a government endorsement/appropriation/subsidy of a Judeo/Christian religious practice.

 

Sorry, marriage predates recorded history; it's older than both Judaism and Christianity, so it's ridiculous to describe it as belonging to either in any sense. That's like saying eating is a Judeo/Christian practice.

[moosetracker 132]

Sorry Peregrinator - I think we were crossing posts a little..

 

My comments about where I had pulled "burn in hell" comments were in response to EagleDad, I had not seen your post.

 

But for your comment

If one believes that homosexuality is a sin, then is it not reasonable to hold that those who seek to give it legal sanction are accomplices in that sin?

 

 

Maybe, but maybe not.. Lieing for the most part is not against the law, adultery is a sin, but not illegal.. Legality and sin don't go hand in hand..

 

But, on top of it Obama is only saying this is HIS personal opinion.. But it is left to the state.. He never said he is going to Federally push a law for it.. It is smart for it to change as public opinion changes, rather then force Federal law to interfer.. So I really think any fear of this is unfounded..

 

Now Mitt Romeny I am told wants to push a Federal law banning Gay marriage.. So he is pushing his personal and religious view onto a country whose views on this is changing quickly to not be appreciative of forcing HIS opinion upon the country..

 

As far as both of them are concerned, you have nothing good to root for (I don't know if I have been excited about anyone since Ronald Reagan).. But, I definately on this one issue would be more willing to back someone who will allow popular opinion to rule over someone who is going to force his viewpoint into forcing the country to abide by his beliefs..

 

Unfortunately this is only a small positive point in his favor.. so now it it 1/2 to 0.. Where as before it was 0 to 0... Is there anyone we can do a write-in ballot for??

 

 

[SeattlePioneer 144]

>

 

 

These days, man creates God in his own image.

[shortridge 184]

The problem with the states deciding the issue - and the prob with DOMA - is that sticky wicket called the Constitution. Article IV, Section 1, says states shall give full faith and credit to acts of other states. So if you're married in Massachusetts, you don't have to get married again when you move to Georgia. I'm still not sure how DOMA got past that hurdle.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

BS-87: I don't see the president doing any "clamoring" on this issue. He was asked his opinion, and quietly and calmly gave it, including his opinion that the federal government should not be legislating on the issue anyway. It is a subject he has given his opinion on several times over the years, and now he has changed his mind about it -- as I did a few years ago, and as millions of other people have over the years.

 

If there was some political calculation involved -- well, there's a presidential election in six months, what do you expect? What do you think Mitt Romney is doing right now, but preparing to shift his entire platform and rhetoric closer to the "center", because he is about to be addressing a different audience than he was before he wrapped up the nomination.

 

Beavah, what makes you think that gay marriage is going to make a "furball" out of these various areas of the law? Basically it's going to mean that about 2 to 5 percent of the population that hasn't previously had the right to get married (or get divorced) will now have those rights. Big deal. And several states have gay marriage already, and several others have civil unions in which the participants have (almost) all the rights of married couples, they just call it a civil union and they call the divorce a "dissolution." The state I live in has civil unions, and the only additional legal issues I am aware of is that many of those involved claim that they aren't really being given all the rights of married couples. Earlier this year the majority-Democratic legislature passed a bill expressly recognizing gay marriage and the Republican governor vetoed it. One of these years the political stars will align differently and we will have gay marriage in New Jersey. When we do, most people will hardly notice it, just like they hardly notice civil unions now, unless they or a relative or friend are in one.

 

To those who think that allowing gay marriage will somehow damage or threaten the "institution" of marriage, I would point out that we heterosexuals (as a group) have done more than our share of damage to that institution already. Look at all the celebrity marriages that end in divorce, with custody battles, adults behaving like children, etc. -- heck, most of you can probably just look around your own families. Between my relatives and my wife's relatives, I see a tremendous amount of damage to the institution of marriage over the years, all involving marriages of one man and one woman. But don't worry, gay people will have their share of divorces, custody battles, adults acting like children, etc. It's because they are people, not because of the gender of who they marry.

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Give it a week or two for the Catholics to come up with a new commercial on it.. It will be titled "Burn baby Burn".. And will show a bunch of religious officials throwing Obama into the fire pit..

 

Moosetracker, in dozens of posts now across multiple threads you've gone out of your way to single out Catholics, the pope, etc. for your particular opprobrium. A relatively ordinary issue ad by an organization that is not directly affiliated with da Catholic Church leads yeh to conclude that Catholic bishops want to burn a black president while chantin' "Burn baby burn"?

 

Even as a non-Catholic who finds their theology a bit stuffy and some of their popular practices fringin' on idolatry, I find your constant and mostly shallow criticisms do yeh no credit.

 

Give it a rest already.

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah 205]

Beavah, what makes you think that gay marriage is going to make a "furball" out of these various areas of the law?

 

I was advocatin' that the state should get out of the marriage business, eh? Repeal all the laws that refer to "marriage". Allow partnership agreements of any form. It's what we've got anyway with all the pre-nup stuff.

 

Leave marriage to the churches. Avoids the notion of the state endorsing a particular religion's views of marriage over another's. If the state endorses the UUA version of marriage between two committed partners over the Baptist view of marriage between a man and a woman, isn't that establishment of religion?

 

Gettin' out of the marriage business entirely would have broad impacts in those areas of law, I reckon. That might be healthy, though.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle 753]

Pinching myself...I agree with BS-87 as well, at least with regard to the part about handing 'marriage' over to churches. This would essentially accomplish everything that the gay-marriage movement could ever hope to accomplish. Wow, I am surprised that BS-87 came up with this.

 

Beavah makes a good point as well but when he stated, "Let the Churches trademark the term "marriage" and just get on with it", I had to wonder about that term 'trademark' and which churches Beavah thinks would be the 'chosen few'. Or could ALL of them do it? Me, I'd go for 'All of Above' on that part. And yes, the legal eagles would have plenty of work. Interesting times, indeed.

 

P.S. Some coincidence, just this morning I was driving through NC and saw all the banners in support of the Amendment. Anyway, at a convenience store, I was informed once again that I am going to burn in you-know-where. This time by some flavor of Protestant I can't quite identify yet. He couldn't either...h'mmmm.

(Still not using the 'M' word!!!)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Oh. Well, I guess I misunderstood your post, Beavah. Maybe I got confused because the issue of whether the government should be involved in marriage really has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, which is whether under the existing system where the government DOES recognize (or not recognize) marriage, that recognition should extend to people who are of the same gender. If you (and others) want to discuss life on some other planet where the government is not involved in whether people are married or not, that might be interesting for another thread. Here on this planet (or in this part of it, anyway, other parts have already resolved the issue) the question is whether the government sanction should apply to 95-98 percent of the population, or all 100 percent.

[moosetracker 132]

Sorry I really thought a group called "Catholics Called to Witness" would have been tied to the Catholic Religion..

 

WOW you tied it to a BLACK president.. I just tied it to a president who was against their policies.. No tie in my mind to the KKK, until you put it there..

 

I really am surprised I did not really see the President as a black man! Wow! Of course I knew he was black, but I had forgotten that over time. To me, he was just "the President"..

 

So if I offended anyone black.. Sorry.. the image of the KKK was not even in my mind.. Just the original comercial with all the fires that are to cause an image of hell, and the fact that all this issues are being thrown into the fires of hell..

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

SeattlePioneer writes:

These days, man creates God in his own image.

 

Same as the old days.

[moosetracker 132]

I have always said that allowing religion to control the issue of marriage was fine, as long as government was totally out of the picture..

 

So the conservative religions could not use the government to set a marriage policy for the liberal religions.. Gays can get married in a liberal church, in any state they so choose.. That would be fine with me.

 

I don't think Beavah sees it that way. He has stated before that Gays can have civil unions as long as they get 0 rights that are afforded a married couple with that union.

 

So I would be very surprised if he is looking for a way to liberate Gays to marry. I really don't know what he thinks freeing every religion to choose their own course, without being hampered by the government legal system is going to gain him.

 

But anyway, I can support taking marriage out of government and letting each individual religion decide for themselves. So Beavah & I are in agreement.

[BS-87 30]

Whoa... I might have to reconsider my position entirely if both packsaddle AND Beavah agree with me.

 

That's easier said than done though when you've reached a conclusion that's not fettered by ideology because just about nobody gets their own way and more power is given to private entities.

 

Nobody getting special treatment or recognition period sounds like Liberty to me.