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

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah lies:

Yah, Merlyn, so when I write

 

"By and large civil unions accord folks all the same rights as married couples under STATE law"

 

I'm lying because they don't have the same rights under federal law?

 

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, yeh do understand that "separate but equal" referred to segregated provision of an educational function, right? And in this case we're talkin' about things like the tax code, right? There is nuthin' at all "equal" about the tax code, and everyone is treated separately.

 

Tax privileges for marriage were somethin' religious folks lobbied long and hard for, in tryin' to support the perceived religious purpose of traditional marriage. Nuthin' stopping other groups from lobbying for federal support for blingering in the same way. Special interest lobbying for tax breaks and governmental support is the American Way!

 

Just be honest about it, eh? Da current effort is a bit like noticin' that there are federal programs for African-Americans, so I as a white fellow want to get da government to change the definition of "African-American" to include old white furry critters. It's a bit silly. Better to just lobby for programs for old white furry critters.

 

Same deal. Yeh want federal benefits for civil unions? Lobby the federal government for benefits for civil unions. Don't change da definition of marriage.

 

Edited to add: LOL! Yah, Merlyn, thanks for my laugh of the night. I reckon not even the most spoiled cub scout would behave quite so childishly, eh? I take it that means that yeh recognized that yeh failed the reading test.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[BS-87 30]

Come on Merlyn, is it really such an emotionally charged argument that you have to disingenuously misinterpret what everyone's being perfectly clear on and then go on a tantrum/rampage?

 

I hope a mod cleans up your post a little to; a) make the page easier to read and b) show you that kind of behavior isn't acceptable

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah, you continue to dishonestly state that the only issue is the term "marriage." You keep ignoring all the actual differences between civil unions and marriage to try and keep your lie afloat, and then you "reckon" you won because you keep dishonestly ignoring whenever I or anyone else points out that you're lying.

 

Go ahead and try to implement your pipe dream of somehow only allowing religions to use the term "marriage", which isn't even constitutional, let alone practical. But it's pointless to discuss anything with someone as dishonest as yourself.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

BS-87 writes:

Come on Merlyn, is it really such an emotionally charged argument that you have to disingenuously misinterpret what everyone's being perfectly clear on and then go on a tantrum/rampage?

 

"Perfectly clear"?

 

When Eagledad asked for marriage as "anything other than a man and wife," polygyny qualifies as "other".

 

When Beavah lies and states that "By and large civil unions accord folks all the same rights as married couples under state law except the word "married". Da issue is that some folks aren't content with only being accorded civil rights, they want to claim da religious title of marriage" he is dishonestly ignoring all the articles and lawsuits that cite over a thousand federal benefits that marriage confers that civil unions don't, because civil unions aren't marriage.

 

I'm certainly not being disingenuous. Words mean things.

[moosetracker 132]

Interesting Beavah, so you argue government should not be involved in marriage, yet it was religion that worked hard and lobbied for their involvement, and because of that it gives religion the right to deny those same legal rights to homosexuals.. Although no one should get those legal rights under marriage, because the legal system should not be involved in marriage..

 

I think I hit a whirlpool.

 

Separate but equal was for more than schooling. It was a US Supreme court ruling that separate but equal FACILITIES were not unconstitutional. The ruling came when fighting over a battle at how railways separated blacks & whites, not schools. But it also effected separation on the bus, in restaurants, at water fountains.. and few were equal.. Blacks always got the worst sections, the hand-me-downs that were no longer good enough for the whites.

 

 

schooling, was anything but equal.. The blacks schools themselves were practically slums, they never got funding for fixing things or getting textbooks or other school supplies.

 

 

Well anyway.. Forward to today.. With Same-sex marriages.. Civil unions may be separate, but they are not equal.

 

But that is what is so great about changing the way marriage is organized in this country. Because EVERYONE would be EQUALLY baffled by what they get from the religious marriage, what they get from the government civil union contracts.. And EVERYONE may EQUALLY loose some of the legal benefits they now have with todays marriage/legal entanglement.. And EVERYONE may EQUALLY have their marriages not considered valid by different religious types. And NOONE can claim some long history and tradition as making it their right to deny the same rights to a group they don't like.. (Well at least for 100 years or so.)

 

[Scoutfish 16]

Yeah, I have to say again, I'm not gay, not do I plan on marrying a gay person.

 

BUT......if I was gay and wanted to get married, I would simply say this: I am not getting married in the snese that others use the owrd or take it to mean, but rather, I would be getting married in the way I take it to mean. I'd be using my definition.

 

And this is the core of my beliefs: My beliefs are no more or no less valuable than anybody elses beliefs. My beliefs do not get to override or trump anybody elses beliefs in the world and the government owes it to me and every other citizen to make sure that laws do not make my beliefs more predominant than yours.

 

Especially when it comes to religious beliefs or morals.

 

Marrage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

 

So what about a "marrage wall"? Am I now insulting or cheapening the meaning of marrage when I use marrage to describe inanimate objects?

 

If you are married, can you no longer have "date nights" since that because you are married, you are no longer dating. Married people dating would ruin the sanctity of what a marrage stands for , no?

 

So, in order to apease all single people who are planning on one day possibly getting married - married couples are no longer permitted to say date night?

 

I know, plain absurd. But so is saying that what other people call something is too.

 

Call it marrage, call it joining, call it bonded.

 

Whatever. Denying the title does not deny the feelings or intention. Claiming that only you own the title is also just stupid too.

 

People got married before christianity, so it might just be the case that the priviledge of being called married does not belong to Christians either.

 

Maybe only Pagans or Norse have the right to be called married. Maybe it actually belongs to the Romans or Celtics.

 

Could be you are actually engaging in a Druid ceremony.

 

 

Now, my wife and I......we are married by act and by our feelings for each other, not bay name of the ceremony. You can call it a " Dress up and spend alot of money then eat barbeque pig afterward" party and it will change nothing but the name, not what it stands for, or what it means to my wife and I.

 

Matter of fact, you can call it anything you want...doesn't change what we feel for each other or how we treat each other.

 

[Beavah 205]

You're right of course, Scoutfish. Yeh can call your relationship anything yeh want. So can any gay couple in any state right now.

 

Da issue is only state endorsement of one person's definition over another. Because when the state establishes a definition (or a religion...) it brings the power of the state with it, which tends to privilege the state's definition. Change da state definition, and yeh can teach the state definition exclusively in the state-run schools. Bring up another generation believin' what the state wants. Yeh can marginalize other viewpoints.

 

At the time Western nations got into the recognition-of-marriage business, there was societal consensus on what constituted marriage. The state simply assumed and adopted the Judeo-Christian religious norm, which also matched da norms of almost all cultures everywhere. The state was just reflecting a pre-existing view of the overwhelming majority, which is what democracies do for the most part.

 

If I remember my history correctly, da here in da U.S. the several states got into the marriage license business largely as a product of the eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Da eugenics movement also introduced advocacy for abortion and sterilization, directed toward some populations of citizens. One of da uglier social products of Darwinism unchecked by religion. Certainly not somethin' to point to as being an exemplar of either liberty or justice. Marriage licenses I believe were a part of that unsavory tradition.

 

So the gay community has a point in that regard, eh? Fine, I get that. Get the state out of the marriage license business. It probably never belonged in it in the first place. Have private contracts like was the case throughout the world before we let states get so big and intrusive. A private contract is just that, yeh can write any words on it yeh want, but they don't come with state endorsement.

 

Then, if and only if there is social consensus and a legitimate secular purpose like encouraging stable home life for the raising of children, provide some state benefits to certain private partnership contracts that advance that purpose. Yeh can lobby for such benefits for marriage, or "life partners", or blingering, or whatever.

 

If as Merlyn says da gay community only cares about the rights and not the word, then they get can come up with their own brand and word, eh? Set it up so that "Life Partners" refers only to homosexual male couples makin' formal religious vows, "Blingering" refers to a less formalized partnership, etc. Leave "marriage" to refer to da religious commitment between a man and a woman.

 

Not only is it sensible and respectful, but it has a greater likelihood of succeedin' more quickly, eh? Just because there'd be less opposition.

 

I think, though, that it's all about da "M" word, eh? The real desire is government establishment of a definition that weakens or marginalizes da religious traditions of the majority that the gay community finds odious, and the enabling of state-supported indoctrination in that view by da public schools.

 

Just like it's all about da "S" word in Scouting, eh? Yeh can set up your own outdoor youth program "for all" anytime yeh want. Yeh have full rights to do so. Complete equality. But it never happens, eh? They want to change Scouting, just like they want to change marriage. It's about converting others, eh? Why else does Merlyn hang around here?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Scoutfish 16]

WEll yeah, I'm sure everybody thinks the states should stay out of marrage licenses and such.

 

Aside from the consequenses of brothers and sisters having kids, I can't really see states wanting to be invovled other than two reasons:

 

1) $$$$$

 

2) Control by a majority wanting to impose their "moral" views.

 

And back to the brother and sister offspring: well, lack of marrage isn't stoping them from procreating no more than saying bankrobbery is illegal stops banks from getting robbed.

 

So, the states get to collect a tax for applying for a marrage license. Then of course, it's only good for so any days, and depending on state to state...In my state, you have to be married in the county that you apply for the license in. Not a biggie, but depending on where you want to get married and time schedules.....

 

So then that leaves control based on what the voting majority ( as compared to actuall majority who may not take time to vote) wants.

 

And don't get me wrong: Majority vote should have alot of weight behiund it in most things, but not everything.

 

If the old school Mormans had their way, polygamy would be legal.

 

If majority had their say, slavery could still be legal.

 

Know what I mean?

 

In some subjects, majority vote shouild be told to mind their own buisness.

 

My sex life. My religious views. My choice of music.

 

Those are some examples of when majority opinion can kiss my butt.

 

Should be the same way for you too.

 

What if popular vote suddenly decided that the Catholic church wasn't really a true church because of all that crap with the molestations of the male youth and the following coverups all the way to the Vatican.

 

What if public outrage was so intense that an amendment was drawn up and people voted that being Catholic was no longer a valid religion in the US?

 

Wouldn't you tell us to kmiss your butt?

 

WEll, you should...if trhat did indeed happen.

 

But continuing on, suppose that people said that the church preached one way, but acted another way, therefore didn't actually follow it's own core beliefs, therefore, the majoity of peole decided that any and all laws, rules or even religious issues based on Catholic teachings no longer applied.

 

Suppose some Baptist person comes along and says that the Catholic interpretation of Marrage was contrary to and insulting to what his version of what marrage meant. Especially with all the divorces that shouldn't happen or annulments ( which is more like a moral loophole) that did.

 

Would you still advocate for somebody getting to claim what the real definition of what the word meant?

 

Would majority rule still apply or even be fair?

 

 

Nah, sure wouldn't.

 

NOw, I'm not even thinking of the states and benefits.

 

My isue ios with any one group ( wether yours, mine or the next guy's) deciding that they and they alone get to decide and claim ownership to a word or phrase.

 

In my owm mind, a real marrage is a state of mind and commityment between two people. Doesn't include the state or any paper licese or permit. Doesn't include what anybody outside the two people might think. DOesn't include any religious invovlement outside of what the couple's religion states.

 

The actual wedding ceremony isn't even the real marrage. It is only a rite or ceremony to show that the two people have committed to each other.

 

The real marrage is a state of mind between two people. Ands no laws of man will ever change that. Nobody ele's religious viws will ever change that.

 

NOw as for benefits..well in matters of insurance or coverage or such,...if the people are willing to pay the premiums, fees and what not..I say let them have at it. Why should I care if you want to pay extra to cover another man, woman or even your dog for that matter. You are paying for it, not me.

 

Knock yourself out! It's your wallet!

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes:

If as Merlyn says da gay community only cares about the rights and not the word, then they get can come up with their own brand and word, eh?

 

And their own thousands of new laws paralleling all the current laws that mention "marriage" that have been written over the last 250 years or so, plus all the common-law rulings going back further.

 

Or

 

Just get the government to recognize same-sex marriage. You can call it anything you like, Beavah, if words bother you so much. But legally, it's the only not insane way to do it.

[BS-87 30]

When laws get passed requiring all public use pools, including hotels, have a permanent chair lift installed for handicap accessibility, this is touted as a great victory for equality. What it does is prevents people who enjoy something from enjoying that thing because it's not something all people can enjoy. At least with marriage there's the option of just not letting anyone have the tax and legal goodies instead of banning the whole institution.

 

What I don't get is how in the wrong cases, the government will take the "If everyone can't enjoy it, nobody can" mentality like with the pools, yet is afraid to take that approach in cases like marriage, where it would be much more appropriate.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

BS-87 writes:

When laws get passed requiring all public use pools, including hotels, have a permanent chair lift installed for handicap accessibility, this is touted as a great victory for equality. What it does is prevents people who enjoy something from enjoying that thing because it's not something all people can enjoy.

 

Wow, that's about the most twisted, backwards reasoning I've ever seen. Presumably SOME people can't use public pools without chairlifts, but they don't count in your world; but since the chairlifts are for handicapped people, you call foul because you can't use the lifts.

 

I can't begin to describe the size of the crocodile tears I'm shedding for you, poor, poor dear.

[moosetracker 132]

Merlyn - I think BS-87 was trying to make a different point, but he flubbed up typing in a word or two.. I didn't see the chair lift as what others couldn't use, but that with the chair added the normal populace now couldn't use the pool, maybe due to the disabled now using it (and taking up the whole thing) for therapy.. Or normal populace now can't use the pool because the disabled has cooties...

 

But then when you read the rest and see he is trying to make an arguement FOR Same-SEX marriage with this analogy it just makes me think he really flubbed up a word or two.. His conclusion states something like "They did good with the rule for pools, why can't they do the same with something more important, marriage.".. Whice then does not make sense, if he feels the addition of the chair, not makes it impossible for the normal populace to use the pool (or the chair.)

[Scoutfish 16]

I took it to mean that they took something that was limited so that only a few people could enjoy it, and took it away by making it something all people could enjoy. Meaning the govt took away the exclusiveness on only those who were fit in the use of all thier limbs.

 

Hey, I know how having one word in the wrong order or even missing one punctuation mark can completely change the meaning of what you are trying to say

 

 

[BS-87 30]

Sorry for the word order, I'll clarify because I forgot to explain the results of that law.

 

Because of that law; and the limited supply of chairlifts, long waiting lists, and long manufacture times, many public pools and hotel pools will not be opening this summer for public use.

 

This means the law has said that because everybody can't use the pool, then nobody should be able to use it.