Beavah

If you do not hear about hellfire and damnation in the mass, then I think you are either not paying attention to the Eucharistic and other prayers used Yah, hmmm.... well, at least that's a testable claim. Here's the U.S. Catholic bishop's interpretation of da meaning of their "Eucharistic Prayer" http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/the-eucharistic_prayer.cfm Here's the actual text http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/EP.htm Not a word about hellfire or damnation in the entire thing. Da language is pretty archaic eh? But da closest yeh get to hellfire or damnation is this: You formed man in your own image and entrusted the whole world to his care, so that in serving you alone, the Creator, he might have dominion over all creatures. And when through disobedience he had lost your friendship, you did not abandon him to the domain of death. For you came in mercy to the aid of all, so that those who seek might find you. Time and again you offered them covenants and through the prophets taught them to look forward to salvation. And you so loved the world, Father most holy, that in the fullness of time you sent your Only Begotten Son to be our Savior. So the evidence refutes your claim, BadenP. I'm sorry to hear of da behavior of your minister when yeh were young, and like any good fellow the behavior of da administrator I find infuriatin'. Better a millstone be tied around their necks... To be fair, though, I'm old enough to remember those days, eh? And for better or worse, da culture at the time was that takin' such matters to public trial was the wrong thing to do for kids. Even now, with lots more protections, it's a very hard thing, eh? Poor handlin' of these things wasn't just a Catholic issue, it was an issue for all youth organizations at the time. Only difference is that da Catholic Church and the BSA are large organizations that kept records. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Well, thanks there Oak Tree. Of course, I reckon I was joshin' about gettin' the issue right, not the discourse. And was joshin' in a rhetorical way, eh? I get that yeh enjoy talkin' about me. Who wouldn't? I'm a cute furry critter. Ordinarily, though, I'd take a pass on that because I just don't think it's good for da forums. Better if yeh have personal feedback to approach me privately on any of the issues yeh mention. In the very few cases yeh found where I offered personal criticism in a public post, I assure yeh I offered it in private first. But for just this once, I'll bite and offer my perspective. Let's wander back toward the start of da thread, eh? My first post was to support jblake and Scoutfish. My claim was "There are lots of ways to do pranks right, to make 'em fun experiences and learn all about the Oath and Law and each other. There are [also] a few ways to do 'em wrong,". OGE posted his story at the same time, and it popped in just before my response. My guess is that odd timing made folks like TwoCubDad feel like I was respondin' to OGE when in fact I hadn't seen his post. OGE's response to me was a set of snide remarks and potshots. Yep, I did spend a short line or two suggestin' that carryin' that kind of emotion around for so long isn't healthy, before goin' on to clarify the point I was tryin' to make. I have made da same suggestion to OGE in the past in private messages. It is da best advice I could give him given da emotionally laden pot-shot response, and I gave it to him. It amounted to less than a tenth of my message, and I did not "love" it at all. After he came back 'round again, I just opted to squelch his responses because they weren't value-added. Now, I don't reckon that I said that I never mention other posters, eh? That would be silly. I declined an invitation to talk about others behind their backs, so to speak, or to make that da topic of a thread as you are doin' here. In fact, if yeh did this to anybody else besides me, I can't imagine not jumpin' in on the person's behalf in some way or another. Most of my responses that yeh flagged as me talkin' about others were in actuality me respondin' to one of those "talk about others" conversations to try to tamp 'em down a bit. Hence comments like "Yah, yah, we also have Merlyn, of course, but he's our pet troll." Many were efforts to lighten the moment or respond in defense of others. But sure, I'll occasionally mention others. All I suggested was that talkin' about others behind their backs wasn't my style or somethin' I loved. There's nuthin' "insistent" about that, it's just a shrugging statement of personal preference. So, in terms of your three points, 1) Yep, I did, but I never claimed I didn't. 2) Nope, yeh misread or misinterpreted the claim. 3) Whatever. To my way of thinkin', I was respondin' as best as I could to the person's needs, and had done so in private first. It was not a criticism of da person, it was addressin' an issue that was affectin' the person. Sayin' that this isn't normal and yeh can get help for it to my mind is very different than callin' someone a liar. In terms of your questions, Are you really arguing with Twocubdad, one of the most reliably reasonable posters on the board? I thought I was mostly arguin' with BPDT00 and Second Class, actually. But yah, sure, I don't mind arguin' with TwoCubDad, and I'm sure he doesn't mind arguin' with me. That's how we all learn from each other. And do you really want to maintain that you never talk about other people? Nope. Never claimed that, have no intention of "maintaining" it. Just said I'd pass on your invitation because it wasn't really my style or somethin' I enjoyed. It's too bad that someone with your discernment and writing ability didn't get the point across without antagonizing others. Yep, I'm not perfect. Just a fellow who whips off a few responses on da fly while takin' a break from doin' other things. Don't let da fact that I'm just an ordinary fellow get yeh down. Like everybody, I trust in da good will of others to read my musings with kindness, eh? Takin' what's worthwhile, discardin' the rest. Beavah

LOL. Nah, always stayed far away from that political stuff myself. Of course, when talkin' about a third party, I reckon the passive voice is da correct grammatical choice. Leastways my old English teachers used to tell me that. . Eh?

Yah, BadenP, as an outsider to da Catholic community I can't speak too much to da Vatican (one or two or all that jazz). I can say that for all da strum and drang about da wicked hierarchy, from a purely business point of view they have a remarkably small and inexpensive central organization for a worldwide corporation of that size (plus a nation-state government). Like any large human organization, they're goin' to have their competing factions and bureaucracy issues. Folks in liberal first-world countries want one thing, folks in conservative 3rd world countries want somethin' different. Da only thing that would be odd is not to expect that sort of thing, eh? I reckon it's unfair to 'em to believe they're goin' to be perfect just because they wear robes. That seems to be what yeh want of 'em, eh? I take it yeh grew up in da Catholic church? It seems yeh have that rebellious teenager thing goin' on. Yeh have discovered that mommy and daddy aren't perfect. Good for you! Now yeh need to finish growin' up, eh? With a more mature perspective, yeh move on from hollerin' about how mommy and daddy aren't perfect, are hypocrites, yadda yadda. Yeh figure out that though they're not saints, in the grand scheme of things they're OK. Even pretty good. Yeh can still treat 'em as family, and love 'em as parents, even if yeh roll your eyes occasionally. For da rest of us Christians, da Catholics are just family, eh? A bit eccentric, perhaps, sometimes tragic, but sometimes good leaders and even heroes. Like any human institution, they have all da weaknesses of humans. Yeh think our Protestant community doesn't have sex abuse and spousal abuse and preachers of hellfire and damnation? Yeh think within many American Protestant churches there hasn't been a move toward a more traditional pre-1960s morality? Have yeh been livin' under a rock? There's been a back-to-traditional-views trend that goes beyond even Christendom to Islam and Judaism as well. That's just a modern cultural phenomenon. Why would yeh expect Catholics to be immune? Beavah

My prejudice is against the institutional Catholic Church at the Vatican which continues to delude and put fear into millions of Catholics world wide with threats of eternal damnation and hellfire by espousing false doctrines and a totally twisted and false interpretation of the Bible. Yah, hmmm.... Well, I suppose recognizin' a prejudice is da first step. "Hi, my name is BadenP, and I am a bigot." "Hi, BadenP". Now I get that da Catholic Church has some odd practices, and since I ain't a Catholic I obviously don't agree with all their theology. But "espousing false doctrines and a totally twisted and false interpretation of the Bible?". I think a Scout should be Friendly, Kind, and Reverent, eh? It's fine to disagree, and to argue theology with friends. But this just seems over the line, eh? Like several miles over the line. As do many of da comments in this and other threads on this topic by moosetracker and you and one or two others. Can yeh take it somewhere else? Surely there's a small rural shack somewhere yeh can get together without all the rest of us. Beavah

I am happy to see from dfolson that it all turned out to be nothing. Of course, that doesn't really affect this discussion, as this forum has had many, many threads about nothing. Yah, that's da truth, eh? Once again, our group has started with a situation that was really nothing and turned it into a tale of woe and mayhem which existed only in our own mind. Nobody disagrees that "If the SOLE purpose of an act is to trick or deceive or humiliate another person" with malice of forethought it has no business in Scouting. Honestly, though, incidents like that are quite rare. A good campfire skit often tricks or deceives. So does a challenging orienteering course or a patrol that wins Capture the Flag. Swim checks even "done right" can humiliate a sensitive kid whose estimation of his own ability was higher. Da issue is the thing being done with malice of intent. I just don't think we should assume malice in every case. A few lads talkin' about the evening might bat a lot of things around, eh? What they may really be planning is a wonderful night of camaraderie in the woods that is a true Scouting Kodak moment, as dfolson describes. A comment taken out of context should be taken in the best light, eh? Not in the worst. Folks who see da worst are usually only seein' a reflection of themselves. Even when things don't work out as well, in da overwhelming majority of cases, we have kids learnin' about how to be a better person. Lots of things are appropriate when done to friends, but may be inappropriate when done to younger lads who still view yeh as a stranger. Pranks can be that way, eh? So can other things like "Shut up Joe and just clean the pot!" In such cases the error is simply one of not appreciatin' different perspectives. An older lad treatin' a younger one as a friend and fellow scout might be too gruff for the younger fellow. That's not bullying/hazing/abuse, that's just a chance for both to learn about how to relate to others. It's our bread and butter in Scouting. When I was a young lad at a camp, we had a counselor who was built like a linebacker. One day at a swim activity, the counselor got to throwing lads into the water. It was one of the most amazin, fun things I remember from camp that year. He wasn't one of our Fat Scoutmaster crowd, eh? He had da strength to loft us. It was so much fun. Then up came Patrick O'Malley. A more shy, timid lad. OK swimmer, but not the best. Patrick finally screwed up the courage to join in the fun, and in a moment of enthusiasm or because Pat was a lighter fellow, the counselor really launched him. We all cheered, but it was more than Pat was ready for, and led to fright and tears and humiliation. Yeh could imagine Pat later on tellin' a tale like OGE's about how everyone cheered and hooted at his pain/embarrassment, how he never trusted the boys who talked him into tryin' it or camp counselors ever again. Just like OGE's case, mistakes were made; he was launched too enthusiastically when the counselor should have played it more gently. But it was an innocent mistake, eh? An easy one to make when all da rest of the lads wanted to go higher and farther. Let's not confuse innocent mistakes or words taken out of context for acts of malice. And let's try to avoid silly blanket statements about deceiving always being wrong. Otherwise I'm never goin' to be allowed to bluff my way through the next poker hand. Edited to add... Now Oak Tree, do I get credit for gettin' this one right? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

scout can work on any merit badge at any time Yah, I just love these blanket nonsensical statements. Of course this isn't true in the context in which it's being used. Most SCUBA MBs will require boys to be of a certain age, some MBs like Whitewater have prerequisite MBs that yeh must complete before beginning, etc. Then there are facility restrictions which may limit things by age or rank or preparedness or just by signup and random assignment. Generally speakin', most of the time for most boys, Scoutmaster's are only too happy to have a lad want to do a badge, and dutifully sign off and point the boy toward a counselor. But there is room for intelligent discretion, eh? Sometimes boys need to be counseled one way or another; sometimes a Scoutmaster knows a lad needs to have a "win" and so steers him toward a badge that will generate a "win" and away from one that won't. Other times the practicalities are such that it isn't fair to other boys to "take a slot" with a boy who is not prepared and will compromise the class for the rest of the group. Sometimes behavioral issues play a role. Da Scouting program is not a computer program where adults are supposed to execute da instructions in order like some sort of oversized semiconductor that farts too much. We work with kids to help 'em grow. Sometimes in that process da proper thing to do is say "No, not yet". Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... It's interestin' how the former Catholic BadenP and da married-to-a-good-fellow-wish-he-weren't-Catholic moosetracker get into this nonsense. People's individual histories do so color their perceptions. From my understanding Cozzens is quite "out there". 60% of priests being gay would be quite an enormous outlier in terms of population. So enormous as to be completely unbelievable without some very strong underlyin' causes, and it's hard to come up with a theory as to what those could be. So this is almost certainly a total BS figure. Yah, I suspect da Vatican Bank has done some money launderin' for the Italian Mafia in years past. Pales in comparison to some of da shenanigans at other banks (JPMorganChase?). Yeh also have to remember that da U.S. State Department these days is labeling as "money launderers" any government or bank that doesn't agree to cooperate with U.S. efforts to eliminate banking privacy worldwide. I'd say good for the Vatican Bank. We have to remember that some money launderin' isn't always bad. It helps dissidents escape from bad governments, channels money to help Tibetan nationalists and other sorts of things. Yeh can imagine that a worldwide church might be engaged in a bit of that. B

Yah, Zscout5, yeh know that a policy isn't justifiable when someone has to write up an entire page of apologetics on why the policy is justified. As a scouter, yeh recognize of course that someone could write an entire page like that from the unit's perspective about why such a policy was a pain in the kiester and made the advancement program less effective for kids in their unit. What it comes down to, though, is a question of mission. Our mission is not to verify signatures (who does that anyway?). It's not to file reports in da correct bin (ScoutNet records transfers don't work anyway). It's not to make sure there's not a gap in the lad's tenure records, nor to audit Eagle applications. Our mission as council or national scouters is to provide the best program service we can to da organizations and volunteers who are workin' with America's kids. Service. Just service. Always service. If folks workin' for councils or national really enjoy bein' fastidious about paperwork and such, I always suggest that they consider workin' for an accounting firm or for da government. There are places for fastidiousness in record-keeping, eh? Scoutin' just isn't one of 'em. We have to make helpin' the organizations and volunteers do a good job for kids our priority. B

Still, I'd be happy to meet up with you and discuss all the other forum members. Hard to resist. Always like meetin' fellow scouters, but I'll pass on the discussin' others bit. Not hard for me to resist at all; it's never been my style. Love chattin' about issues, but not about people, except perhaps when plannin' a party or tryin' to help someone havin' a rough go. B

If the acting SM from the OP decided to discourage the older Scouts from doing this prank, is he really thereby treating the younger Scouts as if they are "made of glass"? do you think that the prank as described might be inappropriate? and would it be ok for the acting SM to discourage it? Yah, the OP never came back to describe the supposed prank, eh? All we had were a few rumors that older scouts may be planning somethin' that amounted to making odd noises. I found it hard to comment on that beyond what other folks had already said. My comments were in reply to other posters. I'd trust the SM's judgment, eh? He knows the boys involved, and I reckon he also has a good sense for da source of the "rumors". So the answers would be "No, I would not presume to question da SM's judgment" , "there was no prank adequately described so I wouldn't make a guess as to its appropriateness", and "it may well be OK for the SM to discourage it, or it might not be the right call. That would depend on havin' more information." My general inclination in such a case would not be to confront the older boys, though, based on what we know. I just don't think as a matter of good character yeh judge people based on vague rumors, and that's what you're really doin' if yeh start intervening or lecturing those boys at this point. Besides, I like to see judgment play out, eh? Lots of ideas get kicked around, but most of us then apply some filters to the ideas we generate before we act. I'd want to give the lads time and space to exercise their own filtering. So personally, I'd be inclined just to stay up and keep an eye out. I tend to be a bit of a late owl anyways. No, I don't think that makin' noises outside of someone's tent is "hazing" or "bullying" or any of that sort of thing, leastways not unless yeh know the boy(s) in question are particularly fragile. And I'm just fine with helpin' a few of the first year lads pull a better version on the older boys the next night. And no, I don't reckon I'm always right, and I've admitted that several times around these parts. Mrs. Beavah of course would say I'm never right, but that I just get lucky every now and then. Mostly I just don't comment on threads where I don't know anything, like most of Cub Scoutin'. Besides, in this thread like so many, I don't think there is a right or wrong, eh? I'm honestly not arguin' for or against pranks, though I'm fine with 'em. What I'm really arguin' against is people bein' so black-and-white judgmental. I'm arguin' against da self-righteous, quote-da-rules, ban-the-activity, everybody-who-disagrees-is-in-favor-of-abusing-kids routine. I reckon by now just about everybody here knows that I'll always take da other side of such an argument. Now, as an aside, I reckon the propriety of gossipin' behind people's backs and makin' side bets about their character or tendencies is left as an exercise for the reader. My experience is that folks who like that sort of gossipy stuff never grow out of it, and never really see it for what it is. There's a reason why by and large da youth who commit suicide because of bullyin' do it not because of being beat up or pranked, but because of the quiet insidiousness of negative gossip and the way it changes social dynamics for 'em. So in da grand scheme of things, I'm OK with good pranks, eh? I'm also just fine with a troop that opts to prohibit snipe hunts. But the negative gossipy stuff I have little patience for and generally put a swift end to. That I don't believe belongs in Scouting. A bit of venting is OK, but I reckon we all know the difference. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Execution by firing squad staffed by da patrol whose box was defaced. Usin' paintballs of course. B

Who changes clothes? Certainly no scouts I know. 1 shirt 1 pair zip-offs 2-3 pair of socks. 2 pair poly underwear. layers as needed. If you're hikin' in big honking mountain boots pretendin' the AT is a scree and glacier route in the Himalayas, then yep, bring a pair of camp shoes. If you're hikin' in lightweight hikers, not needed. Anything else is just extra weight, so pick da luxury item or two that will make yeh the most happy and leave da rest at home so you can enjoy yourself. B

Yah, great for outdoor meetings! Just fine for a local weekend campout. I'd explore da issue gently with your Scoutmaster, dependin' on what your role is in the troop. It would be the SM's discretion on what "counted" for T-2-1 advancement, so in the end yeh should defer to him, but as a point of comparison I expect most Scoutmasters would "count" it. FWIW, if you're runnin' a strong program, your boys will always have more than the minimum number of outings at the time they hit each of da early ranks. It just really isn't possible to get 'em the required skills without more time in the field (rare lads that camp every week with their family aside...) Beavah

This is one of those cases where a seemingly reasonable "rule" actually holds back a Scout from advancement when there is no purpose to it. Yah, or alternately the PF MB counselor is an expert in his field, has seen too many over-aggressive young athletes injure themselves in training by overdoin' it and not usin' proper form, and has decided the best way to teach boys well and keep 'em safe is to do biweekly meetings. Since he doesn't have infinite time he looks at all their schedules, sets a time, and expects 'em to live up to it. Somethin' like Trustworthy or Courteous or somesuch. It's also possible da PF MB counselor has had experience with "entitlement scouts" from some troops before, and wants to protect his time. If there are 6 boys in the program, meetin' every 2 weeks over the 12 weeks of the badge, then one exception per boy doubles the time required of the counselor, eh? Add in a couple more conflicts here and there, band night, too much homework, got sick, etc. and it isn't long before da MBC is doin' triple duty and feeling taken advantage of. Seems like if yeh ask an adult to adjust his schedule to make time to help you with somethin', livin' up to your agreement is a reasonable thing to expect in terms of Scout Spirit, eh? Beavah

Yah, there's already another thread on this, Merlyn. Why not post over there? B

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)

Your examples are all part of program. As such, they are promoted, encouraged, and often required. Yep, the OA Ordeal is part of da program. Yep, da OA Ordeal is also the only thing in Scouting that potentially meets the definition of criminal hazing in some state statutes. Nope, the fact that it's "in the program" is not a defense when someone brings a criminal hazing charge against yeh for an ordeal where a lad got hurt. Remember, no insurance coverage for intentional or criminal acts, eh? Just because somethin' is "in the program" does not make it OK, correct, or guaranteed to be successful, eh? Remember da Program of '72? The Game of Life? Being "part of the program" also doesn't change da results for the victim, eh? The victim of the impersonal, run-em-through, embarrass them in front of their friends, confine 'em to the wading pool camp swim check is far more ashamed and humiliated than the kid who held a bag out in the woods makin' snipe noises for an hour before gettin' high-fived and handed some S'mores. And Scoutfish is right, eh? Camp swim checks generate far more upset and complaints than camp pranks. Dare I say forbidden? Yes I do. Pranks are not forbidden anywhere in BSA program materials. They are apparently safer than paint rollers. Beavah

but am I the only one who sees a difference between a real part of the program which MIGHT have the potential for causing stress or embarrassment versus some stupid game where the WHOLE PURPOSE is to cause stress or embarrassment? No, TwoCubDad. I think what's odd is that anyone would think that a fellow scouter would tolerate a game where the WHOLE PURPOSE is to cause stress and embarrassment. What an odd, cynical, absurd thing to think about me or any other scouter. If yeh start with that premise that scouts and scouters are all about deliberately causing others stress and embarrassment and harm, then da proper response is not to worry about pranks. The proper response is to MAKE SCOUTING ILLEGAL. If yeh discover in a particular troop that boys' WHOLE PURPOSE is to cause stress and embarrassment and harm, then the proper response is not to ban pranks. The proper response is to EXPEL SCOUTS FROM THE PROGRAM and then fix your program to do a better job teachin' those who remain. If, on the other hand, yeh feel that Scouting is a wonderful and wholesome program, with well-intentioned volunteers and good kids who are practicing and learning the lessons of character, then yeh come to different conclusions, eh? In that case, yeh recognize some fun and value in jokes and pranks and skits, just as yeh recognize some value in OA Ordeals and swim checks and canoe trips. Even though every now and again a youth or adult can misjudge somethin' and turn it into a learning/teaching moment, even though there's always a chance someone will misinterpret or take things the wrong way. It's just like paint rollers, eh? If yeh start from da premise that all kids are idiots and all adult leaders are dangerous fools who can't be trusted, then (and only then) does it make sense to ban paint rollers. If yeh start from da premise that kids are reasonably capable and adult leaders in scoutin' are caring, alert folks, then yeh reach a different answer. So da reason you're comin' to a conclusion of "Not Scoutlike" is because yeh started with a premise that wasn't scoutlike. Change your premise. You'll reach a different conclusion. I honestly don't see many 14-y.o.s putting this effort into a prank. Yeh must not know very many 14-year-olds, or yeh must not be givin' 'em da right encouragement. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

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)

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? Might I humbly suggest that yeh learn how to read English? B

Yah, hmmmm.... Gotta agree with da paperwork load in GSUSA. As close as I can figure it they really have just abandoned the outdoor adventure program for middle school and high school girls, and that's their biggest issue. That havin' been said, the central point of da article is a big one, eh? The National Catholic Conference is lookin' into dropping endorsement of GSUSA as a supported program. I do reckon that's news, because it really would have a very large impact on a membership that's already been shrinkin' for other reasons. If even some of those went the way of AHG, it would make AHG a much larger organization. There are other possible consequences, though, eh? Like a major chartering partner of da BSA potentially pushin' for a coed program. Have to agree, though, that at least da reasons portrayed in the article seem pretty shallow. Beavah

Your head has yet to absorb the fact that none of these civil unions are federally recognized as marriage. It is not equal. Nah, you're too thick to realize that da change in state law from civil unions to "marriage" that were insisted upon didn't affect federal law at all, eh? So that was not the issue unless yeh think all those folks lobbyin' for gay rights were too dumb to understand that. Is that what yeh think? I don't. I think they understood perfectly, and intended what they asked for. Even though the change did not affect their rights under the law at all, either federal or state, they wanted the state to endorse gay marriage. The word is powerful because it implies thousands of years of religious cultural tradition, eh? Now, is it the same as eatin' donuts? I don't think so. Leastways, not unless yeh eat a lot of donuts. But sure, I might encourage an obese friend to go lighter on the pastry. Does my neighbor smoking affect my health? Probably not, but if the neighbor is a friend I might encourage him to quit, and I wouldn't want him to smoke around my kids, or celebrate smoking around my kids on Smoker's Pride Day. Does my best friend's penchant for gambling affect my financial stability? No more than a gay couple affects my marriage, as CalicoPenn suggests. I would still counsel my friend to stop, and I still may oppose legalizing gambling in my state because I think legalized gamblin' has negative societal effects. Or because I oppose gamblin' on religious grounds, which for a religious critter really is the same thing. Now in the end, I might lose that public debate and da state may start openin' up casinos in inner cities to abet the robbing of the poor, but I reckon I'd still object vigorously if they officially named casino gambling "Retirement Planning". Particularly if in da public schools they then issued books about the different types of "Retirement Planning", treatin' 'em all equally. At that point, I reckon I'd prefer the state to get out the business altogether, rather than providin' a state endorsement to a form of "retirement planning" that I felt was individually and socially harmful. I think that's a pretty reasonable position, eh? Beavah

Interestin', moosetracker. I'm less familiar with NH than some of the others, but I can't for the life of me figure out what marriage has to do with the DMV. Although wisecracks about women drivers do come to mind. (ducking for cover) There were a few differences in California, too, but they were only because da laws involving marriage tend to wind through all kinds of obscure places, and the writers of civil union laws would occasionally miss small things here and there. California caught and corrected a bunch of these, but it wasn't enough, eh? Folks wanted the "m" word. B

I reckon we are agreeing on this, BDPT00. Because yeh see, from a legal perspective (which did come up in da case I mentioned), OA ordeals really can cross the line into da legal realm of criminal hazing in some states. Regular, ordinary Ordeals like this one. That's worse than snipe huntin', eh? Higher risk from a personal and risk management perspective at least. I'd still say, in a somewhat qualified way, that OA Ordeals are OK. Well done pranks in a troop where the boys are bein' taught to live by da Oath and law are much less worrisome, to be honest. Heck, even poorly done snipe hunts (which I really dislike) pose less risk. TwoCubDad, I tried really hard to give yeh my examples of acceptable pranks. Gave two whole YouTube links to dozens and dozens of 'em, which demonstrated quite well what I'm talkin' about in terms of both action and tone. Referred repeatedly to Alan Funt and the ol' Candid Camera prime-time TV show. 30+ years of what I would consider generally acceptable pranks, approved for all audiences. In fact I reckon that the old Candid Camera show may have been da source for a lot of scout prankishness. Don't know how I can be any clearer than full video and audio, eh? I think everyone got their knickers in a twist because a message I was composin' simultaneously with OGE's popped up right after his rather than right before his, so it looked like I was respondin' to him rather than respondin' to somethin' earlier which was really the case. Interestin' example of da power of emotional storytelling. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)