DanKroh

Beaver asks: "Can you honestly say that you can not see a difference in smoking and sexual orientation?" You are right, there is a big difference. Smoking is a choice, and a very unhealthy one at that. Sexual orientation isn't a choice. I find it much more likely that my son is likely to pick up smoking as a habit from an authority figure than he is to pick up homosexuality. As far as your example of the closeted gay (potential) molester, for every one of those you give, I can give you at least ten examples of heterosexuals who have molested boys and girls of both the same and opposite gender as themselves. According to statistics, the risk from heterosexual leaders is FAR greater than the risk from an avowed homosexual leader. Sorry, but the youth protection argument against gays has been debunked again and again, yet it still gets brought up again and again. Do you dispute the proven fact that the VAST MAJORITY of child molesters/pedophiles are heterosexual? Ed, if homosexuality is not from God, where is it from?

Ed says "For me it isn't a fear of something happening. It's more not wanting my children to think that type of lifestyle is OK." By your reasoning, Ed, since smoking is a lifestyle choice that I don't want my children to think is OK, the BSA should ban all leaders who smoke. Just out of curiosity, Ed, what do you want your children to think about "that type of lifestyle"?

"I have found that from a parent's standpoint, their biggest concern with homosexuals in Scouting is the possibility of impropriety with their Scout." Actually, it is sad that I have no doubt that this is the biggest concern of most parents. However, it is a concern based in ignorance. As OGE has pointed out, empirical evidence within the BSA and all evidence outside the BSA shows that the VAST majority of pedophiles are avowed heterosexual men, often married with children of their own.

"Polygamy is being married to multiple women. Being married to multiple men makes her a polyandist . . . " Actually, polygamy encompasses both polygyny (one man with multiple wives) and polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands). It's just that traditionally, most polygamous relationships have by polygynous, so many people think the two terms are synonymous.... Just my two cents in picking nits

SaintCad, I believe what Ed is trying to get at this that all the consanguinous marriage restriction laws are worded in gender specific language: For example, in Massachusetts, the law reads "No man may marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, aunt, niece, stepmother or stepdaughter, and no woman may marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, uncle, nephew, stepfather or stepson. Any marriage within these degrees is void." So his straw man argument is that therefore, the consanguinity restriction will not apply to SSM because it is not explicitly disallowed by the wording of the law. However, part of the Massachusetts ruling that permits SSM dealt with this problem by saying: "Rather, the statutory provisions concerning consanguinity or polygamous marriages shall be construed in a gender neutral manner. See Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76, 92-93 (1979) (construing word father in unconstitutional, underinclusive provision to mean parent); Brownes Case, 322 Mass. 429, 430 (1948) (construing masculine pronoun his to include feminine pronoun her). See also G.L. c. 4, 6, Fourth (words of one gender may be construed to include the other gender and the neuter unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the law-making body or repugnant to the context of the same statute)." So, basically, this problem has been easily dealt with in Massachusetts, and could be handled similarly in any other state that decided to permit SSM. I would like to compliment OGE and Fuzzy Bear on their well reasoned and well articulated attitudes surrounding this subject.

featherbear, We just had our graduation ceremony Friday night. We do it as an outdoor campfire ceremony. We invite the two Boy Scout troops that our pack feeds to come and build/maintain the campfire, do the ingathering activity (this year, it was building paper airplanes) and lead the songs/cheers/skits throughout the meeting. It is nice to involve the older scouts, since they are pretty much idolized by the cubs, and it gives the older scouts some good leadership experience. The cubs like the campfire, but the centerpiece of the ceremony is the "Cub-o-matic". We have an enclosed pavilion that the cubs enter, and inside adults switch their scarves to their new rank, and present them with their new handbooks (the pack provides scarves, slides and handbooks), and they are then introduced to the pack with their new ranks. While the cubs are inside, the boy scouts stand behind with noisemakers and provide "machine noises" and other sound effects. This year, they also used confetti poppers to throw confetti and streamers over the top. It was great. The incoming Tigers were especially wide-eyed as they entered the cub-o-matic.

I generally wear the blue and gold baseball-style cap when I am doing outdoor activities. However, probably the only reason is because when my first son joined, the blue and gold cap was THE cap for scouts to wear, too. They didn't have a different cap for every rank level. My younger son is very enamored of the rank hats, so he didn't want his older brother's blue and gold caps, so I acquired them. Can you even get the blue and gold caps anymore now that the scouts wear the caps with the different rank badges on them?

Brent: "How would a brother marrying a brother harm anyone? Please be specific. What if a brother and sister wanted to marry, and wanted to adopt kids instead of having their own? How would that harm anyone? Please be specific." As long as the relationship is not pedophilic or abusive, I couldn't really care less. I have several clients who have spend years trying to recover from incestuous pedophilia or rape, so I have a difficult time envisioning an incestuous relationship that is healthy. But it has certainly been socially acceptable in some societies (pretty civilized ones, too) in the past, until they noticed that their kids had genetic problems. "In recent history, we have had a woman marry a dolphin, and someone else marry a cobra. If someone wants to marry their dog or cat, what is the harm? They are already living together, in some cases sharing the same bed. What harm would that do?" Did the animals give consent? If not, then it's animal abuse. "Who says a 14 year old is too young? I've known some very mature 14 year olds, and some very immature 20 year olds. To make a rule like that is pure age discrimination - it does not take into account the maturity of the individual. Are you telling me all people are the same maturity at 14? Other countries allow people to marry at that age - why can't we? If the two people love each other, what is the harm? Please be specific." If the government wants to start administering "maturity tests" before issuing marriage licenses, they could probably also prevent a lot of divorces between couples who are not emotionally ready (even though they are physically adults) for marriage. Again, in many civilized societies in the past, the legal age of marriage was 14 (or even younger). However, in modern times, we have empirial evidence that most 14 y.o. are not ready for marriage. That MOST of them will be harmed by trying to enter into a marriage so early. Can you provide any evidence that homosexuals marriages will harm the participants? Now that I've answered your contined interrogation, will you finally answer my single question? How is legalizing homosexual marriage going to have any impact whatsoever on YOUR day-to-day married life?

Brent, to put it another way, I see the purpose of laws prohibiting something as protective. If we have a law, it is because it is protecting someone from harm or the potential for harm (sometimes even from self-inflicted harm). Exactly who is being harmed by same-sex marriges?

BrentAllen, I thought it was obvious that same-sex marriage fulfilled the conditions of not harming either of the people involved, and that both people involved were mentally capable of giving consent. All of the examples on your slippery slope involve either something that harms the people involved, or someone who is not capable of giving consent (and that includes the 14 y.o., since they are not mentally mature enough to give consent). The only one that doesn't automatically imply harm is the polygamy example, although in traditionally examples of polygamy (which were really almost exclusively polygyny), the women were generally harmed because they were treated like chattel. However, my personal opinion of polygamy is that if all partners are entering into it on equal footing, and all consent to the arrangement (and it includes polyandry as an option as well as polygyny), it is none of my business. While there are real economic and logistical problems with legalizing polygamous marriages in this country, the arrangement has worked in other cultures for centuries. So again, given that same-sex marriage harms NO ONE, and is consented to by two adults, how does it affect you?

Barry writes: "Havent most of the differences in issues between political parties come down to a battle of values?" Actually, I don't think the values of the opposing parties differ all that much. I think it really comes down to the willingness to impose those values on other people or to codify them into our laws. In a different discussion, Ed and I actually agreed on a pretty comprehensive list of what we considered "family values". I think if you and I started comparing point by point the things we think are important, and how we would like to see our children raised, and how we believe we should live our lives, they would probably be pretty close. However, some people believe that they have the right to impose those values on others, and some people believe everyone should be able to chose for themselves (given the caveat that their choices do not harm others). Unfortunately, in that difference, compromise doesn't seem to be very likely, if possible at all. Here's the way I see it. If any of the opponents of same-sex marriage can state for me one, just one, actually, practical way that allowing gays to marry will impact their personal lives, my mind might be changed. Or at least it would certainly give me something to think about. But instead, they come up with arguments about how it's unnatural, how it's immoral, how its a slippery slope that is going to destroy the marriages of others, the family, and yea, verily, society itself. That kind of hyperbole doesn't impress me. I guess I'm just too much of a practical thinker. Show me how it will have a tanglible impact on the lives of others, and then I might be swayed.

Barry says: "Im scared to even hear your opinion of adults wanting to give in to their urges toward innocent defenseless children. This is a scary discussion, and from a member of the APA no less. Maybe it is time for the subject to move on." How sad. I agree that when the discussion degenerates into "and I bet you support pedophilia, too. wink, wink, nudge, nudge", yes it is time for the subject to move on. My only reason for bring comparisons to animal behavior is to deconstruct the arguments of anti-gay proponents who erroneously think that homosexuality only exists because humans "choose" to be that way. Brent Allen still wants to say that homosexuality is "against natural law". Well, there are many other things that men do in the name of civilization that are against natural law, like caring for the weak and elderly instead of allowing them to be culled. Of course, human behavior is governed by our higher functions and our ability to process abstract feelings such as morality, reciprocity, love, etc. We live beyond our instincts, yet we can't seem to rise above that instinct of "different is bad", can we?

funscout says: "I still wonder, though... In the case of the swans and penguins you mentioned, are they acting out sexually, or are they just "roommates" trying to raise their "children" together? In other words, are these animals trying to have sex with each other, or are they just showing the ritual mating signs? Could they be mentally impaired, instead of gay? Who knows?" Well, in the case of the rams in Oregon, there was definitely sexual activity. And 8% is a little high to be attributed to a "mental impairment". I believe that the penguins in NYC were also having sex with each other. Not sure about the swans. But there are certainly examples within those 450 species mentioned of observed of same-sex sex happening. But so which is it? At first, you implied that maybe these animals weren't really "gay" because they were only acting out transient sexual urges. Now when there are examples of same-sex, long-term "relationships", you are discounting them not really "gay" because are they really having sex? But what this really says is that the argument used by some that homosexuality is "unnatural" is at best, weak, or more factually, completely specious. If it's found in nature, it's natural by definition. Not a construct of man alone. The only thing that is a construct of man (through the Bible) is that homosexuality is a sin. Or do swans, penguins, and rams commit sin?

SaintCad says: "What would happen if an OC that does not believe in female leadership (like some Christian Churches) wanted to prevent a woman from being a cubmaster or denmaster? Would BSA allow it? Is it a direct violation of BSA policy?? It already happens, my friend. Women are not allowed to hold any position of leadership in scouting programs sponsored by LDS churches. Hunt, UU churches are not allowed to sponsor scouting unit per BSA national council, because the UUs said that they would not enforce the discriminatory membership policies within any units that they sponsored. About the same time (the timeline is a little murky on the BSA side, so I'm not sure exactly which came first), the UU General Assembly passed a resolution not to support or sponsor scouting units until the policies were changed. But even if an individual UU church wanted to sponsor a unit, the BSA would not allow it.

funscout asks: "Who out there has actually seen a strictly "gay" animal? " Well, there have been two swans on the Boston Common who have been acting as partners since they were hatched. They make nests, lay eggs, and display all the normal behavior of a mated pair. Except the eggs never hatch because they are never fertilized. The swans are both female. The Central Park Zoo has a pair of male penguins who were living together and simulating egg incubation with a rock in their nest. However, the couple has since broken up. In both cases, we are not talking about animals that are displaying transient sexual interest in animals of the same gender. These are animals who are acting as mated pairs, even when animals of the opposite gender are available as potential mating partners. But homosexual behavior in animals doesn't just happen in captivity (which is, by it's nature, an artificial circumstance), it's just easier to observe there. Homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species both in the wild and in captivity, including (fairly recently) rams in the wild in Oregon, where an estimated 8% of the males only show interest in other males. (This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Barry says: "I also said most folks don't have a problem with civil unions." No, the folks who have a problem with civil unions are the ones who realize that they are NOT equivalent to marriage. This isn't about legitimizing their lifestyle, this is about the fact that civil unions do not get them the same rights and benefits as a marriage. Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government (thus NO federal benefits), or by any other state than the one in which they are registered (so couples who move or even travel out of state could find themselves in trouble). So that's like saying to someone who wants to eat prime rib, well, you can't have that, but we don't have a problem giving you a hamburger. If you want a fairly comprehensive list of the things a civil union will not give a couple that a marriage will, here is a summary: http://www.glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf And I don't feel that I'm trying to devalue the source of your moral and religious beliefs. I just feel that it should not be used to determine government policy or as an excuse to write discrimination into the Constitution. Your church doesn't want to perform same-sex marriages? Fine. They shouldn't have to. No one should be forced to do something they feel is morally wrong. No one. But don't, as you put it, ram it down the throats of everyone else, either. You then want to use the "slippery slope" argument. Well, I can't say we've seen a rise in "abnormal groups" pushing for marriage rights here in Massachusetts in the last two years. No fire and brimstone raining from the sky. No cats and dogs living together. Just people who love each other going about their lives as married couples. So here's my proposed solution. Make "marriage" a solely religious sacrament, like baptism and communion. It holds no legal recognition, and forms no legally binding contract. If a couple wants to have their relationship recognized by the government, they must file for a civil union, which carries all the legal/goverment benefits that a marriage contract currently covers, but is available to any consenting couple, no matter what their gender. That way, you have two separate entities. The civil union is the one recognized by law, and the marriage is recognized by religion.

John-in-KC says: "First, to make sure we agree in terms, the Law I speak of is that which in in the OT. Talmud does not count." Well, I was speaking of Leviticus, which is the OT, not the Talmud. I'm having a hard time following the point of the rest of your post as it reads more like a sermon than a discussion. So I'm not really sure if you answered my question or not about whether modern Christians pick and choose what from Leviticus they follow as law. But I won't press you any further.

Barry says: "I would suggest you check all data yourself before you give studies much weight." Excellent advise. I always read the original paper for a study before I give it any credence. My undergraduate training involved rigorous critical analysis of scientific methods, which I also had to apply when completing my doctoral thesis.

John-in-KC says: "So, by not keeping kosher, am I Damned? Yes. Only by accepting God's own complete sacrifice do I have a hope of eternal life with God in Heaven." Ok, you'll have to pardon my ignorance here, but I'm not really familiar with your particular flavor of Christianity (my studies in Christianity tended to occur in the more progressive denominations). But isn't the washing away of sins by Jesus sort of conditional that one should be at least *trying* to uphold God's laws and should be repenitent when one "slips up"? This is an area that has always interested me and has lead to some confusion (on my part) about the Christian view of the OT laws. Why is it ok to pick and choose which of the laws of Leviticus (just to name a book bursting at the seams with admonitions) are important? You said in your earlier post that it isn't ok to interpret them, and yet, traditional Christians have abandoned almost all of the admonitions listed there except for a few (usually the ones that don't apply to *them*!) that they will then loudly cry to others from the tallest tower. Your answer, if I'm following it (and please correct me if I'm not) is that Christians don't even need to try to follow them because the sacrifice of Jesus absolves them of those sins (assuming they have accepted Jesus as their Savior). So for a homosexual, are they also unbound from the admonition against homosexuality in the OT (or anywhere in the Bible, for that matter), as long as they have accepted Jesus? To address one other point of your argument: if homosexuality is strictly a construct of man, why is it found among the lower animals as well? And to Ed, all that interesting list of creditials does for me is wonder even more how such a learned and accomplished law professor can write such a load of tripe.

John-in-KC, while I agree with the spirit of the second part of your post, there is something in the first part that I must question: "I find it interesting that we men can decide to change the standard God set "on the fly." Yes, there are pieces of Scripture open to some interpretation. The Law as presented in the Pentateuch isn't one of those pieces." So then why don't Christians keep kosher?

Barry says: "I dont think I implied Christian anywhere. In fact, the three major religions traditionally look at homosexuality as sin." Actually, I said Biblical. And, since all three JCI traditions are Biblically based (since the Torah and Qur'an draw from the OT, also), then it is not surprising that those who choose to interpret the Bible a certain way can be found in all three religions. However, Bible/Torah scholars/theologians in both Judaism and Christianity have always disagreed over those interpretations, and those that reject that interpretation are gaining more and more support. I can't speak to Islam because I don't really have any personal experience with that religion. *You* may not have implied Christian, but Christians are most definitely the ones leading the charge in this country against gays. I also find your view of the APA interesting, especially that "A very large portion of the group are openly gay, so Im told." Well, I believe you've been told wrong. As a member of the APA, it is my experience that the percentage of my colleagues who are gay is not any higher than the percentage of the general population. It is true that the APA did not always view homosexuality as a normal state (officially only since 1973; 33 years is "overnight"?). Out of ignorance, before research was done, it was viewed as a mental illness. But then again, at one time, so was left-handedness. As far as them being "only a group of adults with different opinions and agendas like all associations", yes they are. But their recommendations (such as this) are based on research and data, not on opinions and agendas. I understand that letting scientific data override religious fanaticism is not a popular stance in these days, but I'll take data over doctrine anytime. I can't say that the APA had an influence on my views of gays at all. My view of the normalcy of homosexuality formed when I was quite young, and is probably a reason I was drawn to this area of psychology, not the other way around. I am ashamed to say that there are still people practicing psychology/psychiatry (I will not call them colleagues) who let their personal bias against homosexuality (based on religion or whatever) override their dedication to the profession and to their patients by continuing to treat it as a mental illness. Such individuals usually end up losing their right to practice when their unprofessional behavior is revealed. The APA, while not politically driven, is certainly politically active when politics eskews scientific evidence in an attempt to set policy. Just yesterday, the APA put out an action alert to urge members to oppose the federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Actually, I never really thought of the Whittlin' Chit/Chip (and other Chit/Chip patches) as a flap patch, because it's a different size. It's too tall to fit on a shirt flap. But these Chuck Wagon Derby patches are the exact same size as the OA patches (and the OAA patch).

Hunt, And yet, the BSA has allowed COs to be churches that don't believe in any god (Scientology) and that don't allow women to hold leadership positions (LDS). But has banned churches that would allow gays and atheists to join (UU). And it has only been since 1974 that LDS troops have officially discontinued the practice of denying leadership positions to black scouts. But I guess it's all about who is willing to pay the big bucks.

Barry says: "Marriage is really just a religious thing. The only reason gays want the Government to define marriage is so their behavior is to it as moral." So I guess the 1049 or so benefits available to married couples that are not available to couples who have a civil union have nothing to do with it? So I guess these federal benefits not available in civil unions are irrelevant and unimportant: Access to Military Stores Assumption of Spouses Pension Bereavement Leave Immigration Insurance Breaks Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Sick Leave to Care for Partner Social Security Survivor Benefits Sick Leave to Care for Partner Tax Breaks Veterans Discounts Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison And those don't even begin to cover the additional benefits available at the state level.

Barry says: " That way over time real religious moral folks over time will come to except the gay beheavior as normal." Excuse me, but I am a real religious, moral folk who already accepts gay "behavior" as normal. So, in fact, does the American Psychiatric Association, so you are going to be hard pressed to define it as "abnormal" in any sense other than a Biblical one (and a Biblical interpretation considered faulty by the many Christian denominations and theologians, at that). But I guess I don't count, since I'm not a Christian, and therefore can't really be religious or moral. This article is an editorial opinion piece. As such, I don't expect it to be filled with facts. However, as such, I do find it to be a load of tripe. I'm a bit surprised a law professor can't understand the difference between "punishment" and "consequences of the law".