A fussing and a fighting.

[Oak Tree]

vol_scouter - good catch. I know what I was thinking - that all of the times that voters have struck down a gay marriage law, they were overturning a court or a legislature, never reversing themselves. That, in fact, is true, but as you point out, that's because voters have not explicitly approved gay marriage in any state yet. So that may not be the strongest point for me to make :-)

 

Voters in Washington did approve an "all-but-marriage" law, which grants all the rights of marriage except for the use of the word "marriage".

 

I'll stick to my point, though, that once gay marriage is around for awhile and people see it doesn't affect them, I think they'll start to accept it as a fact of life.

 

In California, a poll showed majority support among those under 50 years of age, with 68 percent of 18 to 29 year olds supporting it. Among those 65 or older, support drops to 36 percent [wikipedia]. With support like that, is there any doubt that voters will approve it eventually? I actually think that the reason it didn't pass last time around in California was because California changed the marriage license form to "Party A" and "Party B" and refused to accept it when a hetero couple wrote in "Bride" and "Groom" (can't alter state forms, you know.) So in this case, gay marriage actually did hurt straight marriage, just a little, but it was enough to make people angry.

[packsaddle]

I think Oak Tree is right about this. Think back: all the medical or genetic things that were opposed on 'moral and religious' grounds - transplants, interracial transplants, xenotransplants, transfusions, tissue culture, cloning, genetic engineering, etc., etc. Many of these are simply taken for granted now. I remember a very short while ago the religious arguments for the immorality of interracial dating or marriage. Today these couples stroll casually in places where a couple of decades ago, they would have risked their well-being. A little longer back and the state attempted to deny me the right to vote on religious grounds. That one went down very quickly.

 

I think that it is possibly because of these obvious shifts that there will remain resistance to changes in official policy and rejection of personal freedom in favor of strong central authority.

I think that church leaders understand that if the policy changed, the changes would be quickly accepted and without much effect to their chartered units. BUT, one thing would change for sure. They would no longer have a stranglehold on the organization in which they can dictate the terms to the rest of us. To me this is also a control issue and the successes of other social changes provide even greater incentive for our current masters to resist even more strongly the attempts to gain our freedom from them.

Our masters who currently dictate terms from their central authority understand that such changes will cause them to release some of their power.

But the greater they tighten their fist around us, the more of us will slip through their fingers by applying 'local option' in practice. Thing is, by maintaining their effective 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, the central authority accepts this practical and inevitable reality. In time the practical reality will take hold.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[GernBlansten]

The reason you don't see pro-gay marriage voter referendum's is that they are not necessary since the original state constitutions don't specifically ban them. Its the anti-gay marriage folks who must float these measures to alter their constitutions to block such unions.

[BklynEagle]

BadenP

 

I would hardly consider Wikipedia to be a credible source for an academic discussion. Frankly, with the exception of their articles on the episodes of the varied "Star Trek" shows, I don't hold much stock in the analytical capabilities of most Wikipedia contributers, as anybody with a keyboard and an Internet connection can edit the thing. Regardless, NJCubScouter has already exposed the flaw in that reference. As far as your conviction about Benedict restoring the Latin Mass, I frankly don't know where you get your information; I have heard nothing of the sort. In any event, it would be difficult to implement, as so many priests no longer know Latin; Here in Brooklyn, the local Seminary (which is actually out in Long Island) stopped with the Latin lessons right after Vatican II. As such, you have a Diocese with roughly 40 years worth of priests who wouldn't know what to do if what you say is true. (And don't kid yourself, the old priests largely forgot their Latin 40 years ago too)

 

Look, it's obvious that nothing you or I say to one another is going to change each other's mind; You're an obviously intelligent justifiably angry ex-Catholic, I'm a fairly bright theological stick-in-the-mud active Catholic. On this issue, we're obviously not going to agree. I propose, then, that among ourselves we come up with a bit of ecumenical good-will and let this matter drop. Let us instead turn to the topic which unites us all: Scouting.

 

Yours in the aformentioned,

 

BklynEagle

[BadenP]

WELL BKLYN

 

There are plenty of other sites available, just type in Latin Mass or The Good Friday Prayer for the Jews and you will be amazed at your choices. If your Latin or Italian is good you can go to the Vatican website itself, some of the information is in English but most is in Italian or Latin. What I said about the Latin mass is very true and you will see the gradual transition beginning in 2010. Many archdioceses, including the one in my area, are currently giving their priests a crash course in liturgical Latin that will allow them to at least be competent enough to say the latin mass once again. So Pax Domini to you and enjoy the changes that are already underway. Fini.

[Horizon]

Today's Los Angeles Times has a opinion piece from an Eagle (1971 vintage):

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-fleming30-2009dec30,0,4659963.story

 

"Scouting lost me too. I don't find being gay inconsistent with being morally straight. But I find discrimination inconsistent with Scouting's principles of kindness and tolerance. They are values I learned around the Boy Scout campfire and taught my children when I became a father."

 

skeptic: I think that you would be wrong on your assumption about the behaviors of those who find anti-gay policies to be discriminatory. I am a Scoutmaster who wants local control by the Charter Org on defining Morally Straight in regards to homosexuality. I openly meet with gays and lesbians. Two were at my home for Thanksgiving. I was honored to be with another two when their adopted son was baptized. My son is going skiing with a group of youth, and one of the adult leaders on the trip is a gay male. My greatest concern? My son hot dogging on the slopes and getting hurt.

[packsaddle]

Again I am reminded of the statement by The Scout, "the purpose of religion is not to bring people together."

[boomerscout]

someone proposed the school system (specifically NYC) becoming the CO. That cannot happen because of anti-discrimination laws regarding public institutions.

Most of us realize teens are curious about, and experiment with, lots of things as they transition from child to adult. They have questions about sexuality, about authority, about drinking...Mom & Dad may worry about little Billy being "experimented" on after lights out and the tent flaps are closed. And, little Billy may be too afraid to ever say anything about it.

Sleeping out under the stars may solve the problem -- except in bear country. One man tents have been suggested, but not to popular acclaim. It has been suggested that gay Scouts have not caused any problems in Europe. Good! Do Euro Scouts use two man tents? The supply catalogues I've looked at show Scout tents sleeping six to eight, with smaller tents sleeping four to five. Hell on backpacking, but safety in numbers??

[HiLo]

Yes. Safety in numbers. Whatever your mix is, boys, gays, girls, if there's six or eight in a tent, it's pretty unlikely that any two will play up.

 

But where I come from it's horses for course. Big tents for fixed camps, and small tents for two or three, rarely one, for hiking. By choice girls always tent together. Since we don't pry nor make them wear labels, I don't know where the gays sleep..