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

[Eagledad]

So you don't know of One either.

 

Barry

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well Barry, if you really want to act as if you're a total moron, Saudi Arabia recognizes polygyny.

 

Polygyny, since I'll assume you are still acting as a total moron, is a husband and one or more wives.

 

And, since I'll still assume you're still acting as a total moron, a husband and one or more wives is "other than a man and wife," which is exactly what you asked for.

 

And I can easily name more countries, now and in the past.

[moosetracker]

I don't think legalized marriage between a man and multi-women is the same as marriage between a man and a women.

 

This is just surfing the net, but it seems that Same-sex Marriages have been in other cultures in the past Greece and Rome.. and in the current Culture, it should be no surprise that the US, is not the leader of the pack with it's acceptance..

 

Since 2001, ten countries and other nation-states have begun to legally formalize same-sex marriages, including Argentina, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, Mexico City, Spain, South Africa (and use parts of the US)..

[skeptic]

That's good M; cannot actually respond to the real intent of his question, so twist it to suit yourself. We all know exactly what he was asking; still is male and female, not same gender, whether one or many. Since you are atheist anyway, why would you not want a specific separation of civil and religious marriage? And, since the last couple hundred years have seen government recognize religious marriage, what is so important that the civil contract retain that verbal distinction?

 

Will be interesting to hear your manipulations on this. Have fun. Try not to sputter electronically.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

skeptic babbles:

We all know exactly what he was asking; still is male and female, not same gender, whether one or many

 

What? He certainly neglected to ASK it that way: "I'm courious, does anyone know any other country now or in history where marriage was anything other than a man and wife?"

 

"Wife" is singular.

 

And by the way, a number of countries have legalized same-sex marriage since 2001. And yes, that's marriage and not just civil unions or something other than marriage.

 

Since you are atheist anyway, why would you not want a specific separation of civil and religious marriage?

 

Well, since you're making an invalid assumption with your question, I can't answer it. I've been arguing that religion doesn't own the term "marriage" so there's no reason for civil marriages to start using a different term and somehow only allow religions to use the term "marriage." If some religions want to use a different term, try "holy matrimony;" civil marriage in the US wouldn't use that term, feel free to use it.

[moosetracker]

Beavah - I had to look back to see if it was you or if I had you confused with someone else. Nope it was you who was looking for a gay union (or union between someone and a zebra if they wished) but they got no priviledges alloted that of a married couple .. Back in february first or second you posted the following:

 

 

And why would the weddings be so abhorrent to service

 

Because marriage as it is viewed here in da U.S. and the rest of the western world is historically and fundamentally a religious act. A full-out sacrament for some, a deep biblical religious commitment for others.

 

So "gay marriage" is viewed quite simply as a deliberate sacrilege by folks who come from that tradition. Or at least a bit like someone who has never served in da military puttin' on a uniform and pretending to be a veteran.

 

If we feel we need to provide for other forms of life partnership, it would be more respecting of diversity and each others' values if we simply separated the state from the marriage business, eh? Marriage is somethin' certain religious sects do, the state has no business in it. Just let adults who are able to contract set up any partnership arrangements they'd like through their attorneys. Arranged partnerships, 4-way partnerships, Hollywood-style partnerships that expire in 2 months with no obligation. Whatever. Dismantle all the rest. No tax privilege, no immigration benefit, completely rework most of probate.

 

If yeh want, yeh can work it like a treaty, eh? Have a signing ceremony with your lawyers and a notary public there.

 

Then it would be easy, eh? Nobody should be compelled to attend someone else's religious ceremony. But if yeh just want a party catered for a contract signing, sure, why not?

 

B

 

 

But your weird proposal was what got me to thinking with a slight slant, it was workable.. This was the first time, I proposed the following:

 

 

So if Marriage is somethin' certain religious sects do, and we removed the state from it, there isn't any problem with religions that are fine with homosexual unions still performing the ceremony. Right? I mean it is now up to the religion and their beliefs to if they will perform the union or not. Right? Remember ALL religions are not in agreement on this issue.

 

Also I think you have it backwards. If we remove the state from marriage, and give them some other union to perform, then anyone who is in a union preformed by the state should get employee benefits for that union, tax privilege, immigration benefits etc.. Those in a religious marriage should get not state or government benefits for that union.

 

 

 

But it seems now that we are both in agreement that this is a good idea.. So WOW.. Beavah you & I are in agreement on something dealing with religion ideology..

 

[packsaddle]

BS-87, Joebob, me, scoutingagain, Beavah, Merlyn, Moosetracker...the connection is growing!

I see a beautiful harmony forming.

[Beavah]

Da problem, moosetracker, is with your ability to read my furry accent.

 

I was statin' exactly the same thing I'm statin' now. Dismantle all of the state's laws and privileges granted to "marriage". Eliminate the whole thing for everybody. No special probate treatment, no special immigration rules, no tax privilege for anyone. Just the right to contract and form partnerships of whatever sort yeh want. The state no longer recognizes marriage in any form, and accords it no privilege or protection under the law.

 

And Merlyn, I don't even care if yeh want to write "Marriage" on the top of your private partnership agreement, as long as the state doesn't recognize the term. Because the state recognizing any union between any two people as "marriage" is a state endorsement of the UUA religion over other religions that only recognize marriage between a man and a woman, or over polygamist Islam recognizing marriage as multi-partner. No state endorsement of any religious perspective, eh? So the state must not endorse anything as being "marriage."

 

Gay couples can call themselves purple or they can call themselves married, but they do not get the imprimatur of the state for their lifestyle choice.

 

If any state subsidy or tax preference is appropriate, it should be accorded based on the legitimate secular interests of the state in stable family environments for raisin' kids.

 

Beavah

 

[Peregrinator]

I'm courious, does anyone know any other country now or in history where marriage was anything other than a man and wife?

 

Nero. But then I'm not sure that's the precedent that proponents of gay marriage would like us to have in mind.

[DLChris71]

I wouldn't mind the state not having anything to do with marriage. I don't much see how they can be removed completely from the family environment but an end to benefits based on the states certifications of relationships (except noting birth and death) would probably be beneficial.

[moosetracker]

Must have been your next post down from the one I posted that confused me.

 

 

What yeh seem to want is for the state to act like a church, eh? And one that competes with other churches (except that our donations to da Justice of the Peace Ministry aren't voluntary). Nah. If we're goin' to disentangle the state from da JudeoChristian form of marriage, let's build da real wall between church and state. The state is not permitted to interfere or subsidize one over another at all.

 

And I reckon anybody who wants to use da term "marriage" will have to pay the Orthodox Jews or the Catholics a licensing fee, eh? And meet their criteria .

 

So if yeh don't like da traditional view of marriage, come up with some new thing. Call it "blingering" and develop a "blingering" ceremony. Have blingering festivals. Introduce your blingermate. Don't try to steal da meaning, intent, and reputation of an institution someone else built and holds sacred.

 

 

 

Sounded like you were securing Marriage to be the property of Catholics and Orthodox Jews.. But to get a patent on the term Marriage, would mean to get Government involved. Sounds like Merlyn and others would be able to prove your religions did not invent the idea though, so it would be tough to prove you rights to the patent.

 

Well anyway, doesn't matter.. Seems like over time you have "evolved".. And that's a good thing. We may all be in harmony on this issue one day after all.

[packsaddle]

Strictly speaking, evolution occurs at the population level, not the individual or species level. Beavah just changes his mind.

 

Think of the possibilities. All the different flavors create their own protocols and ceremonies, much as today. But now, unfettered by legal entanglements, they begin to compete (now that the 'state' no longer issues licenses) for 'business'. Think of the incentives (money back guarantee!), the price wars (BOGO), the 'bait and switch schemes', the fraud, the legal suits across faiths...why religion could take on the same characteristics as businesses, but completely unregulated and unfettered.

I am reminded of the time when I 'discovered' by accident, this new television program in which a mealy-mouthed charlatan was 'selling' salvation. It was called PTL Club. For those of you who are a bit skeptical, Google Jim and Tammy Bakker, 'Jim and Tammy' are all that are needed.

Anyway, they had a great business model. PTL supposedly meant, "People That Love" (Jim expanded on this particular concept during a lurid saga with a member of the truly faithful). The locals who caught on to the scam referred to it as "Pass The Loot".

But when I discovered this, I knew nothing about it. What I saw was the model for what we're proposing. Just call the 800 number on the TV screen. For a very modest sum, an operator would be glad to arrange for salvation over the phone.

I'm not making this up.

You CAN'T make this stuff up.

Moreover, I learned that there are 'levels' of salvation, all of which, of course, have their associated price tags.

Martin Luther, you didn't know ANYTHING!!!

 

So this is the world that we are advocating. It's one that's an indispensable part of our religious world as is and we're advocating unleashing its full market potential. I'm telling you like I was told at the beginning of one of my jobs long ago, we're going to MAKE A LOT OF MONEY!

Play on!!!!

[qwazse]

It'a not so much inventing as it is co-opting. Marriage between a man and a woman served as the ideal metaphor for the novel relationship proposed for the Almighty and His people. (In this context, gender identification is significant, but that's a different thread.) Regardless, Christians reserve the right to impose their will on the rest of society. The distinction between spiritual and legal is, in some cases, specious. This may be one of those cases.

 

For my part, all marriages should be gay. I've seen some folks in dismal ones. Is it really that hard to dig up a little joy every day for one other person?

[packsaddle]

"Christians reserve the right to impose their will on the rest of society."

No, no, no...THAT is the way it is TODAY!

But under the new matrimonial order, every flavor there is will be free to impose its will ONLY on its own followers, see? And followers being the fickle things that they are, will decide of their OWN free will whether or not they want to knuckle under.

This really IS going to bring the marketplace to faith. You're simply not envisioning the profit potential here.

[moosetracker]

Christians reserve the right to impose their will on the rest of society

 

Really? Who made us King/Queen? Has anyone told Isreal that yet?.. How about all the countries where the majority follow the Islamic faith? I am told that if you are Christian in those societies, you are treated as second class citizens or worse.

 

I was of the belief that our government was to be religious neutral.. And why is it that some Athiests have won some of their court battles here in the US that when what they wanted got Christians very angry?..

 

Packsaddle - Each individual Religion would get the right to define Marriage per their beliefs.. But, Marriage will just be a religious ritual, same as a Baptism or Confirmation is..

So if you get too pricy, many will just opt for the Government contract that gives them the entitles them to the legal benifits Marriage use to have but does no more, and skip the Religious blessing for the union.

I really thing you seeing getting $$$ over something, that will really be no more attractive then it is now, and to some (like atheists, agnostics), will have absolutely no attraction.

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)