Court rulings on marriage

[SeattlePioneer]

Federal Courts are now deciding that homosexuals get special rights to marriage that very few other social relationships enjoy. So homosexuality rules these days.

 

Despite that, of course, liberals don't want BSA to be a source of DIVERSITY by excluding homosexuals.

 

Generally speaking, I find that liberals are opposed to diversity if it differs in some way from their own bright ideas and social theories.

 

 

[Cambridgeskip]

Perhaps I haven't followed US legal ranglings, but precisely what rights are homosexuals being granted that other "social groups" are not? I'm somewhat confused.

[LeCastor]

Federal Courts are now deciding that homosexuals get special rights to marriage that very few other social relationships enjoy. So homosexuality rules these days. Despite that' date=' of course, liberals don't want BSA to be a source of DIVERSITY by excluding homosexuals. Generally speaking, I find that liberals are opposed to diversity if it differs in some way from their own bright ideas and social theories. [/quote'] What exactly are you arguing here? I'm afraid I don't follow you? Quo vadis?

[NJCubScouter]

Federal Courts are now deciding that homosexuals get special rights to marriage that very few other social relationships enjoy. So homosexuality rules these days.

 

I don't understand what this means either. Gay people are, gradually, getting the right to marry, which is no more than the rights the rest of us have had forever. How is that "special rights"?

 

[Stosh]

When the courts ruled that marriage is no longer between one man and one woman, yes, they opened it up to homosexuals, but Pandora's box is now open on polygamy as well and that has more religious support amongst Christians, Jews and Muslims than one might expect. Leave it up to a knee-jerk reaction to really mess things up. But let's remember who was promoting the change.

 

Stosh

[NJCubScouter]

When the courts ruled that marriage is no longer between one man and one woman' date=' yes, they opened it up to homosexuals, but Pandora's box is now open on polygamy as well,,,[/quote']

 

I don't see any evidence that legalization of polygamy is any more likely now than it ever was. Nor would it be logical for anyone to argue that once all couples (two people) can get married, it should be opened up to more than two people. I'll bet you a dollar (figuratively speaking) that if we come back here in 20 years, there will still be no states with polygamy legal. And by the way, "Pandora's box" is a myth.

 

 

Leave it up to a knee-jerk reaction to really mess things up.

 

What knee-jerk reaction? The movement for marriage equality has been going on for about 25 years, it's not a new thing nor did it achieve immediate success. Now it has achieved some success, but still not completely. And what has been "messed up"?

 

But let's remember who was promoting the change.

 

Who are you referring to?

 

[CalicoPenn]

Seems to me that the only other social group that got that special right to marriage was straight people. It must be painful to have lost that special right you enjoyed now that it is an equal right.

[st0ut717]

Federal Courts are now deciding that homosexuals get special rights to marriage that very few other social relationships enjoy. So homosexuality rules these days.

 

Can you site a "special right" that a homosexual has over anyone else?

 

 

Despite that, of course, liberals don't want BSA to be a source of DIVERSITY by excluding homosexuals.

 

How is excluding those that you disagree with diversity?

 

 

Generally speaking, I find that liberals are opposed to diversity if it differs in some way from their own bright ideas and social theories.

 

You have seem to have a very broad brush as to what a liberal is. from what i read from you it is anyone who disagrees with your point of view.

 

The Boy scouts is not a place for you to indoctrinate political views on our boys. Our job as scouters is to give them the knowledge to make educated decisions on their chosen political stance. and the courage to stand on those choices.

 

I fail to see how being for LBGT couples marrying is a liberal stance. In my point of a view a person that wants the government so powerful that it can see into the intimate lives of adults in the bedroom is a far reach of governmental power. Iran and russia come to mind when i think of anti-gay police forces. Perhaps you think we should have a more theologic poltical system where the beleifs of one faith rule the government. that is called Iran.

 

I find you are quite liberal in the use of govt to oversee and regulate what relationships are and will be permitted. that is the exact oppisite of a conservitve small government.

 

another question. ted and Paul get married and move next door to you. How does that impact you in the slightest?

 

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that homosexuality is not acceptable in at least three of the main religions of the world, Muslim, Judaism, and Christianity, and yet it is through non-religious measures allowed. I think Christianity sums it up pretty well, "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar...." This is the standard civil marriage that's always been there, now open to homosexuals. However, now the government (Caesar) wants to impose religious rights to their decision. That is so totally anti Freedom of Religion it's hard to believe that the general population doesn't see it.

 

It's always surprising how humankind can always find a way to self-justify itself on just about any topic.

 

And it's unfortunate that much of the freedom this country once had is now gone. It was a fragile balance to keep it, but now the effort to preserve it has waned.

 

Stosh

[CherokeeScouter]

I'm a lifelong liberal and Democrat, yet I totally agree with statement "Generally speaking, I find that liberals are opposed to diversity if it differs in some way from their own bright ideas and social theories." The hard Left is just as bad as the hard Right. Both seem intolerant to me.

 

Just like the people always quoting Scripture are often the least Christ-like of anyone you'll meet - at least in my experience.

 

Here's the thing: I disagree totally with the church that kicked my troop out last year. They were wrong and it was very un-Christ-like, IMHO.

 

HOWEVER, they were totally within their rights to do. They have a church and in this country, they can worship as they please.

[Sentinel947]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that homosexuality is not acceptable in at least three of the main religions of the world, Muslim, Judaism, and Christianity, and yet it is through non-religious measures allowed. I think Christianity sums it up pretty well, "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar...." This is the standard civil marriage that's always been there, now open to homosexuals. However, now the government (Caesar) wants to impose religious rights to their decision. That is so totally anti Freedom of Religion it's hard to believe that the general population doesn't see it.

 

 

Stosh

 

I'm less concerned with gay marriage as a religious rights issue, and more concerned with Houston subpoenaing pastors that the city disagrees with.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

However' date=' now the government (Caesar) wants to impose religious rights to their decision. That is so totally anti Freedom of Religion it's hard to believe that the general population doesn't see it.[/quote']

 

Well, I don't see it. What are you referring to?

 

[st0ut717]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that homosexuality is not acceptable in at least three of the main religions of the world' date=' Muslim, Judaism, and Christianity, and yet it is through non-religious measures allowed. I think Christianity sums it up pretty well, "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar...." This is the standard civil marriage that's always been there, now open to homosexuals. However, now the government (Caesar) wants to impose religious rights to their decision. That is so totally anti Freedom of Religion it's hard to believe that the general population doesn't see it. It's always surprising how humankind can always find a way to self-justify itself on just about any topic. And it's unfortunate that much of the freedom this country once had is now gone. It was a fragile balance to keep it, but now the effort to preserve it has waned. Stosh[/quote'] No the state did not say chruch X must perform the ceremony. Churches and the clergy should and can determine if they will perform the marriage. All the state is saying that if a GLBT couple can find such a person or a justice of the peace or a judge. That that is a valid and league marrage. I don't see how allowing Bob and rob to marry infringes on your right or mine. Can someone explain that to me?

[NJCubScouter]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that homosexuality is not acceptable in at least three of the main religions of the world' date=' Muslim, Judaism, and Christianity, and yet it is through non-religious measures allowed.[/quote']

 

Well, in this sentence you don't specifically refer to marriage. Is that what you are talking about, or acceptance of homosexuality in general? Either way, with regard to Judaism and Christianity, I think, yes, it is a stretch. Specifically, both of those religions are divided on the subject. Reform Judaism (which has more adherents in the U.S. than any other branch of Judaism) fully accepts gay people and gay marriage. Reform Jewish rabbis are free to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, and I know they do so in states where such marriage is recognized by the civil authorities, I am not sure how it is handled elsewhere. Conservative Judaism (which actually is "moderate") is divided on the subject. Orthodox Judaism takes the "traditional" stance on homosexuality. As for Christianity, I am no expert (nor a member), but Christianity is not monolithic on the subject either. Islam, I suspect, has not changed.

 

I think Christianity sums it up pretty well' date=' "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar...."[/quote']

 

I understand (or at least I think I do) what this passage has to do with taxes. I have no idea what it has to do with same-sex marriage.

 

This is the standard civil marriage that's always been there' date=' now open to homosexuals. However, now the government (Caesar) wants to impose religious rights to their decision. That is so totally anti Freedom of Religion it's hard to believe that the general population doesn't see it.[/quote']

 

I don't understand what you are talking about. How does government recognition of someone's marriage deny anyone else freedom of religion? And how does the government "impose religious rights to their decision"? What religious rights? Whose decision?

 

And it's unfortunate that much of the freedom this country once had is now gone.

 

I don't know what you mean here either - unless the "freedom" you are talking about is the "freedom" to control other people. Some people have always tried to do that in the name of religion. If they are finding it increasingly dificult to control what other people do, that means more actual freedom, not less.

[Rick_in_CA]

 

I'm less concerned with gay marriage as a religious rights issue, and more concerned with Houston subpoenaing pastors that the city disagrees with.

 

I agree, those subpenas where serious overreach. Even the ACLU thought so (what? Liberals defending religious freedom? Gosh! That isn't supposed to happen! After all, everyone knows liberals hate both God and America!):

http://www.aclutx.org/2014/10/17/city-of-houston-subpoenas-of-sermons-statement-from-the-aclu-of-texas/

and

https://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression