About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

Exactly. There's no point in restricting what is impossible anyway, such
as
same-sex marriage.

Can you explain how this "impossibility" is occurring now in Canada and
several other nations?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
The BSA does not throw out kids who are homosexuals. The policy applies to
adult leaders only.

That's just false, CJ. The BSA does not have a policy of waiting until a
boy scout reaches majority age before expelling him for being openly gay.
Can you cite any statement of Scout policy (or any other evidence) to
support your claim?

In Dale v. BSA, the Scouts argued that the exclusion of gay members is
fundamental to their organizational purpose. In support of that argument,
the BSA took the position that their requirement of being "morally straight"
is inherently incompatible with being openly gay (or atheist). The
requirement to be "morally straight" applies to all Scouts, not just adult
leaders; so if "moral straightness" is construed to preclude being openly
gay, then gay children too are thereby deemed unfit for Scouting.

In an earlier thread here, at least one adult Scout leader acknowledged that
he would not refrain, merely because a scout is still a child, from
expelling that scout for being openly gay. He did say that his personal
inclination would be to try to find loopholes in the policy so as to avoid
or delay the child's expulsion. But one could look for loopholes with
regard to adult leaders, too, if one were personally so inclined--that
doesn't change what the policy is.

Keep in mind, too, that the BSA insists that its exclusion of people who are
openly gay is *required policy* for individual troops. It may be that many
troops covertly defy this policy, but those who do so openly are subject to
decertification. Just this month, a troop in Sebastopol, California lost
its BSA charter because the troop had an official nondiscrimination policy
with regard to sexual orientation and belief about religion.

Here is an anecdote ( http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/cases/hill/ )
about Matt Hill, a 14-year-old scout in North Carolina expelled in December,
2000 for being gay after he helped found a gay-straight alliance at his high
school. "I have tried to join [another] unit at a pretty liberal minded
Presbyterian church but the leader for the troop said that because of the
BSA policy they couldn't do it. They did not want to lose their charter with
the BSA."

--Gary

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:TpJ0b.207367$YN5.143841@sccrnsc01...

Can you explain how this "impossibility" is occurring now in Canada and
several other nations?


It isn't.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:TpJ0b.207367$YN5.143841@sccrnsc01...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
Exactly. There's no point in restricting what is impossible anyway,
such
as same-sex marriage.

Can you explain how this "impossibility" is occurring now in Canada and
several other nations?


It isn't.

When the Canadian government lawfully issues what it calls a "marriage
license", you don't think that constitutes a marriage? Why not?

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:A0K0b.208559$uu5.36901@sccrnsc04...

When the Canadian government lawfully issues what it calls a "marriage
license", you don't think that constitutes a marriage? Why not?


The Canadian government can call a desk an elephant if it chooses to do so,
but that doesn't make it so, it just makes the Canadian government appear
stupid.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:A0K0b.208559$uu5.36901@sccrnsc04...

When the Canadian government lawfully issues what it calls a "marriage
license", you don't think that constitutes a marriage? Why not?


The Canadian government can call a desk an elephant if it chooses to do
so,
but that doesn't make it so

If the meaning of the word "marriage" is not set by statute and by various
people's actual uses of the term, then what *does* determine the meaning of
the word? Dictionaries? Surely you understand that a dictionary merely
codifies actual usage, and as a growing number of jurisdictions issue
marriage licenses without regard to gender, dictionaries will soon amend
their definitions accordingly. The meanings of words constantly evolve; if
not, the English language wouldn't even exist.

In some times and places, the word "marriage" referred only to unions
sanctioned by the Catholic Church. The meaning of the word has changed, and
is changing again.

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:wsK0b.207750$YN5.144004@sccrnsc01...

If the meaning of the word "marriage" is not set by statute and by various
people's actual uses of the term, then what *does* determine the meaning
of
the word? Dictionaries? Surely you understand that a dictionary merely
codifies actual usage, and as a growing number of jurisdictions issue
marriage licenses without regard to gender, dictionaries will soon amend
their definitions accordingly. The meanings of words constantly evolve;
if
not, the English language wouldn't even exist.

In some times and places, the word "marriage" referred only to unions
sanctioned by the Catholic Church. The meaning of the word has changed,
and
is changing again.


Surely you understand that since only a very small minority will ever
consider same-sex unions to be "marriage" in any sense "marriage" will
continue to be defined as it has been for centuries.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
Surely you understand that since only a very small minority will ever
consider same-sex unions to be "marriage" in any sense "marriage" will
continue to be defined as it has been for centuries.

No, my expectation is that within a year or two, dictionaries will amend the
definition of "marriage" to include same-gender unions; and within a
generation or two, the notion of mixed-gender-only marriage will be viewed
by most people in democracies the same way the notion of same-race-only
marriage is now viewed by most people in democracies, namely as a shameful
anachronism.

But these are empirical predictions, so we'll just have to see.

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:LLK0b.208842$uu5.37894@sccrnsc04...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
Surely you understand that since only a very small minority will ever
consider same-sex unions to be "marriage" in any sense "marriage" will
continue to be defined as it has been for centuries.

By the way, according to a recent poll (
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in565918.shtml ),
40% of the US population favors gay marriage rights; among
18-to-29-year-olds, 61% are in favor. So unless those percentages are what
you consider "a very small minority", the fact is that we have *already*
reached a point that you just predicted we would *never* reach.

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:FXK0b.207807$Ho3.27724@sccrnsc03...

By the way, according to a recent poll (

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in565918.shtml ),
40% of the US population favors gay marriage rights; among
18-to-29-year-olds, 61% are in favor. So unless those percentages are
what
you consider "a very small minority", the fact is that we have *already*
reached a point that you just predicted we would *never* reach.


I see the poll doesn't provide the questions asked.