Boy Scouts Of America Compromise?

[rockpond]

That's baloney. They were put into place to take the place of a Banns. Which were originally to determine that the couple met all the appropriate social and legal conditions to get married.

Its not to "prevent Caucasians from entering into interracial marriages" which in Southern Europe especially would occur from time to time, despite there being licenses. And even in the US -- which I am sure you are thinking of -- it was not to prevent Caucasians from entering into interracial marriages but to make sure the laws were followed.

It may happen that in some places those laws existed, but the licenses did not exist for that reason in particular.

So you are suggesting that those who came over from England & Wales (where Banns were used) decided to issue marriage licenses instead? So then, if I'm following you, marriage licenses in the States were kinda for a similar purpose of public notification and prevention of forced or bigamous marriages? Or marriages to people of ill refute?

[Stone holm]

Getting back to the actual topic. The Deseret News has posted that the LDS Church has now officially announced that it is satisfied with the new compromise. The Salt Lake Council, however, has said that it will meet to determine its position. So we get to see if the Salt Lake Council will once again try to derail a compromise. If they do, it will be interesting to see if the media discerns the difference between the Church and Salt Lake City.

[CASteinman]

So you are suggesting that those who came over from England & Wales (where Banns were used) decided to issue marriage licenses instead? So then, if I'm following you, marriage licenses in the States were kinda for a similar purpose of public notification and prevention of forced or bigamous marriages? Or marriages to people of ill refute?

In the States, most of the Governors came over without regard to Churches and did not have a connection with the Churches. So, while in Europe there was a mix of Banns and Licenses, in the US, very early, licenses became standardized. (You could say that the trip across the ocean was disruptive of the relationship between Church and State). Despite that some Churches also still issued Banns but this became rather rare. The Licenses were based upon the laws set forth by the Governor and the Colonial Administration. Big deals were; Legal Age, Consent, and Bigamy. I believe that in some cases serious crimes and various vagrancy problems were also an issue in pre-Constitution America. Surprisingly, this does not (as far as I can tell) result in lots of common law marriages. Most people seem to have wed "officially". Meanwhile in England -- up to about the time of the Revolution, sometimes people would do squirly things to get around some of the license laws. Colonialists seem to have taken things seriously -- even though other crime was not an insignificant problem. I have never personally encountered a case where a marriage was denied based on "ill repute" but also, I might not know. I suspect the records would be long gone -- because they would not have been preserved like an actual marriage record. I do know of one instance where I believe that a family was broken up -- the children farmed out to other families and the wife "put" with another family because the father had along with "a negro" robbed a "Wm Ball's" house. He died a few weeks later. Family Tradition says it was due to a fall from a horse. I suspect he did fall from a horse but not all the way to the ground. It was an event that destroyed the family for generations. My point is -- I think he probably would have been prevented from being married if he had been single as, being married, his family was torn up after he did this.

Edited April 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Getting back to the actual topic. The Deseret News has posted that the LDS Church has now officially announced that it is satisfied with the new compromise. The Salt Lake Council, however, has said that it will meet to determine its position. So we get to see if the Salt Lake Council will once again try to derail a compromise. If they do, it will be interesting to see if the media discerns the difference between the Church and Salt Lake City.

Its a strange and unfortunate world where so many other entities must weigh in.

[Stone holm]

Its a strange and unfortunate world where so many other entities must weigh in.

Well it is the largest Council in the U.S. so I guess it rightly thinks it should have a lot of say. The question is will it take the hint from the Church and back off, or will it kick up a fuss. I have heard from some Canadian Scouters who are scratching their heads trying to figure out why we are making such a big fuss down here. They indicate that any private organization up there which discriminated like that would achieve pariah status in short order.

[CASteinman]

Well it is the largest Council in the U.S. so I guess it rightly thinks it should have a lot of say. The question is will it take the hint from the Church and back off, or will it kick up a fuss. I have heard from some Canadian Scouters who are scratching their heads trying to figure out why we are making such a big fuss down here. They indicate that any private organization up there which discriminated like that would achieve pariah status in short order.

Oh. I thought you meant CITY Council.

I don't think pariah status should be a concern. Especially from the Canadians who are essentially the Balkan States of Scouting.

Edited April 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[wenglund]

Well, among what I have read (including some, but not all of what you linked above) it seems that marriage licenses were issued for the purpose of preventing Caucasians from entering into interracial marriages, incest, and bigamy/polygamy,

That is an interesting perspective. I appreciate you responding to my question. I wont ask for documentation,

However, while that may not be why the U.S. government and the respective state initially got involved in marriages, nor is it why those governments have continued to be involved, there is no doubt that laws, for a time and in certain places, were enacted to prevent those things. But, why would the government, itself, want to prevent those things? Why would the government care whether incestuous relationships were legally married, or prevented from legally marrying, or not? What problems would such relationship pose to the government that the government would have reason to get involved?

The purpose in my asking is, I believe if you dig down beneath the surface, and even beyond plausible religious influence on such laws, you will discover that it eventually boils down to the reasons I have repeatedly suggested. We'll see.

There is also some indication that they were put in place to deal with property rights.

How and why would marital property rights be an issue for the government? Perhaps, in answering that question, you may come to see what I have been saying all along. Again, we will see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

However, while that may not be why the U.S. government and the respective state initially got involved in marriages, nor is it why those governments have continued to be involved, there is no doubt that laws, for a time and in certain places, were enacted to prevent those things. But, why would the government, itself, want to prevent those things? Why would the government care whether incestuous relationships were legally married, or prevented from legally marrying, or not? What problems would such relationship pose to the government that the government would have reason to get involved?

As someone with a mostly libertarian political view, I see most of those reasons as government overreach. But, to answer your questions...

Miscegenation - I honestly don't see a reason here other than misguided religious beliefs, white supremacist arguments, or basic biological misunderstanding.

Incest - On this one, I imagine the government was trying to prevent unhealthy (or worse) births.

Bigamy/Polygamy - Again, I see this one as either a religious belief about what marriage is or just a personal moral belief that these types of marriages are wrong.

The purpose in my asking is, I believe if you dig down beneath the surface, and even beyond plausible religious influence on such laws, you will discover that it eventually boils down to the reasons I have repeatedly suggested. We'll see.

Could be, but I'm not sure that there is something beneath the surface of the religious influence. We tend to hold tightly to our religious beliefs and don't always need other reasons.

How and why would marital property rights be an issue for the government? Perhaps, in answering that question, you may come to see what I have been saying all along. Again, we will see.

This is an area in which I don't have a lot of knowledge but my understanding is that single women couldn't own property at one time here in the U.S. So what this put in place to allow widows to keep their property?

[CASteinman]

Miscegenation - I honestly don't see a reason here other than misguided religious beliefs, white supremacist arguments, or basic biological misunderstanding.

Let me suggest a couple of others for your consideration:

1. Tribalism -- even without any religious overtones (although that is generally dominant)

2. Dislike for other races and cultures -- without any sense of superiority.

Incest - On this one, I imagine the government was trying to prevent unhealthy (or worse) births.

Not known at the time.

Bigamy/Polygamy - Again, I see this one as either a religious belief about what marriage is or just a personal moral belief that these types of marriages are wrong.

How about other ideas? Why just two? Could it not be a socially moral belief -- not just a personal one? Or how about "That's the way its always been done before"? There are other alternatives here.

Could be, but I'm not sure that there is something beneath the surface of the religious influence. We tend to hold tightly to our religious beliefs and don't always need other reasons.

Which would also be a good reason.

This is an area in which I don't have a lot of knowledge but my understanding is that single women couldn't own property at one time here in the U.S. So what this put in place to allow widows to keep their property?

The Colonies and then the US fell under British Common Law -- which allowed women to hold property. The "widows third" was a customary legal device to ensure that though her oldest son would obtain some of the estate, she would have some means to look after herself and not be in total poverty. The overall goal of inheritance laws was to prevent land from becoming too finely divided.

Edited April 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[wenglund]

As someone with a mostly libertarian political view, I see most of those reasons as government overreach. But, to answer your questions...

Miscegenation - I honestly don't see a reason here other than misguided religious beliefs, white supremacist arguments, or basic biological misunderstanding.

Incest - On this one, I imagine the government was trying to prevent unhealthy (or worse) births.

Bigamy/Polygamy - Again, I see this one as either a religious belief about what marriage is or just a personal moral belief that these types of marriages are wrong.

Could be, but I'm not sure that there is something beneath the surface of the religious influence. We tend to hold tightly to our religious beliefs and don't always need other reasons.

This is an area in which I don't have a lot of knowledge but my understanding is that single women couldn't own property at one time here in the U.S. So what this put in place to allow widows to keep their property?

Since we are getting deeper into this than was originally intended, and since it is off-topic, I will open a separate thread to continue the discussion. The new thread is located HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Let me suggest a couple of others for your consideration:

1. Tribalism -- even without any religious overtones (although that is generally dominant)

2. Dislike for other races and cultures -- without any sense of superiority.

Not known at the time.

How about other ideas? Why just two? Could it not be a socially moral belief -- not just a personal one? Or how about "That's the way its always been done before"? There are other alternatives here.

Which would also be a good reason.

The Colonies and then the US fell under British Common Law -- which allowed women to hold property. The "widows third" was a customary legal device to ensure that though her oldest son would obtain some of the estate, she would have some means to look after herself and not be in total poverty. The overall goal of inheritance laws was to prevent land from becoming too finely divided.

Yeah, I was just throwing out a couple ideas that came to mind Definitely not an exhaustive list. I agree with your thoughts about tribalism, "the way it's always been done", and social/cultural mores.

[Stone holm]

Let me suggest a couple of others for your consideration:

1. Tribalism -- even without any religious overtones (although that is generally dominant)

2. Dislike for other races and cultures -- without any sense of superiority.

Not known at the time.

How about other ideas? Why just two? Could it not be a socially moral belief -- not just a personal one? Or how about "That's the way its always been done before"? There are other alternatives here.

Which would also be a good reason.

The Colonies and then the US fell under British Common Law -- which allowed women to hold property. The "widows third" was a customary legal device to ensure that though her oldest son would obtain some of the estate, she would have some means to look after herself and not be in total poverty. The overall goal of inheritance laws was to prevent land from becoming too finely divided.

Oh I think they figured out the incest and birth defects relatively early on, well perhaps with the exception of some Pharonic nobility.

[CASteinman]

Oh I think they figured out the incest and birth defects relatively early on

I don't think so. You don't find people being significantly concerned about it, even in barnyard fowl until the late 18th or early 19th centuries.

[Stone holm]

I don't think so. You don't find people being significantly concerned about it, even in barnyard fowl until the late 18th or early 19th centuries.

Oh I think most civilizations had figured it out, even the early Cherokee had it figured out and had developed taboos to discourage it. Obviously, it couldn't have been a big taboo at the very dawn of the human race because if we accept there only being one Adam and one Eve, well some form of incest was almost a requirement. But I think that the various religious taboos that developed did so for the obvious reason that people had figured out that certain closely related matches were going to misfire when it came to the children. I just wonder how many babies the Egyptian royals had to sacrifice in order to keep their line at least remotely functional. I did read a book on the impact of the automobile in America which suggested that if it hadn't come along that we would have had a lot more six fingered people, etc. than we do now. Even the Amish are perceptive on the issue and discourage to the extent possible pairings in their local colony -- they still have a huge percentage of birth defects compared to the rest of the population.

[CASteinman]

Oh I think most civilizations had figured it out

OK. But this is not supportable by evidence. It is a matter of faith.

[Stone holm]

OK. But this is not supportable by evidence. It is a matter of faith.

Why would you say that? The Cherokee were what we would term pagan, and most civilizations did have taboos against incest, in fact except for the pharaoh s marrying their sisters, I would suspect they had figured out the problem that is why the taboo existed.

[CASteinman]

Why would you say that? The Cherokee were what we would term pagan, and most civilizations did have taboos against incest, in fact except for the pharaoh s marrying their sisters, I would suspect they had figured out the problem that is why the taboo existed.

Taboos are not the same thing as understanding genetic problems.

Interestingly enough, by the way, sufficient inbreeding (without the benefit of modern medicine) cures itself of defects in a few generations (it appears)

Edited April 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

Taboos are not the same thing as understanding genetic problems.

Interestingly enough, by the way, sufficient inbreeding (without the benefit of modern medicine) cures itself of defects in a few generations (it appears)

You don't have to understand the genetic problems to figure out over time that inbreeding results in birth defects and to develop a taboo against it. They clearly understood that birth defects were a problem that is why small nomadic tribes had a tendency to expose children with blemishes to the elements to die. But larger groups undoubtedly figured it out. They weren't stupid. It's like they are discovering that most regional diets that evolved over time were really the best for that region and except for the western industrial diet were healthy. Did the people understand about vitamins, etc? Probably not, but overtime they still figured out these amazing diets, which dietitians are now studying in detail to figure out why they work. We have an amazing tendency to underestimate our forbears as to such things.

[CASteinman]

You don't have to understand the genetic problems to figure out over time that inbreeding results in birth defects and to develop a taboo against it. They clearly understood that birth defects were a problem that is why small nomadic tribes had a tendency to expose children with blemishes to the elements to die. But larger groups undoubtedly figured it out. They weren't stupid. It's like they are discovering that most regional diets that evolved over time were really the best for that region and except for the western industrial diet were healthy. Did the people understand about vitamins, etc? Probably not, but overtime they still figured out these amazing diets, which dietitians are now studying in detail to figure out why they work. We have an amazing tendency to underestimate our forbears as to such things.

Again, your belief that they understood that inbreeding would cause birth defects is a matter -- not of evidence -- but of faith. Note that you have not actually presented any evidence. And, to do you a favor, I went and looked for some to see if I could find any. I couldn't find anything more recent than 1850. Prior to that -- for about 50 years -- there was some debate. Then nothing.

Edited April 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

Again, your belief that they understood that inbreeding would cause birth defects is a matter -- not of evidence -- but of faith. Note that you have not actually presented any evidence. And, to do you a favor, I went and looked for some to see if I could find any. I couldn't find anything more recent than 1850. Prior to that -- for about 50 years -- there was some debate. Then nothing.

You feel that the taboos were just hit and miss random things, I think not, they developed overtime because they worked for those people.

[CASteinman]

You feel that the taboos were just hit and miss random things, I think not, they developed overtime because they worked for those people.

I think that in some cases (like this one in particular) they were preserved memories from God. After all, God ordained Marriage and as early as we can see Him involving Himself in the affairs of man -- he commands in this area and gives laws.

I think that they persist in human memory.

Edited April 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

Well He couldn't very well have issued the command against incest to Adam and Eve, nor could He have issued it for a couple generations since there had to be enough population to allow them not to indulge in procreation. Yes, it may have been a religious memory -- but I would go with people not being stupid, the ancients figured out a lot of stuff. Unfortunately, early Christians burned the library at Alexandria otherwise we might know even more about what they had figured out. If the Ancient Greeks could figure out the world was round and make a roughly correct estimate of its circumference, I think that humankind could figure out if you mated with your sister chances were much greater that your kid would have a severe birthdefect. This isn't rocket science type observation.

[exmormonatheistofutah]

It saddens me when lds folk say that gay youth should not be a part of boy scouts because the scout oat mentions being morally straight. That term is then taken out of context in the light that according to current lds doctrine simply being gay is not a moral weakness. That is why the church allows gays to go on missions, have church callings, temple reccomends, etc. I know of lots of mormons that fit that criteria. As long as they obey the same laws of chastity that are commanded of straight couples, then their good to go in the eyes of god according to current revealed lds doctrine.

[MorningStar]

It saddens me when lds folk say that gay youth should not be a part of boy scouts because the scout oat mentions being morally straight. That term is then taken out of context in the light that according to current lds doctrine simply being gay is not a moral weakness. That is why the church allows gays to go on missions, have church callings, temple reccomends, etc. I know of lots of mormons that fit that criteria. As long as they obey the same laws of chastity that are commanded of straight couples, then their good to go in the eyes of god according to current revealed lds doctrine.

I also don't think "morally straight" means heterosexual, but then I still think it's a problem to have kids sleeping in a tent together if they are attracted to the other. We wouldn't have girls and boys sleep in tents together, so why homosexual boys?

[rockpond]

I also don't think "morally straight" means heterosexual, but then I still think it's a problem to have kids sleeping in a tent together if they are attracted to the other. We wouldn't have girls and boys sleep in tents together, so why homosexual boys?

Yep -- I think that the Scout Oath (with it's "morally straight" promise) has been around a lot longer than "straight" has been a euphemism for heterosexual.

As for gay and straight scouts sharing tents... statistically it's been happening in nearly every troop since the BSA began, whether we knew about it or not. And it'll continue that way except that now it's possible for more scouts to be open about it.