Rooster7

Merlyn, I see you were finally able to deduce the obvious - yes, I meant human beings. As I've already noted numerous times before, homosexuality and other perversities including rape, incest, and pedophilia can be found in other species. But so whatthese species don't have the intellectual capability to know better - like a dog who finds your shin to be ever bit as satisfying as his mate. I agree that the nature argument does not work, when folks use frogs, spiders, and snakes (or lizards as the case may be) as analogous examples of acceptable behavior for humans. I thought I presented my arguments in such a manner that most folks could understand that point, even the ever persistent Merlyn. I never attempted to show parallels between two different specifies to support any of my opinions. However, I think the nature argument does work when one demonstrates a truth within the bounds of human biology - the same species. So if homosexuality is not learned, how is it passed on from one generation to the next. Are lesbians and gay men secretly meeting to breed future generations? The obvious truth - homosexuality is a learned behavior. If it was hereditary as some insist, the homosexual population would be dwindling down with each passing generation.

denver4und@aol.com, If you're a lawyer, you should study your Constitution morea lot more, because all they did was enforce it as written. If you have not found any Republican lawyers that agree with this decision as a matter of law, then you're looking in the wrong places. You should try stepping outside of Starbucks one day and joining the real world. KoreaScouter, That's quite a list of hypocrites that you've assembled. Regardless, when they're not aligning their quotes to slander conservative opponents, it's clear to see that most Democrats viewed Saddam Hussein as the clear threat that Bush advertised him to be. So what does that say about liberals? That's also very clear to see. They care more about positioning themselves for the next election then to do about this country

No. By a vote of 5 to 4, the Constitution was enforced as written. As was the case in the Dale decision. ;-) If Democrats didn't like the rules of a Presidential election as dictated by the Constitution, they should of complained long before their guy lost. As it was, they're complaints rang hallow and that of a sore loser.

Every nation, every generation, has had to decide whether or not their leader(s) deserved their trust. To this day, there is little evidence to judge the rightness or wrongness of those opinions. History is not only recorded by the victors, but by the specific political party in power. Furthermore, it is often revised by subsequent generations. Leaders may or may not have your best interests at heart. Only God and that particular individual truly know his or her motivation. Some argue that the heart is such a deceitful thing that many leaders may not know their own motivation...but I digress. Leaders, past and present, must make difficult decisions. In a society such as ours, where WMD do exist, the issues are very complex. I strongly suspect that there are things that we will never be privy to know. Democracy or not, sometimes we have to trust that our leaders (not just the President, but Congress and others as well) are doing the right thing - that they care about us ("the average American") and the future of our children. I realize that some have a difficult time trusting George Bush. And who can blame them when the liberal press turns every issue on its head. To hear them say it, Iraq is a miserable failure. While I hate the fact that we are losing some boys over there, I understand that freedom has a cost. If the media spent the same time reporting crime related deaths in Los Angeles and D.C., people would soon become convinced that it is not safe to walk in any city on either coast unescorted by armed guards. Thats an image that the media likes to portray every now and again when conservatives are in charge. Today, because we have a Republican President, they want to re-invent Vietnam. Iraq is not Vietnam. First, the death toll is no where near what we experienced in Vietnam. If you extrapolate the death rate in Iraq for the next ten years, we wouldnt lose one tenth of the guys that we lost in Vietnam. Second, we are not fighting a specific communist threat isolated in a relatively obscure country. We are fighting terrorists who are more than willing to spread their vision to every part of the globe. We are fighting people who want to die for their cause, who are willing to bring their cause to you, and who want to take as many innocent lives with them as they possibly can. Third, we conquered a very evil Iraqi administration that killed tens of thousand and tortured hundreds of thousands more. Even if no WMD is ever found, the victory was worth the cost. If we have a collective moral conscience, we should of felt compelled to fight this battle just as our forefathers felt compelled to fight Hitler. George W. Bush has been, and will continue to be attacked by those who embrace a liberal agenda and/or by those folks who want quick, clean, and easy to understand answers. I dont think there are very many easy answers. I for one believe that George W. Bush does have our best interests at heart. I believe his heart aches every time an American soldier is wounded or dies. I believe he is a sincere man of God who is doing his best to protect the people of this country. I am greatly saddened that so many, even if they may be a minority, think otherwise. There are no guarantees in life. In particular, with the issues that we face today, I doubt that we will ever have a President again (if we ever had one) that can stand before the public and tell all. I support our President. God Bless him. As to the comparison to William Jefferson Clinton, I am disgusted. While his political opponents often accuse Mr. Bush of many things, I have seen very little in the form of evidence to back up those accusations. An investigation should be conducted if/when facts implicate the President. Until then, I remain resolved that our President has acted properly. Im convinced that he has not purposefully lied to us. Our former President admits to doing as much. Additionally, he disgraced the office by acting like a teenaged frat boy. His obvious disregard for the office and the respect of the American people was symbolized by the sexual misbehavior he embraced within the walls of the Oval Officewith a woman who wasnt much older than his daughter. The only thing presidential about Clinton was his middle name.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I have always had good luck with Dodge automobiles. I've spent many frustrated evenings and dollars trying keep my GM automobiles running. It may just be my history - but its enough to keep me buying Dodge.

When I referenced nature, I was talking about man with his mental capabilities and his biological design. The fact that you have to point to some obscure lizard to "score a point" for human homosexuality, only proves my point.

I was turned off by two 13 year old eagles arguing about who got each rank, badge, etc. youngest.........what is the point? Boys, whether they are 7 or 17, tend to be competitive. Why should it surprise you that two boys would argure over who got there first? This fact does not nullify their accomplishment. Nor does it say anything about their capabilities or character. It does indicate that the two boys have a competitive nature. I say - so what, they're just behaving like most boys do.

I cannot speak for CJ, but let me explain why I use the term "nature" or "mother nature". First, just so there's no confusion, I believe in God. However, I also realize that there are many on this board that claim to believe in a god without an agenda...They vehemently argue that we do not know who God is or what His standards may be. They maintain that we have no idea what God approves, or disapproves of, and thus, we cannot bring morality into the argument. So, why do I use the term "nature" or "mother nature"? It is so these folks can reason their way through my argument without using the "morality argument" to discredit it or to prevent themselves from comprehending the point. Unfortunately, stubborn as some folks are, they often fail to recognize the difference between the terms. They presume that God and nature must be one in the same. However, nature has a meaning of its own separate from religion. I am aware of that difference, and I intentionally used the term to separate my argument from religion (at least for that particular point). So what is the point? The point is, even if you are godless, it is plain to see that homosexual sex is a perversity. It makes no rational sense. Nature makes this clear by the biological design of our bodies. So, if you want to argue that there is no such thing as nature's design, only randomness - I suppose you may have an argument that homosexuality is just one of many random options with no implication of perversity or immorality. However, if you make this argument for homosexuality, then you have to make it for every perversity. After all, if there's no perversity in the physical union of two people of the same sex - then who's to say forced sex is a perversity. Be consistent. Are we talking about nature, which has no moral standards? Or are we talking about morality? Morality says rape is wrong. Does nature say rape is wrong? Rape, pedophilia, and incest, all occur within the bounds of nature. Using the same logic of some folks in this thread, these things should be accepted as part of natures design. If you accept the fact that moral standards do exist, then explain to me where you get your morality. You cannot have it both ways. Dont try to use these bogus arguments such as natures way to control the population to rationalize the acceptance of homosexuality. The same logic can be used to justify bestiality. If there was a drop in the female population, the same misguided reasoning can be used to justify incest and rape. You cant have it both ways. Either you believe nature has a design (and thus a designer) or it is completely random. If its the latter, then you have to abandon the pretence of a moral foundation, because you have nothing to base it on. If its the former, then explain to me - If God has no agenda if His standards cannot be determined, where do you get your morality? I say it is inherit. I say God makes many things obvious as obvious as the sexual perversity that homosexuality represents both in nature and in Gods Word. If you cannot see it - then you must have scales over your eyes. Even if you refuse to recognize the Bible as Gods Word, if you are a thinking being, nature clearly demonstrates that homosexuality is perverse.

Mark, If what you say is true, in order for the city of Philadelphia to remain consistent in its enforcement of such a statute, then they must also do the following: Prohibit church softball leagues from playing on their public fields. Prohibit the Black Student Union from meeting in public schools. Prohibit womens clubs from meeting in the public library. Prohibit Gay groups from meeting in the public park. I doubt if they are stopping any of the above. If so, they are practicing selective enforcement of a statute for political reasons. They are not acting on the behalf of the interest of Philadelphians, but special interests groupsprobably the same ones that line the pockets of the city politicians who are seeking re-election.

I agree that there is definitely a grey area. However, it seems like in Scouting, more so than anywhere else (sports, academics, choir, band, karate, etc.), when a parent is actively involved with his kids, people like to cheapen the boy's accomplishments by inferring that his parents did all the work. I think this kind of snide jealous attitude has no place in Scouting, but it seems be more prevalent in Scouting than else where. Given the goals and the nature of the program, I find that to be extremely ironic...Adults gossiping and doubting a boy's worthiness for an award associated with honor and character.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I have met many adults who lamented that they did not earn the Eagle rank. Some of which, perhaps most of which, wished their parents had either "pushed them" harder, or at least had encouraged them more. I tend to agree with the implication of this thread. Yes, parents can push too hard. But many, don't push at all, and I'm not convinced that is a good thing. I push my kids to try their hardest in everything they do. I don't beat them up if they fall short of their goals, but I make them set goals and I encourage them to set them high.

Adrianvs, Of course, I do not know exactly how you handled the situation when you "told her to excuse herself from our meeting," but simply the fact that you are a youth and she is not does not make your actions wrong. I know I'm being stubborn here (so what's new), but I still cannot stomach this idea. I believe that this one of our society's great ills. We've empowered our children to the point that they feel there are times when they can treat adults like equals, or worse -subordinates. It is always inappropriate to place a boy (I don't care if he's 17 or 7) in a position where he feels he has to be contrary to an adult. If we were discussing a safety issue, I would change my tune. But that was not the case. I believe Senior_Patrol_Leader's actions were only appropriate because his SM put him in that position and gave him specific directions to act as he did. Otherwise, I stand by my previous posts. I hope Senior_Patrol_Leader and other boys see the wisdom and honor in using restraint and diplomacy - especially when dealing with their elders. The SPL is the leader of the boys, not the parents or any other adult. If he's confronted with a difficult adult, he should defer that person to the SM or the troop committee. He should not try to "handle" the adult himself.

Why wouldn't an ASM be allowed at a PLC? Isn't he supposed to know how the troop is run? Doesn't he stand in for the SM when he's not available? Whatever your position is on adults at a PLC, I think if the SM is there, then his ASMs should be there as well. The ASMs need to be aware of troop events and be familiar with the boys as well as the SM. Otherwise, when your SM is not available, there is no one ready and able to take his place.

I have to disagree with FOG and SMT376Richmond KY. If your troop allows adults to attend PLC meetings to observe, then an adult leader should be there to protect you from interference. You should never be put a position whereas you feel the need to reprimand an adult. I think it is very inappropriate. Furthermore, I think you demean yourself and your reputation as a Scout when you do this. While I certainly don't care for this woman's behavior, I think you're crossing a very important line between adults and boys. It's a line that needs to be crossed by your Scoutmaster or the Committee Chair, not a Boy Scout. One of the reasons I appreciate Scouting, it teaches young boys to maintain a strong character even in the face of adversity. You will be the better person and a shining example, if you are able to resist the easy temptation to put this woman in her place. When I think of a Scout, I see a boy (actually, I hope to see a young man), who refuses to be enticed or bullied into striking out. I see a young man who is respectful towards adults even when one of those adults may be acting like a horses rear end. When youre older, I think you will be happier with yourself, if you convince the Scoutmaster that this is his job rather than enjoying a cheap moment of vindictiveness against this busybody. She may well deserve a good lecture, but I think it should come from another adult.

Some Scouters, without question, will agree that you did the right thing. However, I'm not going to be that generous. While I understand your predicament and appreciate your frustration. I feel the situation could have been handled with much more tact. First and foremost, I do not believe your Scoutmaster shirked his responsibility and gave you bad advise. You made him aware of the problem. Instead of addressing it with her (and/or through the committee) prior to the PLC, he threw it back in your lap. Second, your job is to lead the boys in the troop. You are not responsible for setting adults straight. If I was your Scoutmaster, I would have had a polite phone call with this woman (if possible) advising her that she needs to be aware that the troop is boy run/lead. I would have forewarned her that if she wanted to attended a PLC that she would need to remain silent. Then, if she chose to behave as you described, I (as the Scoutmaster) would have asked her to step outside of the meeting area and gave her one last chance to save face. Boy run is great. However, I do not believe it should ever be used as a pretence to circumvent or breakdown the decorum and respect that young boys should show adults. While her behavior may have been reprehensible, a Scout should set a better example. Of course, to your credit, it was your Scoutmaster who put you in this awkward situation. Given the aforementioned, and the fact that your Scoutmaster gave you specific instructions as to what you should do, I can hardly scold you. However, in retrospect, when the Scoutmaster gave you this direction, you could have informed me - I dont feel conformable reprimanding an adult. Wouldnt she be more receptive to you as an adult leader? I really feel strongly that he should not have put you in that particular situation. It wasnt fair to you (and if you enjoyed it, shame on you). And it wasnt fair to the woman. Even if folks feel she deserved to be humiliated (which I hope was not anyones goal), a Scout should not have any part of it. I strongly suspect that if this woman was a friend of the Scoutmaster, he would have handled it much differently. In fact, I strongly suspect that perhaps the Scoutmaster was not very fond of this woman at all. He had to realized that if you were forced to follow his advise that it had great potential to humiliate and exasperate her. I dont care how wrong an adult may be, your Scoutmaster should have never put you in a situation like this. It was his job to protect you from adult interference.

I'm not surprised by the reactions/responses from Mark Noel, Merlyn_LeRoy, CubScouterFather, and some others. They have reason to defend their positions so strongly. They have chosen a direction in life and they're staking their souls on the outcome. I am a bit surprised by the reactions of some others. To these folks, who I will not name, I can only say - I hope and pray that you don't fall into the same darkness that these gentlemen have found. Accepting immorality has a way of allowing folks to sleep better at night. Perhaps some of you are thinking: "My God is more loving and forgiving then his God". Or, on a subconscious level, maybe you're saying to yourself, "If I accept other people's sins, then surely God must accept mine". I can only guess. I am truly befuddled. I realize that last statement will open the door for some nasty replies, but it matters not to me. Im just amazed that so many folks are willing to close their hearts, minds, and eyes. Friends, sleep well, because there are only so many tomorrows. As for me, I want as much oil for my lamp as possible, because we do not know the day or hour.

Persuade me with measurements, experimental evidence, objective observations that I can repeat independently with identical results. I doubt if that's possible. Whether we are talking about homosexuality or pedophilia, morality cannot be measured or touched - it is an intangible, and to a large degree its spiritualbut very real nonetheless. If every child yearned for a sexual experience with an adult, and every physician, physiologist, and psychiatrist claimed that pedophilia was healthy for both child and adult, Id still scream out against it! How narrow minded of me! I know in my heart of hearts that it is evil. Unfortunately, it appears that much of society needs an expert to tell them what their heart, mind, and spirit should already know to be true. Just like love, hate, good and evil - while I cannot quantify morality (sin and righteousness) - I, and all other thinking beings, know that they exist. Packsaddle, I challenge you, just as I challenged CrewGirl, have that debate with God and see if you have the same opinion. I cant believe you could - unless you did more talking then listening. CJ and Mark thanks for the support or at least, thats how Im taking it.

1386, ahem, is in the 14th century, not the 12th. Ooops. Right you are. Rooster, after fussing with you all these times, I have to tell you that I do like you, perhaps more now than before. We do disagree on a lot of things but I know that we agree on other, really important ones. ThanksI realize that we have come to agreement on some issues. I don't really want anyone to be in chains if they do not pose a risk of harm to other persons. Nor would I yank such a chain just to be mean. To subject your statements to a critical view does not mean that you, personally, are being attacked but if your statements can't stand such scrutiny then don't complain about it. You must realize that other persons probably have similar reactions to statements you make. It is possible that I have not interpreted your statements correctly. You must admit that you have not been clear. Despite my tone, I am not taking your words personally. My frustration lies in this It seems as if you (but mostly others) purposely misinterpret my statements to build straw man arguments or to refocus the argument on red herrings. But perhaps this is where I am in error. Perhaps its an honest misinterpretation due to my poor communication skills. I usually spend a little extra time composing my arguments to avoid that possibility. But then again, as youve already noted, I was two centuries behind the times in one of my references. So, I apologize if it this is the root cause of our misunderstanding. You write of biological sense, moral judgments, nature (not God) as a designer, God as a creator, obscenity, heart, mind, soul, perversity, accountability, repentance, salvation, conscience, the natural, the supernatural, the spiritual, and then (curiously) logic. You throw these terms and concepts around as if you have the last word on their comprehension, but your carelessness in their use just compounds misinterpretation on top of error. I disagree that Ive been careless with my words. None of these concepts contradict the reality of any of the others. God, nature (whos to say what is the driving force behind nature you can call it natural selection I can give credit to God Is it really important?), biology, heart, mind, soul, etcThese concepts are not mutually exclusive, nor are they confusing to me. I am not really sure where I have lost you. So, if you think Ive misused one of these terms, please be specific. You condemn homosexuality in the florid terms that you seem to have cultivated for just such venues and then admit your ignorance in that you cannot comprehend why a man "would allow himself to succumb to the perverse calling of homosexuality." That, at least, is an honest admission. If I see an incomprehensible morass of conflicting terms and usage, I submit that there is good reason. . When I said, I cannot comprehend why, I did not mean it literally. My statement was juxtaposed against my other statements, which was nature clearly designed a man and a woman to be together as biological mates, and not for a man to be with a man, or a woman to be with a woman. And just as clearly, we have a conscience. We have the capacity to make moral decisions that other animals do not. Given both of these truths, I cannot comprehend why a man would allow himself to succumb to the perverse calling of homosexuality. I do comprehend that every person has temptations. I dont personally understand a homosexuals temptations. I dont personally understand a pedophiles temptations. I dont personally understand how one could be tempted into incest. These are other peoples sins. Do you believe others are entitled or justified to behave as they please, because you do not personally understand how that persons desires came into existence? I do understand how a man might be tempted into adultery. I know that an attractive woman has the ability to influence many men and she can turn many heads. I know, personally, that I struggle with this temptation (although, I have not acted on it). For the sake of argument, lets say you cannot relate to my last two sentences. You love your wife (as do I), but you cannot understand how any man could possibly be tempted into adultery or by any other kind of sexual immorality. However, does that mean you have no right to judge my behavior? Of course, not! Adultery is wrong even if you cant personally relate to this temptation. Yet, you can probably relate to some kind of temptation if not within the sexual realm, then by money or power or something else. The reality is, we all have sins. I dont have to be able to relate to every sin, to judge the behavior as wrong. If personal understanding is required by every person involved, before any moral judgment can be passed, we should abolish all laws. Rooster, I and others in this forum have some understanding of your feelings on this subject. But your view, like the views of the rest of us, is just that - your own personal view. And an attempt to convince rational persons on faith-based arguments will only please those who already agree. I contend, while I have mentioned God, all of my arguments have validity even if you are godless. We all have a conscience. We know homosexuality does not make biological sense. Which of the previous two sentences do you disagree with and why? CubScouterFather is a person you don't know. Not really. You don't know me. You don't know many others in this forum. Not really. Yet you seem so quick to judge - harshly. That's the part I would really like to understand. Peace CubScouterFather came on to this forum to make a grand statement about his homosexuality and how hes been cheated out of an experience with his son. His agenda was obvious. Intermingled within his tale were statements about this forum and how some folks can be judgmental. He set himself up to be a victim before I even made my first post. All of my statements have been viewed with his version of reality tainting my words and casting a false image of me and everyone else that views homosexuality as a perversion. He, like many homosexual activists, is smart. He knows that if hes ever going to gain acceptance by society, he not only has to convince people that he is acting morally, but also cast those that view him as immoral as being bigoted, hateful, or just plain ignorant. I have never made pointed statements concerning CubScouterFathers sexual behavior or his personal life. As youve noted, I dont know him. I have made pointed statements about homosexuality. I dont need to know CubScouterFather personally to judge homosexuality. And as others and I have stated on numerous occasions, we are judging the sin not the sinner. You are free to disregard that statement, but it is the truth. So, I do not view myself as being harsh. I am passionately opposed to the idea of calling immoral behavior a preference, or an alternate lifestyle, or an orientation. Actually, maybe I shouldnt voice my objection to the orientation label because we all have had or still have - an orientation to sin. The difference is, up until recently, few people had the nerve to call their sin a lifestyle. The only moral difference between homosexuality and other sexual perversities is the willingness of the participants. In our evolved state as a society, it seems that many believe that if theres no victim, then theres no crime no sin - no act of immorality. This same logic compels the ACUL to argue for the distribution of child pornography as a protected right. They seem to believe that since the actual crime was the picture taking, the distributor should not have his rights (i.e., free speech) violated for wanting to make money from that act of exploitation. Of course, they phrase their arguments in sterile legal terms, making the debate palatable for liberal fools to swallow. No, I dont feel that Ive been harsh, just truthful. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

packsaddle, I did not state that homosexuals have no worth. Nor did I say that they could not contribute to society. My reference was in regard to the propogation of mankind. Which brings this conversation full circle - their sexual behavior is perverse. You can make all sorts of statements defending homosexuality, and other sexual perversities for that matter - We don't have to agree - But don't twist my words and use them as pretence. As for 12th century juries sentencing pigs to hanging - that's an interesting story, but it's not relevent to my contention. Once again, I find myself arguing with folks who want to use analogies that have no correlation to the topic at hand. God - packsaddle - God! He is the one who will judge man and not pigs. He is the one that will hold us accountable. First littlebillie wants to compare the behavior of animals to that of men in a strained attempt to justify homosexuality. And now - now you want to compare the judgment of men (a 12th century jury) to the judgment of God. These comparisons are just as obscene as homosexuality itself. Are you guys really having that difficult of a time seeing these points? Or are you merely trying to yank my chain?

TwoCubDad, I made the "biological" argument as it applies to mankind, as moral beings. Near as I can tell, we are the only moral beings around. Does any one want to make the case for baboons and pigs? I suppose that there are more folks willing to make that argument then I care to believe. But to continue...these two concepts 1) man and woman designed as biological mates, and 2) man and woman designed as moral beings, are not mutually exclusive. Both were foretold in the book of Genesis - although that may not mean anything to you. And both have been proven to be true over the last five thousand years of known history. When one makes analogies to the animal kingdom, one is implying that we are cut from the same cloth...that we are very similar to one another. That supposition is sorely lacking in merit. Man has a heart, mind, and soul like no other animal on this planet. Surely, we can agree on that point. If not, speak up, and I will dust off my feet and move on from here. If you cannot see the difference between mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom, there's no sense in me or anyone else wasting our breath. Baboons and pigs will not be held accountable for their behavior. Mankind will be. But if you truly want to keep "religion" (i.e. God) out of the debate, ignore my statement about accountability...or any future comments I may have about fallen beings, repentance, and salvation. Its not what I prefer you do, but if youre so inclined to do so for the sake of argument - thats your choice. Yet, you should not discount my comments about man being a moral being. Because whether or not you want to acknowledge God, you have to acknowledge the fact that we possess a conscience. If you cant even acknowledge that fact, then we truly have no common ground. To return to my original point, nature clearly designed a man and a woman to be together as biological mates, and not for a man to be with a man, or a woman to be with a woman. And just as clearly, we have a conscience. We have the capacity to make moral decisions that other animals do not. Given both of these truths, I cannot comprehend why a man would allow himself to succumb to the perverse calling of homosexuality. Even if a man has deep emotions for another man, there is no innate demand put upon us - there is no supernatural calling, to consecrate those feelings with a sexual act. Even in healthy heterosexual relationships, if there was a need or circumstance that prohibited physical contact, both a man and a woman have the ability to abstain from sex without doing harm to themselves - physically or emotionally. Love does not require sex. Love is spiritual. This is why love lives on between parent and child, between siblings, between life long friends, etc. While a man and a woman can express that emotion through sex - a natural biological act which can produce offspring, it is not necessary for the emotion to be sustained. So, I maintain 1) Homosexuality is not natural - the biological design of our bodies make that abundantly obvious, 2) Mankind has the moral capacity to understand what is natural and what is perverse, and 3) Even a strong emotional bond between two individuals of the same sex, does not warrant perversity. They could simply love one another. But that I suppose - is too simple for many to digest. What?! Love without sex! I know that sounds horrible to some people - But not every relationship has to be about obtaining physical gratification. Sex is not a lie-detector, a stamp of approval, or even a guarantee of a lasting a relationship. Depending on your relationship with God, or the lack thereof, sex is simply a gift from God that was meant be to shared by a man and a woman - an act of intimacy that often produces a very natural byproduct - a baby. If youre Godless, then strike the phrase gift from God. But no matter how you slice it, homosexuals will not contribute to the subsistence of mankind. In fact, ignoring the biological compatibility argument for a brief moment - if homosexual desires were truly natural, then the folks claiming that inclination would have went the way of the Dodo bird many generations ago.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

littlebillie, Animals do not have the ability to make moral judgments. They are simply acting out...gratifying their physical needs no matter the means. The same explanation applies to dogs that take a liking to some poor slob's leg. Per your last post, your logic implies because animals do it, it's okay for men to do it. Using that reasoning, everything is fair game from pedophilia to incest, even rape. You name it - animals are dumb enough to try just about anything. The difference is, of course - animals do not have the souls and minds that we do. Although, I don't doubt that there are many folks (some not as quite as far out on the fringe as we would like to believe) that would find that rational perfectly acceptable. I hope, we can all agree, mankind needs to embrace a standard much higher that of the animal kingdom - a kingdom without any moral capacity and where all of the inhabitants are constantly seeking to satisfy their base nature. You do see the difference between man and animals, dont you? To put it simply littlebillie, I was talking about a man and a woman, not cats and dogs. We are all a part of God's world, but lets keep things in their proper perspective - the analogy simply does not work. And if you dont see the difference, then Id like to suggest that this is the root cause of our disagreements. God created man for a purpose much higher than that of animals. Animals were created by God to serve man.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

It doesn't take a degree to understand that homosexuality is wrong. With or without religion, the coupling of two men or two women does not make biological sense. Nature did not design men to share sexual intimacy with one another. Nature did not design women to share sexual intimacy with one another. God create a man to be with a woman and a woman to be with a man. The idea of men pressing their flesh against one another is repulsive and obscene. If you consider these statements to be an attack, I'm sorry. I believe they represent common sense and the truth. I will not apologize for either.

CubScouterFather, How many Gay men have had sex before they were 18 is how that question should read. How many straight kids have had sex before they were 18? Hmmmm No - that is NOT the right question. Reread the bold type. "The Gay Report," the 1979 work of homosexual researchers Jay and Young revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed admitted to having had sexual relations with boys ages 16 to 19 or younger. This study is NOT talking about gay men who had sex when they themselves were young. This study is talking about the majority of gay men who admit to having had sex with very young boys - in many case, minors. You can spin this all day long. In the end, homosexuality is a perversity. Those who accept it are closing their eyes to both God and nature. I find it highly ironic that you question the motives of "the man behind the curtain", when in fact; you are the one with an agenda.

More truth and less hype... Boy Scout Oath Makes Inclusion Of Homosexuals Oxymoronic By Gary L. Morella The mainstream media has taken up the cause for allowing homosexuals to become Boy Scouts with the liberal university community following suit like lemmings marching off of a cliff, e.g., the Penn State student paper, The COLLEGIAN, in a recent editorial called for homosexuals to be admitted to the Boy Scouts. It is well known that Penn State University, under Graham Spanier, leads the way in blatantly promoting homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle in an affirmative action sense through official University auspices, the Vice-Provost Office for Educational Equity. Moreover, Penn State proudly trumpets the work of faculty who encourage our youngest children toward homosexual lifestyles as evidenced by the Spring/Summer 2000 issue of OUTREACH magazine, which devoted an entire section to the promotion and celebration of homosexual lifestyles for our youth. How can a Boy Scout be inclined to homosexuality? A scout takes an oath to be morally straight which makes the concept of homosexual scouts oxymoronic. And what about the well-documented correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality? Are we obliged to put our scouts at risk because a radical minority hell-bent on living self-destructive lifestyles wont be satisfied until they are confirmed in their vice, demanding acceptance of their perverted lifestyles by all aspects of society including the religious community? I have a simple question. If there is no connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, why are articles promoting the former showing up repeatedly in homosexual journals? As pointed out by NARTH, The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, those who are interested in legalizing sexual relations between adults and children want to change the parameters of the discussion from the absolutist moral position, to the relative position that it can sometimes be beneficial. The recent controversial article in an American Psychological Association Bulletin, an article that was subsequently refuted by the head of the APA after the pressure of near unanimous congressional condemnation with the notable exception of a handful of representatives to include a prominent homosexual, furthered exactly this position. NARTH reports that, in a recent lead article of the Journal of Homosexuality, Harris Mirkin says the sexually privileged have disadvantaged the pedophile through sheerpolitical force in the same way that blacks were disadvantaged by whites before the civil-rights movement. One would hope that supporters of the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. could see that, if Christianity meant anything to Dr. King, he would roll over in his grave to see such a perverted analogy with a civil rights movement that had nothing to do with promoting aberrant self-destructive behavior. His niece, Alveda Celeste King, has been outspoken to that effect, saying in a CNN report that to equate homosexuality with race is to give a death sentence to civil rights. NARTH reports that in 1990, the campaign to legalize man-boy sex was furthered by the publication of a two-issue special of the Journal of Homosexuality, reissued as Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives. This volume provided devastating information on the way psychologically immature pedophile men use vulnerable boys who are starved for adult nurturance and protection. In the forward, Gunter Schmidt decries discrimination against and persecution of pedophiles, and describes successful pedophile relationships which help and encourage the child, even though the child often agrees to sex while really seeking comfort and affection. These are often emotionally deprived, deeply lonely, socially isolated children who seek, as it were, a refuge in an adults love and for whom, because of their misery, see it as a stroke of luck to have found such an enormously nurturant relationship. Another writer said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve miracles not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them. The loving pedophile can offer a companionship, security and protection which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62). Parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boys upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home... (p. 164). In yet another deeply disturbing article revealingly titled, The Main Thing is Being Wanted: Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children. pedophiles reveal their need to find a child who will satisfy their desire for uncritical affirmation and a lost youth. One of the men justifies his activity as a search for love, and complains that: Although Ive had physical relationships with probably, I dont know, maybe a hundred or more boys over the years, I can only point to four or five true relationships over that time. The volume also contains an introductory article that decries societys anti-pedophile sentiment. The authors complain about the difficulty studying man-boy relationships in an objective way, and they hope the social sciences will adopt a broader approach that could lead to understanding of the diversity and possible benefits of intergenerational intimacy. Mirkin says, the discussion must move on to such issues as the right of children to have and enjoy sex. Per NARTH, to pedophile advocates, any discussion of the benefits of child-adult sex is a victory. The APA should have understood this, and should have been well aware of, and vocally resistant to, the growing movement to legalize pedophilia as promoted in homosexual journals. Have we devolved as a society to such an extent that the right of children to have and enjoy sex carries more weight than the rights of their parents, charged with their physical and spiritual welfare, to bring them up according to the law of God, in particular, His natural law written on the hearts of men? We will have if we acquiesce to the demands of radical homosexuality as evidenced by the aforementioned articles in the Journal of Homosexuality. The good news is that the Journal of Homosexuality has performed a service by letting us know just who the real extremists are. Remember that the next time the word homophobe rears its ugly head in conversation or policy.

CubScouterFather, Read and learn: June 19, 2002, 10:25 a.m. Hypocrites on Homosexuality The Boy Scouts have had the right idea. By Leslie Carbone Is the hypocrisy of today's cultural elites limitless? Is the Pope Catholic? After years of haranguing the Boy Scouts of America for refusing to place young boys in danger of sexual abuse, the liberal intelligentsia is now condemning the Catholic Church leadership for doing exactly that. For months, the Catholic Church has come under criticism for continuing to permit pedophilic priests access to young boys. Critics of the church's hierarchy are absolutely right. Its leadership was derelict in its duties to provide a good moral example and to protect children. Responding to the onslaught of criticism, America's bishops met in Dallas last week to iron out a policy for dealing with priests guilty of child molestation. The bishops agreed to remove any priest guilty of a single act of child molestation from ministry, though not from the priesthood. Though the new policy is already provoking criticism from some for not going far enough, it is being hailed by others as the right move and a vast improvement over the result of an earlier meeting of American cardinals with Pope John Paul II at the Vatican, which yielded only a set of bland recommendations, including that a priest who becomes "notorious and is guilty of serial, predatory, sexual abuse of minors" be dismissed, while bishops over those merely suspected of molesting children were granted discretion to deal with such situations. This broad discretion is of course part of why the church found itself in crisis in the first place and why so many children were hurt. But what if the church had exercised the zero-tolerance policy now demanded in the first place? Would it have dodged the criticism it now endures? The Boy Scouts of America didn't. The BSA has come under constant fire for its policy of prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters. While not all homosexuals are child molesters and not all child molesters are homosexual, there is a strong enough correlation to mean that the BSA's policy is prudent and responsible. Although homosexuals constitute only about two percent of the population, they represent one-third of child molesters. "The Gay Report," the 1979 work of homosexual researchers Jay and Young revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed admitted to having had sexual relations with boys ages 16 to 19 or younger. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover sees a "substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia. Rather they argue that pedophilia is an acceptable aspect of sexuality, especially of homosexuality." It's easy to see why serving as scoutmasters is attractive to homosexual child molesters. Such a post provides easy access to lots of young boys away from their parents, on such excursions as the camping trips that are a staple of scout life. Though the BSA annually bars hundreds of homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters, a nationwide investigation of child molestation in the Boy Scouts found that more than 2,000 boys had reported molestation by adult Scout leaders who slipped by the ban during 1971 to 1991. Lifting the BSA's ban on homosexual scoutmasters would surely only increase this number. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision of the New Jersey supreme court, which had forced the BSA to accept homosexuals as scoutmasters. Attacks on the Scouts continue unabated. The United Way and some corporations, including media giant Knight-Ridder, Inc., and Levi-Strauss, have withdrawn funding from the BSA. The Los Angeles City Council evicted the Scouts from public facilities. Boy Scouts appearing on the dais at the 2000 Democratic National Convention were actually booed by delegates, adults who apparently thought it proper to boo children for belonging to an organization that safeguards them. Even religious institutions are not immune. While Catholic leaders draw fire for allowing what the Scouts forbid, interest groups within at least four other denominations, including United Methodist, Episcopalian, Reform Judaism, and Unitarian, have passed resolutions condemning the Scouts' policy. Life could soon get even worse for the Boy Scouts. On April 24, the Senate Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee, evidently having learned nothing from the scandal shaking the Catholic Church, okayed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would force employers, including those in education and child care, to hire and retain people precisely because they practice homosexual behavior. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.), the bill's chief sponsor and the committee's chairman, called the bill "a giant step forward" in curbing the discrimination that is an "insidious aspect of American life." Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) has said that he will bring ENDA up for a floor vote before the session ends in October. If ENDA becomes law, it could force the BSA to accept homosexual scoutmasters. Al Gore, vice president when the Supreme Court decision favoring the scouts came down, pledged to end "this kind of discrimination by groups public and private ... . [T]he principle piece of legislation on that, incidentally, is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which I support." Ironically, a religious exemption in the bill, if upheld, would mean that it does not apply to the Catholic Church, which might then become one of the few remaining institutions in America permitted to do what it hasn't keep homosexuals away from young boys. Such is the result of public policy based on hypocrisy. There is a better way. Institutions like the Boy Scouts of America that strive to protect children should not be condemned. They should be honored and upheld as an example to other institutions that lack their moral fortitude.