Rooster7

TJ and nldscout - I cannot answer for the BSA as to why they chose to create a policy against homosexuals as members or leaders, but chose to remain silent on the subject of say unwed mothers and fathers. I can only guess. Although this is a guess, Im pretty confident Im close to the right answer. The BSA policy against homosexuals as members or leaders was not a proactive initiative. It was a response to external pressure, applied by political groups, which had designs on changing the BSA into something more to their liking, vice accepting the organization as it existed. For years, our country enjoyed many moral standards (lets call them traditional values). Very few people challenged these values because they had the overwhelming support of the majority. There was no need to create policies about these values because they were givens. Unfortunately, as each new generation decided they were wiser than the last, the moral standards that were once enjoyed and embraced by the majority started to become blurred. In the general population, and in particular in the eyes of those who wanted to embrace the new standards, some moral standards were questioned. Most notable among these, was the issue of homosexuality. Most assuredly this was due to the fact that the homosexuality community and their advocates are very well organized and extremely vocal (to put it politely). Many years ago, they targeted the BSA. Whether the BSA always felt homosexuality was wrong (which I personally believe) or was simply acting on behalf of their current membership is not really important (at least not to me). The point is, they were under attack, and in response, invoked this policy against homosexuals as members and leaders, to make it perfectly clear to those internal and external to the organization that this was their standard. Per the BSA, this policy reflects the values of Scouting. It is their right to make it so. As to why they dont do the same for other values, I think its a matter of practicality and to some degree politics. As Bob White has noted, the Scout Oath and Law covers most values. Its easier to just let those words stand by themselves. Of course, not everyone interprets those words the same way. In my household, you cannot enjoy sex outside of marriage and call yourself reverent at the same time. This behavior does not reflect the value. Now, I realize that Bob White says this is something for the Chartering Organization to decide. And, that may well be the case. However, I suspect that if the BSA came under attack by external forces (i.e., political groups, the media, etc.), they might reconsider. If this issue was being debated in the newspapers, the BSA might ask themselves - What do we really believe? Is this a moral issue for which we should take a stand? and subsequently create a policy against unwed mothers and fathers? Im sure Bob White will denounce that as pure speculation, which it is. Regardless, I think this hypothetical scenario has more credibility than what he or others might be willing to acknowledge. I wouldnt be surprised if in the future - the BSA creates more such policies that would, for all intents and purposes, more narrowly define who they are morally. Not because its something they want to do, but because they may feel forced to do so. As someone once observed, there are no BSA policies against bestiality. Yet, how many folks believe that the BSA would remain neutral on this issue if some idiotic group was trying to make it a local option? Im fairly confident in the BSA as a character building organizationan organization that truly believes in traditional valuesif they thought for one second that any chartering organization would accept the premise that bestiality should be a non-factor in their membership requirements that the BSA would step in and create a new policy banning those who practice such a perversion. I just read Bob's previous post. I didn't read it before posting my response to TJ. His explanation as to how the BSA policy aganist homosexuals was created is about what I expected. Also, I'm not sure he'd disagree with most of what I said. At least from my reading of his post, I think we're on the same page - which is unusual for us! But, I guess I better wait before proclaiming that as a fact. :-)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

nldscout, Now some of you are begining to sound like Hypocites. First off you have no knowledge of how she got PG. Can you say Artificial Insemination? Maybe she did that. I have heard nothing of a guy mentioned from Matua at all. First, Lets be real. The vast majority of 18-year-olds are not likely candidates for artificial insemination. Second, if an 18-year-old did chose to be artificially inseminated, Id probably be more inclined to question her moral sense, not less. If it makes you feel any better, I certainly wouldnt question her character if she were a victim of some kind. I thought I would throw that out before you brought up rape or incest. And another thing would we even be having this discussin if this was a 18 yr old guy who got his GF pregnant? I don't think so. We would just write it off as a guy thing. I know nothing about you. But, youre beginning to sound like an angry woman whose been done an justice or two. You seem to think that the BSA preaches and enjoys double standards. That has not been my experience in Scouting or in most of society. I think most Scouters, and just as many men in general, would see the wrongness of an 18-year-old guy impregnating his girlfriend. Kwc57, I like the story of the Prodigal Son. Its a great lesson about love and forgiveness. The father celebrated his sons return. Its very moving. It gives us some insight as to how great God the Fathers love is for us. But, did the father in this story give his son a job with greater responsibilities? No. Not in any translation that Ive read. Did he lift his son up as a person who should be imitated by others? No. He did not. If I knew of a man who recently reformed himself and broke away from a sin (pick one, it doesnt matter), Id be happy for him. Id celebrate his new beginning. But, without the passage of time, I wouldnt endorse him as a leader in my church or my sons Boy Scout troop.

I'm all for standards...but not if they are not applied fairly and consistently. As I have stated elsewhere in this forum, if we ban gays then where do we stop? Turn that scenario around and ask yourself the same question. What's the next standard or moral value that gets thrown aside because someone feels it cannot be applied fairly all the time? Eventually, you will have no standards at all. Life is not always fair. No matter how well intended, as long as humans are involved in applying standards, there will be some injustices. Still, should we have no standards just so we can claim that there was no malice? Please, let's be realistic. This girl may be a true blessing or a horrible curse...who can really say? Yet, her behavior and subsequent condition, clearly indicates that she has bad judgment. As humans, we will never know what is in someone's heart. Thus, the Bible tells us not to judge others. However, we are also responsible for those under our care. We need to be prudent about who we entrust to guide our children. Certainly God wants us to act wisely. There is a difference between pronouncing someone unfit to come before God (which I believe the Bible instructs us not to do) and denouncing someone as a leader and teacher of children (which I believe the Bible warns us to take seriously). The first is a matter of moral authority, which we do not have - while the other is a simple matter of exercising common sense.

THE CEREMONY MUST BE RESPECTFUL. Aside from this one rule, a U.S. flag can be retired in almost any manner and on any day.

No, she is not married. I don't think that should matter. I've have and had single mothers serve in the committee. She does plan to get married. Although, no date has been set. Even if she decides not to get married, does that justify the gossip that is attacking her. First, Im disappointed if not sickened that some feel it is irrelevant whether or not she is married. Second, I feel it is relevant as to whether or not she recognizes that having a child outside of marriage is wrong. Also, I feel it is relevant whether or not her relationship with the father was serious enough that marriage was inevitable. Third, as for gossip, of course it is never justifiable. However, you are mixing issues here. Make up your mind Is the issue the ASMs fitness or is it the character of the inactive parents? If its the former, I tend to agree with the inactive parents, its not a good example. I wouldnt consider her until she married or at least until she proved herself in other ways over a period of time. If its the latter, I agree that the inactive parents should pay their dues before providing input but they have a right to be concerned. If that concern turns into gossip, then I would address the issue head on and advise them that their behavior is just as inappropriate. Its funnyIm far from perfect. I have made many mistakes in life. So, when I post here on these types of issues, it is not without some self-examination and perhaps even guilt. Nevertheless, the fact that there can be consequences for my bad behavior has never escaped my attention. Nobody is perfect, but I dont believe the world becomes a better place by ignoring the sins of others and pretending everything is fine. If a 18-year-old unwed pregnant girl (you can call her a woman if you really believe it) is accepted as an ASM, I believe it does send the wrong message especially when you consider the fact that your group is a bunch of coed, hormonally inundated, teenagers who need little encouragement to be temped into their own sins.

Hunt, So people would be able to choose units based on what their policy on this is. As a result, I can't see what the overwhelming reason for the national policy is. Its interesting that you brought up the example of a church. I say that, because, many churches are having the same problem that the BSA is encountering. To the point, most churches, except perhaps Universalists (and I dont mean that as a slamIt just so happens to be true) have fairly narrow definitions of what it means to be a believer of their faith and subsequently a member of their church. In the last 20 years or so (probably longer), many churches have come under attack from their own members and lay persons. The Pope is criticized by Catholics (mostly in America) for speaking out against abortion. Baptist leaders are under fire for not allowing women in leadership positions. The Presbyterian Church is being denounced for not allowing s to become clergy. The list of religious institutions being besieged by dissenters from within is endless. So, I find your comparison of the BSA to a church to be very fitting. While the BSA is not a church, they do have a set of beliefs that they want all of their members to embrace. Theres a reason for this. Like a church, they want all people, internal and external to the organization, to know what it means when one says he is a member of the BSA. People across the nation, around the world for that matter, know and understand what values the BSA embraces. They know what it means to be an Eagle Scout, or even just a Scout. If local councils or troops are allowed to set their own membership criteria, the BSA would gradually degrade to the point where there would be no universal understanding of the organization and its values. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Bob White, Okay - a careful reading of your post confirms your assertion ("no interest in doing so" vice "not wanting to know") - Nevertheless, I still maintain that it would serve a legitimate purpose. If the people running the program don't have the same values as the BSA, I find it difficult to believe that they actual teach those values to Scouts. In short, the program would be better off without those individuals, because - presumably, people who believe in the BSA program and its values would take their place. However, as I already stated, it would not be worth the financial or political costs to root out a few "loose cannons".

Bob White, Rooster, The fact that the BSA does not seek out to determine if a member is athiest or homosexual or a drinker etc. has nothing to do with manpower or resources. The BSA does not do it because they have no interest in doing it. It would serve no purpose in the program to do so. I agree with your previous posts on this matter, but I have to disagree with the above statement. How can an organization set a standard for moral behavior, require its compliance for membership, but also claim they have no interest in knowing whether or not its members are conforming? That makes no sense. Of course, they want to know whether or not they are accepting a member who is an atheist, or a homosexual, or a drunk. Why even have a standard if it matters not whether or not members conform to it? Theres a practical matter here that cannot be ignored. To make these discoveries, to verify conformance, the BSA would have to invest an inordinate amount of time and money. Furthermore, since much of this behavior is conducted in private, the BSA would be in the very seamy business of probing into peoples personal lives. For most folks, it would be tantamount to a witch-hunt. This kind of intrusiveness might reveal a few homosexuals (or drunks, or atheists, etc.), but it would also offend most of the BSA membership who willingly complies with the standard. Its just not worth the financial or political costs. So, yes I understand why the BSA doesnt do it. But, one cannot claim that the BSA has no interest in knowing, or worse that it serves no purpose. The purpose would be to weed out members that dont want to follow the moral standard set by the BSA. That seems reasonable to me. But as Ive pointed out, for these cases the cost would be too high and the means far less than 100 percent efficient. Bob, if you stand by your original statement (noted above) than please reconcile my question: How can an organization set a standard for moral behavior, require its compliance for membership, but also claim they have no interest in knowing whether or not its members are conforming? Now, before anyone exploits and twists my words into something unrecognizable. I am not implying that members must be morally perfect or face expulsion from the program. I am saying, those members who willingly ignore the standards set by the BSA and make no effort to conform to them, should be expelled. It is not the same thing as being perfectno more so than a Christian who struggles to meet the standards of the Bible. The point isnt whether or not the standard is always met Its whether or not you believe in the standard. On occasion, I can lose my temper, but I do not believe in venting my anger on people.

Packsaddle, I think were already stuck in a circle. You quote Dwyer and condemn the BSA for his hypocrisy, but you ignore the fact that the so-called representatives of this council have chosen to circumvent the national policy. You cant seriously believe that the BSA condones this councils actions. If gay sympathizers with C.O.L. announce a new policy, but fail to implement it then blame those folks within that council. You have an excellent argument to condemn that council or the individuals that claim to represent it. but if the BSA turns a blind eye to quiet practicing gays, as I believe they do, then a judgment of hypocrisy seems accurate. As I said, theyre not turning a blind eye. They simply dont have the resources to investigate everybodys sexual orientation, addictions, undesirable character traits, etc. Just because the BSA cannot root these folks out in advance, through the membership process, that doesnt mean that they must be accepted regardless of what is revealed in the future. By that logic, you should be arguing for the inclusion of liars, drunks, drug addicts, and even pedophiles. As I said, this argument doesnt hold water. The BSA is not turning a blind eye. Theyre just being practical. In application, homosexuals are not being singled out. The only thing that makes homosexuals unique is their organized efforts to harass organizations that trumpet traditional values, such as the BSA. As a result of this harassment, the BSA was forced to create a policy to specifically address the claims of homosexuals and their advocates. Ironically, homosexuals and their supporters have managed to turn this thing around on its head. They portray themselves as victims of harassment. When in fact, they are the perpetrators of harassment. They are the ones who are spreading lies. Yet another element of hypocrisy also occurs in that case if in this practice, BSA condones the lie. The BSA did NOT condone this lie. They never supported the C.O.L.s efforts to change the current policy. The C.O.L.s announced change in policy was in direct contradiction to BSA national policy. Had the BSA officially approved this councils actions, then your claim would make sense. If you want to blame someone, blame the gay sympathizers that announced the policy change, but didnt have the muscle to make it stick. Theyre the ones who sold a lie. Although, I don't think homosexual advocacy groups can attack these folks with a clear conscience. Who are these council members...the ones that attempted to make their council "gay friendly"? They are, of course, folks who support gays. When gays attack the C.O.L. for failing to live up to their promise, they are in essence, attacking their biggest supporters in the BSA. Ironically, I don't think this will stop the homosexual community from besieging the C.O.L. and attacking them. Why? Because as others have pointed out, homosexual advocacy groups don't really care if the BSA changes its policy...and they don't really care about their supporters in the C.O.L. They're agenda is much bigger and they don't care who they step on to achieve it. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

packsaddle, BSA does allow gays as members and leaders so long as those gay members and leaders keep quiet about it. Gays are only dismissed when they proclaim such publicly. The hypocrisy of such application of the policy should be obvious. I strongly disagree. What official BSA policy are you quoting? The BSA policy states that homosexuals are not proper role models for Scouts. Homosexuals are NOT allowed to become members or leaders. Keeping quiet will not prevent your expulsion. This much was proven in the James Dade case. He did not tell BSA officials of his sexuality. Someone uncovered this fact when they stumbled upon a newspaper article, which mentioned his membership in a gay college organization. The BSA policy is NOT - Dont ask, dont tell. The BSA does not have the resources to conduct investigations to determine peoples sexual behavior. Similarly, they dont have the resources to conduct investigations to determine if someone is a drunk or a drug user. Regardless, certainly the BSA will expel a leader if it comes to light that he/she is an addict. Do not expect the BSA to act any differently if they should discover a leader to be gay. There is NO hypocrisy in this application of policy. Its clear. Its practical. By the way, criticizing the BSA based on the actions of an insubordinate council (i.e., C.O.L.), as was done in the aforementioned article, is pretty lame. The C.O.L. Council was never authorized to sublimate or adapt national policy to their liking. The fact that the BSA has used its muscle (political, legal, or otherwise) to force a few loose cannons (i.e. C.O.L., Boston, etc.) to comply with national policy should not be surprising to anyone. Nor should they be criticized for it. They should be applauded for maintaining a consistent and noble stance. They are determined to uphold the traditional values that most its members embrace. Additionally, this leaves you (and us) with the knowledge that: 1) we do have gay scouts around us anyway, they're just quietly in the closet, and 2) BSA's policy will likely keep them in the closet for fear of being dismissed...and keep them quietly around us. We'll just never be quite sure, will we? Have a nice day. Hmmm. This brings to mind several thoughts. I agree - It is quite likely that there are a number of homosexuals within the ranks of BSA. So what? There are probably a few pedophiles within the ranks of the NEA. Does that mean it makes sense for the NEA to adopt a policy that accepts the behavior? The whole premise of this argument is silly. You are suggesting to the BSA and others - that is better to accept immoral people (or improper role models if you prefer) and know who they are (although, a change in policy wouldnt necessarily even accomplish this), then to reject their behavior and not know who they are. Yeah, youre right Ill never be quite sure. Ill never know if theres a homosexual in my kids troop, or his tent for that matter. Likewise, Ill never know if theres a pedophile in my kids classroom. But you know what Ill be damned if Im going to accept a policy that would deem either scenario to be acceptable. BTW - Have a nice day too! :-)

On this forum, mine has always been - Why do you think homosexuals should or should not be banned from Scouting? Just joking guys...try to relax ;-) Although...I would be interested in hearing some Eagle candidates answer that question. Unfortunately, I doubt if most folks talk enough with their children for the typical Scout to provide a thoughtful answer.

Jbroganjrs post is excellent. I can relate to his thoughts. I have a few more though IGNORANCE is a popular refrain when this question is posed (what causes racial hatred?), but I dont buy it. Here are three other possibilities for racial hatred Evil (i.e., Adolph Hitler, KKK) Envy (i.e., Muslim extremists, Non-Jews in Germany prior to WW II) Exploitation (i.e., slave traders, contemporary politicians Al Sharpton, just to name one). Ignorance may be true for some. However, many folks just like to hate. Adolph Hitler was not ignorant. Many white supremacists are not ignorant. Many Muslim extremists are not ignorant. ETC. Of course, the root cause is always evil. Even the Archie Bunker types cant plead ignorance their whole lives. The fact is - most folks just want to blame someone else for their situation in life. Unfortunately, to truly see how evil this is, sometimes it takes extreme examples like Hitler. I dont like the refrain ignorance because its an excuse. That is to say, it implies that with a little education, a guy like Adolph Hitler would have came around and realized his wrong thinking. I just dont buy it. Similarly, I dont buy the bad education, the bad neighborhood, or the bad society arguments which many use today to invoke sympathy for the murder, rapist, drug dealer, etc. You know the guy the one who just needs a fair shot to prove himself. The guy that all of society should feel bad aboutthe one that YOU caused to shoot, rape, or torture someone else. Ridiculous. Accountability now theres a concept that I sink my angry white teeth into. ;-) In regard to religious bigotry, while I agree that it exists I dont believe it can always be put into the same category as race. What I mean to say is this. Religion is about beliefs. If Im a Muslim, by definition, I believe Christians are infidels and worthy of contempt (read the Koran). Likewise, if Im a Christian, by definition, I believe non-believers are going to hell (read the Bible). However, in the case of a Christian, this does not mean I should hate all others. Quite the opposite, we are called to love the world, our enemies included. Yet, some folks like to portray Christians as hateful because of Gods Word, which foretells the outcome for those who reject Him. This has nothing to do with hate or bigotry on the part of the Christian.

ASM1, First, Bob White is right. It is the COs right to determine who they want in leadership roles. Why on Earth would any Troop turn away willing leaders? Adult leaders are SOOOOOO hard to find in the first place. I can think of a great number of reasons as to why, even if the candidate passes a background check - The willing leader often displays anger. - The willing leader doesnt take his responsibility seriously. - The willing leader doesnt get along with other adults in the troop. - The willing leader demeans the boys efforts. - The willing leader wants to help his son, but has expressed no interest in helping other boys in the troop. - And of course Bobs favorite (as Dan has already noted), the potential leader doesnt follow the program or has expressed the desire to follow a different program. There are many reasons for turning down a leader candidate.

Bottom line - A chartering organization has the right to pick its own members and leaders. That also means they can deny membership to whoever they so chose (in their troop or pack, not the BSA). If the CO abdicates its responsibility to the CC and SM, then you're pretty much stuck with the results. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I understand it. So, it appears your best bet is to appeal to the COR.

When all is said and donewhen the smoke settlesat best, a federal court might (and I emphasize might) edict that government agencies cannot charter a BSA troop or pack. I think this is highly unlikely, but then again, Im a bit of a dinosaur these days. I still think nativity scenes (or the Star of David for that matter) should be acceptable on public property if the local township and/or their representatives are behind the effort. Thats another argument. Regardless, the federal courts will never direct the BSA to conform to federal or state standards for being non-discriminatory, and any government entity that tries to force their will on the BSA or any other private organization to do the same will be duly chastised by the courts (if not at the lower levels, then when it is eventually overturned by the Supreme Court). This much we have already seen. No matter how the relationship of the BSA and the federal government is portrayed, regardless of the wording used in its federal charter, the BSA is a private organization first and foremost. They are Constitutionally protected against this kind of intrusion. So, while Merlyn and some others like to ponder about the BSAs moral righteous, and whether or not they should in good conscience accept charters from government entities, we can all breath easy knowing that despite their concerns, they have no power to change the BSA program. Frankly, I think Merlyns distress over these charters is manufactured. I doubt if the existence of these charters cause him any anxiety. I am confident that hes not losing sleep at night fretting that the BSA and the federal government is conspiring to take his rights away and/or to force him into a state run church. Hes found a foothold on which he has some credibly, small as it may be, to justify his criticism of a private organization of which he is diametrically opposed. Hed like us to think that this debate is all about charters, but the reality is, hed be against the BSA even if every charter were issued to the LDS. Be honest Merlyn, you just cant stand any organization that trumpets traditional values, especially when God is included in those values. If/When the federal government decides that BSA charters cannot be issued to government entities, it will not dramatically affect the BSA and/or its troops and packs. They will find new charters. Its really not that difficult. Furthermore, I doubt that it will be enough to keep Merlyn from posting on this forum. He will find a new criticism of the BSA. Unmistakably, he doesnt like the idea that we can exist. If Im wrong, I apologize to Merlyn But seriously, why else would he spend the energy posting his views on a site designed to support Scouts and Scouters? His efforts certainly arent going to change the BSA policy or cause the federal courts to rule against it. If he truly felt these charters were a threat to his liberties, hed be spending his time and energy writing to newspapers and lobbying government officials. In short, his postings here are simply a form of harassment.

TJ, Being a gay man is not an immoral decision... I believe this to be true, and several churches and many "good and decent" members of Scouting believe the same. I can find several churches to support almost any sin. Its almost fashionable these days. If you define good and decent members as well meaning, I have no problem believing that statement either. But as well meaning as they may be, immoral behavior is not determined by the latest poll. Specific to the BSA, that standard is determined by its professional guardians not well meaning folks whod like to see TJ accepted. As I have said on prior occasions, my own sexuality is but a small part of my identity (a personal statement) and no real part of my identity as a Scouter Most people who embrace habitual sin make these kinds of claims, whether its actually true or not. Alcoholics, drug addicts, gamblers, homosexuals, and other sexual deviates have this much in common. Most addictions, over time, usually degrade to something worse. Regardless, homosexuality by itself, is debasing to oneself and others. I have seen the policy wreak on those close to me, and can only imagine the ripple of similar effect throughout the rest of the country. I am curious as to how, the policy wreak on those close to me. If youre talking about adults who are not allowed to join BSA, then Im sure they are old enough to recognize and deal with this fact - Not everyone can join every club. Its a reality for every person in America and in every other free country where individuals and groups are allowed to associate with whoever they please (if its mutual) and to disassociate with anyone and everyone regardless how those folks feel. If youre talking about adults who have had their BSA membership revoked, then I have to assume that they knew the consequences when they outed themselves. If one decides to be a crusader for a cause, then one better be ready and willing to accept the outcome either way. If youre talking about boys who are not given the stamp of approval from BSA for being gay, then I doubt this has much impact on them either. I assume that these boys do not live in a vacuum and are aware that millions of folks do not approve of homosexuality, not just the BSA. If youre talking about boys who cannot join because they have professed their sexuality, then here too I find it difficult to believe that they have been wreak by it. If theyre old enough to declare their sexuality, then theyre old enough to deal with the ramifications. If they are so young that they cannot handle the ramifications, then theyre too young to be making decisions about their sexual identity especially since its contrary to what is normal and acceptable, and no one should be encouraging them to do so. Although, I think most people recognize the fact that homosexual advocacy groups have been encouraging young men to do just that not because its in the best interest of the boy, but because they figure it will help their cause. If youre talking about boys who are confused about their sexual identity, then again I see no reason for them to be wreak by the policy. The BSA doesnt reject boys who are confused about their sexuality. Furthermore, it is not BSAs job to clear up that confusion Its their parents and churchs responsibility to counsel him in this area. So, TJ, without giving names of course, can you give us any real examplesOr, was this statement I have seen the policy wreak on those close to me - just a bunch of hype.

Im sorryit wasnt porpoises. It turned out to be dolphins. You know how us white male Christian conservatives think if youre not one of us, you're one of them. Or in this case, a fish is a fish is a fish Just another one of my blatant generalizations Heres the scoop from http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/scandal.html - Female dolphins normally go around in groups of up to four generations, raising their young collectively. Males, on the other hand, form pairs and stay together for life. In the waters off Western Australia, scientists observed groups of non-related males colluding to abduct females and take them off to deeper water to mate, in an apparent gang rape. And heres another source: http://www.markcarwardine.com/core_pages/b_leaps_dark.shtml Male bottlenose dolphins sometimes fight so violently that they have been known to kill one another. They will also attack - and sometimes rape - other species such as Atlantic spotted dolphins and harbour porpoises (see BBC Wildlife, March 1995). Ben Wilson, Paul Thompson and others from Aberdeen University, working in the Moray Firth, Scotland, have found over 100 carcasses of harbour porpoises killed in this way - making bottlenose dolphins a significant cause of mortality for porpoises in the area. OGE, Did it ever occur to you that the reason the Priest wasn't seen with other men is that he simply preferred young boys? I'm just saying, it's possible to be a homosexual and a pedophile. I have to ask, did this Priest ever molest young girls? There's no doubt that what he did was horribly sick, but let's not deny the fact that he was attracted to his own gender. That being said, I believe homosexuals do present a greater risk of being a pedophile and their are studies that back this view.

And I wonder if YOU are aware that the whole nature/nurture question regarding the origins of homosexuality remains unanswered? Those who say simply "it's a choice" would probably have a pretty unsympathetic view of stuttering as well... yeah, THAT'S a choice. Just to play devils advocate (no pun intended), even if you could prove that homosexuality was an inborn desire, your comparison to stuttering is horribly flawed. Stuttering is an involuntary behavior. Furthermore, no one is inborn with a desire to stumble over his or her own words. If your argument has any validity at all, one could argue the exact opposite. That is to say, you might argue that the desire to be a homosexual is inborn, but not the behavior. The act of homosexual sex is purely by choice. A better comparison would be that of the alcoholic. While his desire for, and his reaction to alcohol may not be voluntary, he can restrain himself from drinking if he has the resolve. This too can be said of the homosexual. He can refuse to give in to his desires if he so wills it. "Nature verses nurture is moot. Unless you're trying to argue that gays are compelled to have sex, much like those animals you mentioned in the previous animal studies. for those who then cry "where does it stop? the next thing you know we'll be letting it drunken left-handed rapists" - and you know who you are :-) - please, that really does both sides a disservice. Actually, its very valid. Where do you draw the line? If homosexuals are the result of an inborn desire, then why not allow alcoholics in under the same guise? Just as the homosexual might argue - What an alcoholic does in his free time is none of your business. Some alcoholics manage just fine (i.e., do not drink on the job or in front of children) and have no desire to corrupt your child. Who are you to say that the alcoholic cannot be trusted? The same kind of non-sense that defenders of homosexuality spew, can just as easily be applied to other socially unacceptable behaviors. regardless, bird, the old "by whose standards" issue is also pretty hackneyed. It's ALWAYS an arbitrary call for some. others say, just go by the Bible, er, um, I mean the NEW Testament, just don't let the Unitarians have a voice. Or the Wiccans, ftm. You seem to think that there are inconsistencies between the Old and New Testaments. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Since youre stirring the potor is it me? What does a Unitarian believe - everything at the exclusion of nothing? Im not being facetious. What kind of religion is this? How can one embrace Judaism, Christianity, and Wicca simultaneously? Yes, one can have unity if one is willing to accept beliefs that are contradictory to one another. Common sense tells us that this is beyond silly. Im curious. What does the altar look like in a Unitarian Church? I imagine - the Star of David, with a crucifix in the middle, and of course - a ring of flame to appease the Wiccans? Yes, isnt unity grand? (This message has been edited by Rooster7)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Littlebillie, Plenty more, actually. a whole list of folks whom some declare in knee-jerk fashion to be indecent and unethical simply because they're gay. The fact that youre using LAMBA as a resource should tell you something. Im not surprised that they find common ground with homosexuals. Is this mindset REALLY any different than racist and segregationist attitudes of years gone by? how many out there are still against interracial dating, I wonder? Do you know the difference between physical characteristics and sexually perverse behavior? I wonder? And is this kind of truly prejudiced blanket statement what we want to teach youth? Whew! And do we want to send our kids out in the woods with such openly minded sexual deviants? Whew! Over the months - years, now? - various animal studies have been cited that noted increases in homosexual behavior in situations of overpopulation. Seems like a good 'natural' response to such a problem. And one animal study revealed that porpoises participate in gang rape. Does that mean this too is a natural response when there arent enough females to go around? Oh, right. We're not animals. We're special - and even if God takes note of sparrows and lilies, I guess we're still not all part of the same family of life... esp. if you happen to be gay, huh? Hmmm. Well youre right about one thing. We are special. God gave us dominion over the animal kingdom. He also made us in His image. Regardless, by your line of reasoning, anything that an animal does is acceptable for man to do. Now, interestingly, if youre an evolutionist, I guess the monkey see, monkey do thing makes sense. But since I think we are a little above the rest of the animal kingdom, I dont subscribe to that kind of thinking.

Zahnada, If you honestly believe that having your son around a gay man puts him in danger, then I'll let your comment stand. However, I'm afraid it will affect my opinion of you. I realize you were addressing this comment to EdHowever, I feel compelled to respond. If a man is willing to debase himself, despite Gods precepts and natures roar which scream its perversity, just so he can obtain physical gratification, then yes - I consider him a potential threat to my child. I realize that liberal supporters of homosexuality like to point to the relationship as one of mutual love, but lets be honest here. No one is claiming that its wrong for people of the same sex to love one another. Its the so-called physical expression of that love that has been deemed perverse by both God and nature. I love many men, some that arent even related to me by blood. However, I dont get physically aroused when I think of them. And if I did, Id recognize it very quickly as being depraved and offensive, most especially to God. If this offends you, then feel free to lower your opinion of me. While my opinion may not reflect the official BSA policy, I feel comfortable with itSo much so, Im willing to answer to God for it.

My guess is, Mike Long has probably figured out the eventual end to this sad story - "Most likely the Council Committee will have their individual memberships revoked." We can only hope. What I really hate about this story is that it never goes away...it keeps coming up year after year. Homosexuals are determined to pry their way into every social and political organization possible, even ones that are contrary to their cause, perhaps most especially so. The more it distrupts a group...the more a group refuses to yield...the more homosexual advocates seem to seek it out. It's a tiresome annual event. But, if they think we're folding up our tents and allowing them to take the reins of the Scouting movement, I think they'll discover that we're just as determined to fight them and maintain our values.

I guess I have to agree with you. I'm just not a big fan of fence sitters. I wish folks would use their brains and make up their own minds. It seems to me, these folks - the same ones that decide Presidential election as you pointed out - are more concerned with style than they are with substance. If someone comes up with a catch-phrase, like "Where's the beef?" or "It's the economy stupid!" that's enough to push them over to one side and elect a president. I'm just fed up with folks who sit around waiting for someone to sway them - rather than using the space between their ears. Sorry, end of rant...I'll climb off my soapbox...until next time any way. ;-)

I respect this letter and its tone much more than someone trying to dance around the issue to appease fence sitters.

That's a very sad situation. I pray that you will have the wisdom to deal with the two younger brothers. That's going to be a tough job. I will say a prayer for this family...death is always a tough issue, but the suicide of a young person is the worst.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

MiG-19, It probably wasn't your intention...but I'm impressed. :-) I never served in the arm forces, but I have immense respect for those who have or do, especially those folks who made a career of it. Of course, the fact that youve piloted jets and helicopters didnt go unnoticed. All of that stuff by itself is pretty remarkable. But then you turn around and casually remark that you flew Marine One. Wow! By the way, any chance you flew Marine One to Goddard Space Flight Center in the late Eighties or early Nineties. I was there when President Bush came to visit. I really enjoyed watching Marine One land Its a special sight to see. It must have been great being around the President (especially a man who served the office with such honor). I think his "kid" turned out to be okay too. If youre in the DC area this summer, send me an email. My sons will have an Eagle Court of Honor in July/August, Id love for you to be our guest. At the risk of sounding like a 9-year-old (Im actually 44), I think your job/career is really cool! You should be proud of your service to this country.