tjhammer

At first, I was bewildered by the debate technique used sometimes on this board. After reading that gay Scout leaders were no different than a father/daughter/moose threeway relationship, I was surprised any person could honestly believe that. Now that I have read in other threads that a teenage boy with an earing or long hair is just a step away from a man with a penchant for dressing up in women's underwear, I've gotten a better perspective on just who I've debated against. It's basically a tactic that says "anything that deviates from exactly how I believe the world ought to be i

Again I'm astonished by how often some on this board rush to push their own opinions as the only acceptable point of view, and back themselves up with a "God intended" endorsement. If you asked the official Mormon church not so long ago (and even some members of that church yet today) to define what the "traditional family that God intended" looked like it would be one father, a host of mothers, and many children. They were convinced that such a relationship was God intended and was the perfect family unit.

I think most people say "traditional values" when they really mean something like "standard values". Just because something is traditional (or habitual) does not make it inherently good or right. So what's a good standard for things we should value? A few years ago, while traveling late at night across the country, somewhere near Chicago I was listening to talk radio. This was at the height of Clinton's fiasco (which one?), and the whole country was in debate over "traditional values" and how to define character. The talk show host, who seemed to have a rare liberal slant for talk radio,

It just feels so wierd to type "I agree with Rooster and DedDad", but it could not be more true in this case!

I've been distracted away from the Forums on business for a while (and I needed to allow the "vein on my forehead" to subside, too). With tongue firmly ensconced in cheek... Should the POLICY to ban kids with long hair be enforced at the local level, or the National level? You know, since we all can't agree on the subject, and there doesn't seem to be a real definitive statement on this issue from either BSA or Baden-Powell. grekonsz -- you're obviously a bright young man, and I'm sure you've gotten all of the advice you originally sought (and then some!). You've met the requirement

Mea Culpa.

Rooster: You insist that we continue to debate the morality of gays. I ended the last thread and started this one by conceding that there was no conclusion to that debate, and in fact that was what I expected from the onset. I will never change your opinion. You will never change mine. You expect me to prove that gays are moral. You insist that I defend relative morality in order to prove my argument that gays are moral. There is no burden on me to prove gays are moral. The BSA and you are making a claim, I'm simply challenging whether you can prove that claim. You insist on sh

DedDad asks: tj, are you homosexual? I really shouldn't dignify your question with any response, but... Why do you ask? Hoping to "discredit" me by further identifying my "agenda" or attaching a stereotype? What right do you have to ask me or anyone else that question? Even the BSA does not claim that right. Do you "suspect" everyone that fails to believe gays are immoral or has gay friends are really gay themselves? Simplicity, ala McCarthy Commission.

Roster says: How are these morals established? Based on what criteria? If it's purely relative, then why do you pretend to be on high moral ground in regard to your stance on homosexuality? You give me no objective way to determine if something is moral or immoral. I have to assume you are not equipped to do so.Rooster, I could restate those exact words back to you and prove the point of my debate. I have implored DedDad and others to answer the very questions you're asking me. What is the source for your statement that homosexuality is immoral? Why should everyone in the BSA agree with you an

I said: "You have said 'homosexuality is wrong because it is an intrinsic truth given at the time of creation' DedDad then said: You are a liar! (etc, etc, etc). I then referred to where I quoted you: I said: Who or what is the "standard bearer" for your statement that homosexuality is immoral and should not be allowed in Scouting? DedDad said: Its not a who or a what, it is an intrinsic truth that existed before religion and from the time of our creation. Didn't you bother to read anything Ive written?It seems there was never a debate over me inserting an extra word "my".

Rooster, here is an excerpt from the other post that I would refer to answer the question you have posed again here about my thoughts on absolute morality:Rooster7 said: So if a nation, like somewhere in the Middle East wanted to treat their women like second-class citizens. That would be morally acceptable if 51% of nation agreed. No, you unfairly equate my statement to mean "simple majority" rules. Its no more appropriate for that country to treat its women as second-class citizens than it is for the BSA to treat homosexuals that way. And not just because 51% of the rest of the world be

None. But I am aware of multiple unavowed homosexuals.

Homosexuality, by definition, is perversion. This is the theorem part.No, that's the "theory" part. Your Webster dictionary defining perversion doesn't even make that statement. You do. And then you make another leap that all perversion is immoral, again without a source.because Ive additionally proven the practice of perversion is congruent with incest and bestialityAre we back to that again? How is there moral equivalency between gays and incest and bestiality? I have already discredited bestiality as immoral because, unlike homosexuality, man must by definition take advantage of

cjmiam says: We do know what the policy is and we like it that way. Thats why we support our program. Thats why we continue to enroll our kids in the program. Thats why our communities and other organizations overwhelmingly continue to support us. Dont you get it? We choose to stand by the BSA as it currently is. We dont want it changed! cjmiam, haven't we already covered this? You are essentially suggesting that the only real reason people join Scouting is because Scouting bans gays. That's silly.

DedDad said:I didnt say it is MY truth and I didnt say it was GIVEN at creationTalk about picking and choosing your words. An intrinsic truth that existed since creation cant be interpreted by any reasonable and reverent person to mean anything but God given. Are you suggesting that "creation" was not by God's hand? I realize there are many supporters on this board of your point of view on the issue of gays in Scouting. You have been the most vocal defender of that point of view on these threads. With all due respect to those people who agree with your point of view, I believe you have do

Policies will not change because you send posts to a forum. I disagree. I believe the only way the policy will change is if the 900,000 adult leaders and 3.2 million parents of the organization realize exactly what the policy is and that they have an opportunity to affect change if they so desire. 1. Did you sign a membership application form? Yes. I joined Scouting at the age of eight. It was not until just a few years ago that I (and many BSA members) had any clue that an expressed policy existed. There was no expressed policy banning gays published by the BSA in 1910, 1950 o

DedDad, where is your credibility? Are you planning to just gloss over the fact that you called me a liar, and that you have added words (both homosexual and immoral) to the definition of perverted to make your leap? Your method of debate is very troubling.DedDad said: I would tell him God has given us free will to choose right or wrong, good or bad and truth or prevarication. To say your "truth" is divinely manifested is truly a miracle. Does He reveal any other facts to you? You have said that your truth is intrinsic and given at creation. Is that not exactly the same as "divinely manifested

Bob White said: You chose the tactic of avoiding facts, and misdirecting responses around the true issue.Please refer to the ten facts I listed in the first post on this thread. I stand by each of them as fact, and I do not believe there is any "misdirection around the true issue" buried within those bullet points (or in any of my posts).Bob White said: [if a boy came up to me] I would say "sorry those are not the principles of this organization or the rules you agreed to when you joined". I've made this point before, but placing such a priority on teaching the immorality of gays really cheape

Rooster7 says: I do NOT believe morality can be separated from God.Nor do I. But, I refer you to my original post where...I said: Nearly everyone who takes a strong position bases it upon their understanding of morality as defined by their religious convictions. All Scouters have religious convictions because all of us agree that the Duty to God is a pillar of what Scouting is about. But in defining what we mean by "Duty to God," we have - after long and hard thought - said it is not narrow, it is not Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon, Episcopalian, Catholic, or even Judeo-Christian. It enco

Bob White said: principles of the program are one in the same as the principles set by the BSA. They are inseparable. The program belongs to the BSANo, Bob. The Scouting Movement exists in 157 countries around the world and is completely separable from the BSA, which is the corporation in the US that has the exclusive right to run programs based on the Scouting Movement. The BSA is in the minority of Scouting programs that claim their entire effort is based on whether they can exclude gays. As I've said, your point is fair, but I can't accept it unilaterally. I believe that obeying this B

Bob White: I don't want to ignore your point... it is a very fair one. My answer, directly, is that I believe the principles taught by the Scout Movement should be obeyed over the principles set by the BSA organization. The Scout Movement teaches boys to stand up for what they believe to be right and "...to be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open, you should respect and defend the rights of all people..." (source, page 46, BSA Handbook, under the definition of morally straight). And because the BSA has a Congressional monopoly on the

I said: Beasts do not have the capacity to consent DedDad said: easily demonstrated by the biting, kicking, goring, etc, which would occur should the animal not want you to come in contact with it ... should the dirty deed not be consensual the bestial and beast would quickly find him/herself ravaged or harmed.By that line of reasoning a woman raped is assumed to have consented simply because she didn't "ravage" her attacker. That's silly.DedDad said: should public opinion change to be less that 50%, by your logic youll have to change your morality I guessNope. I've already answered that

You have called me a liar and accused me of placing words in your mouth attributing these words to you "homosexuality is wrong because it is an intrinsic truth given at the time of creation". Refer to your fifth post on this page of the other thread and call me a liar again. Excerpt in question: I said: Who or what is the "standard bearer" for your statement that homosexuality is immoral and should not be allowed in Scouting? DedDad said: Its not a who or a what, it is an intrinsic truth that existed before religion and from the time of our creation. Didn't you bother to read anythin

DedDad: Homosexuality, by definition, is perversion. That's the one I'm not seeing in your source. Show me where that is please? Your source defines perversion, it does not define homosexuality as perversion. I challenge that leap. I also challenge the leap that you make that by definition anything "perverted" is immoral.

Bob: And the rule of the BSA regarding gays is "don't ask, don't tell". It further stipulates that I need not be gay to be kicked out of the program, only that I not advocate to the boys in my charge that the BSA is wrong. I grant you that places me in a precarious situation when a boy comes to me on this issue, but homosexuality is not a topic of discussion in my unit (nor is heterosexuality). If you suggest that by my posting on this public forum I have violated the BSA rules, I would refer you back to the text of the transcript of the Supreme Court Case, which clearly states