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 is a dangerous, slippery slope, and the further away from my point of view one gets the more wrong and evil they become".

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, had opened the lines and challenged people to call in and give definition to the terms. I must have heard 50 callers in a row, uninterrupted by the host, call and give their opinions... most arguing that all of the other callers opinions didn't go far enough or went to far. The host seemed to be proving his implied point, that "traditional values" were a moving target.

Finally, a call came in, the man recited the 12 points of the Scout law without comment, and said "that's traditional values, thats character", and hung up. It was actually pretty remarkable; the host and all his callers that followed seemed to mellow, as if the debate had been ended.

Frankly, Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent is about as comprehensive of a list of character traits as I think you can make and still get nearly universal opinion that each are "valuable". Traditional, contemporary, timeless.

Values are based on what we value, as an individual, family or society. If we valued those twelve character traits, and ONLY those twelve traits, would we be missing anything?

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 requirements, and you're now up against someone who wants to force their will and opinions over your own. That's obviously not an uncommon thing in life, especially if you deviate from conformity in any way. Scouting builds leaders, not followers. If youre an Arrowman, youll remember that sometimes all your strength will be required, and the path seem dark and lonely, as you face the isolation that a leader often faces.

Obviously, long-hair and non-conformity does not by definition make you a leader. But the courage to follow your heart, and stand for what you believe is right, does. In the end, you'll best resolve your problem with diplomacy, but that does not necessarily mean compromise. Congratulations from a fellow Eagle Scout!

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 shifting the burden to me. No one has proven that gays are immoral. We have asked on many, many occasions for a source that defines it as such. There is no possible way for the BSA to maintain a universal position if they (or you) can't back up their definition.

Let me state this clearly: I do not claim gays are moral, any more than I try to prove non-gays are moral. I object to the BSA's statement that they are immoral. (This is not an either or situation; heterosexuality, in and of itself, is neither moral or immoral.)

The BSA, you, DedDad and others have proclaimed gays immoral. I have repeatedly asked but one thing: prove it. (DedDad, in case you are wondering, I think that is the question that everyone means you still have not answered; explain your leap that gay = perverted and perverted = immoral.)

You say: You keep avoiding this fact - Your proposal is to define morality at the local level by majority vote.

No, my proposal is to define immorality at the local level by whatever method they see fit. Really major difference.

And if a Scout unit in your neighborhood defines gays as immoral (using the discretion that the Chartering Partner has ALWAYS had), then the option is for those members that disagree to simply go to another unit (or start there own). That's pretty straightforward. (And I'll remind you once more, I don't have the option of starting my own Scout program; the BSA has a Congressionally protected monopoly on the program in the US, and a long history of protecting that monopoly in court; I value all of the other aspects of Scouting except their exclusion of gay people simply because they are gay).

You said: "Once you remove God from the equation, no one can claim anything is morally wrong"

I don't want to remove God from the equation. I have told you several times on this board that I believe morality is ultimately linked to God. I believe in God. All Scouters do, it is a fundamental and clearly expressed foundation of our program.

You said: "... it is an organization that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (just like this country). While BSA has invited all of the world's major faiths to join, I stand convinced that they never intended to give up the moral principles on which they were founded in order to accommodate these faiths"I said in my earliest posts: Amicus briefs filed before the Supreme Court by Scouting's chartering religious denominations are revealing.

The National Catholic Committee on Scouting, the General Commission on United Methodist Men of the United Methodist Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and Agudath Israel of America, were among those who submitted or joined a brief in favor of the BSA policy.

Amicus briefs in opposition to the BSA policy were submitted or joined by the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the Unitarian Universalist Association. One brief noted that even some individual churches within the Southern Baptist Convention have ordained gay clergy.Most of those above are Judeo-Christian. And they disagree with you and the BSA. I don't cite this in order to prove the morality of gays. I cite it to show that this opinion is far from consensus, and bolster my position that in such a case, I support placing the interpretation as close to the parents as possible. I don't see how that could ever be considered wrong.

The discretion to exclude immoral people from participating in Scouting should remain where it has been since 1910, at the local Chartering Partner level and as close to the parents as possible.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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 and twenty members of the National Relationships Committee? (Granted, you Rooster are one on this board that has embraced that you define morality by Judeo-Christian views of God, but I can't accept that as a source because Scouting is not solely a Judeo-Christian organization.)Who has final say over what is right and wrong?Parents. Charter Partners.How would you implement it in BSA?By placing the decision as close to the parents and charter partners as possible.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer.)

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". I have, however, in separate posts suggested that what you know to be the "truth" is inconsistent with something I know to the "truth", perhaps thats where you are making the connection.

It appears your only basis for attacking me as a liar (and shaming me, etc etc) was that I inserted the words "given at" before your word "creation". I believe any person who believes God created man would have to accept that the word "given" is implied, and does not change the meaning of your statement one bit.

I will not continue restating my question of your credibility to debate beyond this post. Doing so is petty and focuses the debate on an individual instead of the issue. However, for one last time, to regain your credibility in this debate, please retract or defend that I am a liar, and explain your definitive source that supports both of the "leaps" in the logic of your theorems.

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 believes it to be wrong. As I have already argued with you in a separate thread, I believe morality is relative. Some morals come closer to absolute morality than others (like basic human rights).

As I have said in the other thread, some mores are almost universal, while others are so relative as to not resemble mores but rather choices. Murder is almost so universally shunned that you might be tempted to argue the case for absolute morality. But homosexuality? Thats so controversial you wont get a consensus, thus showing the utter relativity of the question. Most people hold some things to be absolute. But you cant use that fact to argue all morality is always absolute, or that no morality is relative.

And so ultimately we look to our common cause, our common purpose in Scouting. It is certainly not to teach the immorality of gays. In fact, it isnt even to teach a particular sectarian view.

Im willing to bet youve never been to a world jamboree, and sat in an outdoor arena with 50,000 Scouts from every corner of the globe. Its an awesome feeling of brotherhood that rises above nations, politics and religion. I can think of no better example of the real purpose of Scouting than the feeling that comes across you in that situation. I would only add to that statement by referring again to Baden-Powells quote from near the time of his death:"[scouting's] aim is to produce healthy, happy, helpful citizens, of both sexes, to eradicate the prevailing narrow self interest, personal, political sectarian and national, and to substitute for it a broader spirit of self-sacrifice and service in the cause of humanity," Baden-Powell wrote in one of his last communications.

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 beast (beast is not capable of sentient moral consent). And I have conceded to you that I cannot demonstrate the immorality of incest (regardless of my opinion that it is). You're trying to prove the immorality of gays through a "guilt by false association" technique that I find very difficult to follow.

Once again, to regain your credibility in this debate, please retract or defend that I am a liar, and explain your definitive source that supports both of the "leaps" in the logic of your theorems.

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 done them a disservice by contorting words, calling names, and leveling false accusations. I recognize you will accuse me of the same, but I'm comfortable with every word I've written and being judged by the same standard.

I ask you again: retract or defend your statement that I am a liar, and explain how you used a dictionary to define homosexuality as immoral (when neither word appears in that source in the definition of "perverted"). Until you do so, please forgive me if I crassly suggest you lack the credibility to continue to debate.

I cannot see the automatic sequitur that homosexual inherently means perverted and that perverted inherently means immoral.

Maybe a better way to focus the debate right to the core is to ask you to please again explain the definitive source of the basic premise that homosexuality equals perversion and perversion equals immorality and that immorality should be ban from Scouting. I do not believe it is possible to do without stating opinion, to which there is significnat counter opinion.

Without intending to "put words in your mouth", I believe you have rejected or failed to prove all of these sources that we have previously discussed: God, religion, Baden-Powell, public opinion, dictionary.

It seems to me that until we identify the source for deeming gays immoral, we'll never get beyond the current quagmire of debate.

Rooster, I will respond to your challenge too, but please give me some time to read through all my previous posts on the other thread. I'm certain that I have already directly answered, in context, the question you pose. And I would rather just cut and paste, where appropriate.

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 or 1980. It was only in recent years that the BSA has clearly declared their policy, based on outside pressure on both sides (gay activists and the Mormon Church).

2. Do you intend to abide by the rules and policies you agreed to when you signed.

I intend to adhere to the lessons of the Scouting Movement, and disobey (in as orderly of a way as possible) the BSA corporation on this issue.

3. Will you do the right thing and contact the national executive board with your recommendations?

I already have. And I have been privy to a series of high-level discussions that have prepared other Scouters who have testified before the National Relationships Committee "task force". This is the first time I have raised this issue in a semi-public conversation with other "regular Scouters", and I do so now because I think eventually this debate will have to go to the entire membership and break beyond the boardroom of twelve to twenty people that have affirmed the policy.

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"? Who created you?

I agree completely with God given "free will". Do you reject that God gave gays free will?

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 cheapens the rest of the teachings of our organization. I can't imagine saying to a boy "yes, it's important for you to stand up for what you believe in, but that's not as important as believing gays are immoral". Come on, can't we agree that the lessons of the BSA are not all predicated solely on keeping gays out of the organization?

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 encompasses many views of God, including the full range of Judeo-Christian beliefs, Eastern religions, and Islam, to name a few.

Rooster7 says: That being the case, why don't you start your own organization?I have already answered that question. We can't. The BSA corporation has a monopoly protected by the US Congress to operate the program of the worldwide Scouting Movement within the USA.Rooster7 says: BSA has determined homosexuality to be immoral. It's there choice (as Bob White, DD, and others, have indicated time and time again). Our government ensures them that right. Rooster, please say "It's our choice" and the government ensures us that right. The others and I that are members of this organization and disagree with you and the National Relationships Committee were given just as much right as you to make this choice, and debates like these are a part of that process. And please, I have conceded from the very first post that I support the Supreme Court decision.Rooster7 says: please explain to me how your system of "morality by plurality" works? What happens when your nation is divided on an issue? Well, I would suggest instead of restating all of this again, I just refer you to the comments in the other thread. I think we covered all of this pretty thoroughly there.

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 BSA policy is both a violation of my religious convictions AND a violation of my convictions to the Scout Movement (larger than the BSA corporation). If a boy came to you and made this point, would you just say "nope, youre wrong and Im right, sorry"?Bob White said: Abain you bend the truth to suit you. Suddenly this is now a new refrain from my opponents in this debate, that I am a liar and bend the truth to suit me. Though I don't know that a specific example of me "bending the truth" can be made.

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 Scout program in the USA, I don't have a choice to start another Scouting program identical with the exception of correcting this policy.

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 point several times, plurality of opinion on what is or is not moral is not as simple as +50%I said: You still have never answer my question, which I've raised on a couple of occasions now, when I asked how it was possible that God could give me one truth and you another, and how you would answer a boy in your troop who might ask that very question of you. "Is it just as simple as you are right and I am wrong?"

DedDad said: Again, look at the time youve wasted on this erroneous premise, both yours and mine. Try another specious routine, this one has had its last gasp.How is this an erroneous premise, you've never even answered the question?DedDad said: what about relations between two sisters or two brothers, no health risk could possibly exist and since homosexuality is moral then you must say this relationship is moral. Say it!OK, so is this now your fundamental premise? Moral equivalency? Since the morality of incest can't be proven or disproved, neither can morality of homosexuality? You believe that both behaviors are equal, and by linking homosexuality to incest you feel you have proven your point that homosexuality is immoral because so many more people believe incest to be?

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 anything Ive written?You seem to think if you can state something with a lot of conviction it will be assumed true whether it is or not. Just like your placing words into the definition of perversion (the two biggest words I'd say are absent in your source are both homosexuality AND immorality).

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 that I will not be expelled if I "work within the system to try and change the policy". Granted, this is very murky ground (am I working within the system right now or not?), which only goes to illustrate how murky the BSA's current policy is.

To directly answer your question, the BSA expects me to teach my boys to have strong character, rise above political and sectarian differences, and stand up for what they believe to be right. Sometimes that requires hard choices, and disobedience of authority. I believe that the policy is wrong, and there for given the choice between disobeying it and adhering to the principles Scouting teaches, I would violate the policy.