tjhammer

slontwovvy said: Except for the fact that one likes the same sex cannot procreate, and is not allowed in the BSA, while the other can procreate, likes the other sex, and is approved by multiple religious books. Hmm...those sound like differences to me....and that's just the start.... Of course. But how are those moral differences? Are you suggesting that you must be able to procreate to be moral? And as for "multiple religious books", please refer to my point that major religions stood before the Supreme Court and argued AGAINST the BSA's policy. You cannot claim moral high ground because your

Umm.. That would be Merriam/Websters Dictionary of non-relative meanings of words, I know everything is relative to you but words do have real meanings http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?perversion I must be missing the link to homosexuality on that source you provided. Unless you are following the definition of normal coitus, in which case by definition most any sexual activity between hetero couples would be considered "perverted". Nonetheless, I trust that if this dictionary doesn't support your leap that gay = perverted and perverted = immoral, you will eventual

Wow, sorry for the long post. I stepped away from the debate for almost a full day and now have lots to respond to. Before I begin, I'd like to state that my family and coworkers are starting to get grumpy about the amount of time I'm spending on this issue. I agree (in fact I champion the thought) that arguing over gays in Scouting is such an insignificant thing when compared to the awesome value of the real important aspects of Scouting. Most people are nott affected by the policy in any real way, but there are many that are deeply affected. Many good and decent boys and leaders. On pr

The whole point of this thread when I started it was because the first thread had already reached a point that I knew was inevitable: disagreement on the immorality of homosexuality. The point of this thread was not to debate all over again using the exact same arguments; it was to start a new debate on a possible resolution. However, since you insist, DedDad, prove homosexuality is immoral. And do so without: (1) stating your opinion; (2) linking it to some other act; (3) invoking your religion or (4) speaking for others. You have demanded that your opponents prove that homosexualit

While I disagree with the homosexual policy I see enough inate good in the program not to want to leave.I couldn't agree more with the sentiment. (And I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth... I though you were in favor of the current policy). It's simply not an option to leave the program despite strongly disagreeing with the national ban on homosexuals. The repeated refrain from cjmiam ("just go start your own organization") isn't a realistic option, nor is it fair to tell the people who have spent years building this organization and now disagree with cjmiam and others to "take

OGE, I recognize that you and I disagree on the issue of homosexuality. Nonetheless, I have respect for you, your debate style and your participation in this forum. You have made your points without being sanctimonious, calling names or jumping to conclusions. But your latest argument seems like a slightly hasty conclusion, for you. I imagine many people made the "what next, rank requirement changes?" argument over allowing women Scoutmasters, but I think that (and this) is just too slippery of a slope to expect.

Women were not allowed to serve in leadership positions with Boy Scout Troops.Many local units thought that policy was wrong, and simply gave their women leaders "committee member" positions, despite their real role as Assistant Scoutmasters, etc.Many of the same groups that staunchly opposed women in leadership roles are at the helm of the "gay ban" policy (Mormon Church).Today the policy has been changed, and women serve in leadership roles throughout the country, except in the Mormon Church sponsored units, because the policy was changed to make it a local decision.Does the fact that it was

This isn't like the federal government deciding the individual states can decide! No, evmori, I would say a closer example would be this is like the Federal government letting the local school districts decide, placing specific influence over a child as close to the child's parents as possible (something I think everyone on this board believes is a good idea). It's really disheartening to see how some people have responded to the debate I raised on the board. Some of those arguing against me on the other thread found it necessary to try and villify me or define me by association to o

OK, the other thread has finally gotten to the inevitable conclusion I knew it would, which is ultimately no conclusion. Debate over Scoutings policy to ban anyone who does not profess homosexuality to be immoral is a quagmire. Honest Scout leaders strongly disagree on morality, and it is their right to do so. These are my points, summarized with nice little bullets:The BSA was right to win the Supreme Court case for free association. Now that we won the right to associate, many believe we need to correct the prejudice that won us that right before we die on our own sword. Were not an or

Suppose the "plurality and relative perspective on mores" decided that they did not want to respect a certain group, have tolerance for them, or stand on common ground. By your logic, who's to say they're wrong. The trap you try to lay is a great case in point: youve provided no evidence that the 900,000 adult volunteers or 3.2 million boys and their parents have come together in common ground against homosexuality. In fact, the only opinions we really know for sure are those of the BSAs National Relationships Committee, lead predominantly by the Mormon Church and a few of the other large char

And lest I be accused of ignoring your reasoning...If morality is based on one's faith, and no one faith can drive BSA's definition of morality, then what immoral behavior can BSA deem as unacceptable?... I would answer the question by posing the same question another way...If our legal system is based on mores, and mores are based on faith, yet no one faith can drive the laws of our society, then how do we ever come up with laws?By plurality and relative perspective on mores. And by mutual respect for each other, tolerance and standing on common ground. Ironically, that's the same argument so

OK, Rooster. We seem to have come full circle back to hypocrisy in the BSA policy. You claim (and I don't agree) that the BSA is a Christian organization (and not just Christian in general, but a specific flavor of Christian that believes exactly like you), and we tolerate participation by non-Christians just as long as they act according to our Christian beliefs. Of course this is completely untrue. Scouting has never been sectarian... quite the contrary, the goal has been to rise above that. If, in fact, that is the type of organization you want to belong to, then I would sugg

Gosh, I'm not sure I can sustain my "activism" much more.... I'm going to have to eventually get some work done at the office. But this is a worthy debate, and I recognize more eyes are upon the discussion than are participating. Weekender your morality is based on what it says in the Bible (which Bible, by the way? It seems that with each new edition of NIV, etc the Bible's language evolves). That's fine, and and worthy source for you. But in Scouting we don't require our members to accept the Word of the Bible. As I first said above:Nearly everyone who takes a strong position base

DD - One of the best tactics in debate is to stay out of the way when your opponent is discrediting himself. It seems we both think that we are doing just that. Perhaps we both are, perhaps just one of us is. I'd like to continue to follow a line of reasoning, though. I have asked you to identify the source of your definition of morality. At first, I was sure that it was based on God and religion (that seemed to be where most were claiming their basis). But now no one wants to stand by that source. Then I thought you wanted to claim that it was based on the "founders" definition of morall

I like your pretty list though, how did you get it to format like that? It took me a while. Seriously, I just made a HTML table... it seems this board accepts HTML for formatting. at least reference the web site you plagerized your quotes from I did a search on the web for quotes from B-P. The fact that I found two in an article on a gay site makes them irrelevant? Both Jeal and Rosenthal said he had repressed feelings that he never acted on That's correct. I agreed with that in my previous post when I said "closeted homosexual" and that there was nothing but "circu

Pioneer, that's just not it. Judging by what I have written, do you consider me to be an activist hell bent on destroying Scouting? Or someone who is trying to ram my own morality down everyone else's throat? Granted, there is a very real thing as gay activism... it's the "in your face" crowd. I would hope that you don't classify me (and the others that have posted similar remarks as mine) as such, just because I dare to suggest that we (BSA) are wrong to take a stand on this issue. Quite to the contrary, and as I said above, this is not a change in policy that should be made because

What is absolute morality? Hmmm... very interesting question, and one that has me thinking. I probably should sleep on the answer before posting, but I dont have the patience. Absolute morality comes from within the individual, and I believe it is given by a higher power. It is innate and does not change. I believe it is at the core of right and wrong, and there is only one truth. I believe absolute morality is impossible without a belief in a higher power... perhaps, that is the only absolute morality, a belief in a higher power. Possibly the "do unto others, as you would hav

DD -- Your assertion that gays didnt exist and were unheard of before 1960 is naive at best. That line of ignorance (Im calling the thought ignorant, not you) says to the homosexual Scout "no one who has ever felt as you do has done anything worth mentioning. A quick search of the Internet yields a list much bigger than this:Alexander the Great Macedonian Ruler, 300 B.C. Socrates Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C. Richard the Lionhearted English King, 12th c. Francis Bacon English statesman, author Frederick the Great King of Prussia Lord Byron English poet, 18th c. Wa

In responding to my post, I only hope that we all remember that a scout is courteous, and that we all love and believe in scouting, although we may disagree in the details. Hear hear! Bob Russell, I believe that your position and how you would handle the situation is very similar to a very large number of Scout leaders. It is certainly how I would handle the situation, and I agree with every step you would take. And really this allows me once again to highlight the main point of this thread... the BSA's "policy" is confusing and not universally enforced... in fact, barely enforc

Moral relativism is separate from interpreting morality (relativism is about justifying immorality in the name of morality... like when the French lied when the Germans came to their door looking for Jews, or when Scouts lie about their sexuality in order to remain in the BSA). The Peoples Republic of China justifies their government's intolerance of different opinions and violation of human rights by hiding behind the theory of moral relativity. In fact, though, the rest of the world recognizes those rights of all human beings as absolute. So there is such a thing as relative mora

I only used it because it provided a way to show that large numbers don't necessarily equate to what is correct or the right way of doing things.On this statement, we completely agree.

DD, you are the one that seems to want it both ways. I've read all of your other posts on this subject, and you are the first to link religion to the debate, now you say "religion" and "morality" aren't linked, and even suggest that the morality (set by you, set by +50% of the population, set by the national leadership of the BSA, not set by any other standard) is even MORE relevant than religious principle. Of course morality is linked to religious principle... not any one specific religion, but a teaching that there is accountability outside ones self, represented in many forms. B

Are you suggesting there was never a basis in the Bible to support slavery? >Behavior, not a physical trait Of course both sides of that issue have volumes of scientific data that supports their respective sides of that debate or discredits the other, and both sides will claim that all of the others data is ultimately non-scientific or presupposes the outcome. Without drawing into those statistics and the analysis, can I just ask: Rooster, I'm guessing you don't really know any gay people, except from afar. If your son, or nephew or niece were to reveal their homosexuality (calm d

There are so many angles from which to debate this issue. I'd like to draw focus to what I think is the most important, and ask for a specific response to the issue I raise above: 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, E

As mentioned in my other post, I completely support the Supreme Court decision... that decision was rendered on free association, and the ability of private organizations to set membership standards. It would have been a sad day for the BSA and thousands of other organizations if that case had been lost. cjmiam -- you raise the issue of slavery, and it is a good parallel for this debate (though I respectfully suggest you're confused about which role you are currently playing). The South fought the Civil War for states rights, and that was high ground from which to fight. But the underlyi