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 religion believes something mine does not. Finally, your point that homosexuality is against BSA policy (and thus must be immoral) is at the heart of this entire debate.

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 eventually find a dictionary that does. I'll stand behind the 52% of public opinion that I cited that believes gays to be an "acceptable alternative lifestyle".

You have said "homosexuality is wrong because it is an intrinsic truth given at the time of creation"

I can only interpret that one way, and that is that you have been taught (or learned) that your position is God given. That's why I continue to return to the argument that you are basing this on your religion. I remind you that major religions disagree on that subject. 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?"

moral differences between "homosexuality" incest and bestiality

Beasts do not have the capacity to consent, and by definition are taken advantage of in bestial relationships, which clearly is an argument for the immorality of bestiality. Incest evolved more as a public health hazard than a moral issue; the "harm" is clearly done to any potential offspring, and offspring are a definite risk in an incestual relationship.

I see no relative comparison between gays and bestiality or incest.

(This post has been edited by tjhammer.)

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 principle (and even if I'm a lonely voice on this board), I will continue to try and stand by the principles that caused me to initiate the discussion.

I have raised only two distinct issues on this forum: (1) defining the real BSA policy and debating the statement that gays are immoral, and (2) contending that any such debate is a quagmire that boils down to unwavering conflicting opinions, and proposing that local discretion is the only resolution out of the quagmire.

I stand by each of the ten points I made to open this post, and would love to move away from the quagmire of whether gays are immoral (for no reason other that it is a quagmire and everyones opinions are already well known on that issue) and focus the debate to the merits of those original ten points. Nonetheless, I will respond to questions that have been presented to me:

I said: However, since you insist [that I prove homosexuality is moral], 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.

DedDad said: Hehehe... any other capriccios conditions, stand on my head, tie one arm behind my back? These were the same conditions that you have continually placed on others and me; you summarily disregard my opinion or the fact that my religion might not agree with yours. There's no double standard in asking you to follow those rules in proving the immorality of gays.DedDad said: Homosexuality, by definition, is perversion.You then go on to regurgitate the definition of perversion (not the definition of homosexuality). You make the link that "by definition homosexuality is perversion". By whose definition? Yours? Some churches, but not others?

Why cant we just say, "by definition homosexuality is different than heterosexuality"? Why is the word "perverted" a better choice than the word "different"? If one were to read your post only causally, it would seem that you had done some research and were citing empirical evidence, but in fact, you can't support your argument without making a non-sequitur (linking gay life as a perversion, and attaching the negative stigma to that word).DedDad said:The original debate as you have framed it assumes moral relativity as legitimate means to resolve the issueYes, moral relativity is one of the strongest positions from which I have argued, and I stand by the fact that what is moral to you may be immoral to me. But it is more than just our relative perspectives on morality. I would have a much easier time arguing that murder, or bestiality, or prostitution, or drug use or even lying are immoral than I would arguing that gays are immoral. Someone is inherently hurt or taken advantage of in each of the first five behaviors; no one is inherently hurt when a loving gay couple forms a committed long-term relationship. No one.

I have no doubt that DedDad and many others with the zeal to post in this section of the forum (though I do challenge those that unsubstantially claim "nearly everyone" else) believe that gay life automatically equals perversion and perversion automatically equals immorality. Many others believe that this is not an automatic sequitur. You are certainly entitled to your opinion; I don't expect to influence it.DedDad said: However, I would propose that you are close minded to any legitimate way to demonstrate the truth as it pertains to the practice of perversion being immoralI do not accept that gay life is inherently perverted. And "the truth" is a very, very subjective thing to you, whether you admit it or not. You believe in one truth, and that is the one handed you by your religion and the influencing factors in your life. You are not interested in the fact that I consider something completely opposite to be the truth. We covered this in the previous thread, 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, I have asked if you actually know any gay couples? Or gay people? I have assumed that you do not, given your very staunch opposition to gays and your stereotypical view of the lifestyle. Your tendency to cast gays as evil makes me suspect you may have at least one very serious and very unfortunate example in your past of an evil person who affected you or someone close to you; if that is the case, it was because the person was evil, not because they were gay.I said: provide specific reasons why the standard should not be lowered to the chartering partner and parents at the local unit level.

DedDad said: Specifically, "Lowering Standards" is bad because the BSA is an elite organization with "High Standards" and debasing its principles dishonors its integrity. Thank you, I appreciate at least an acknowledgement of the specific question of this thread. And your statement is very well said.

However, (knew there had to be a however, didn't you?), I do not concede that allowing gays to continue serving in Scouting leadership roles inherently debases the principles or dishonors the integrity of the organization. In fact, I am more inclined to believe the hypocrisy of this policy does more to compromise our organizational integrity.

And "lowering the standard" is a peculiar turn of words when used out of context.

I believe there is no difference between a normal, healthy and moral gay person and a normal, healthy and moral straight person. I am suggesting that the standard (in this case agreement or disagreement with my previous statement) must be interpreted and enforced at the local level by parents.Rooster7 said: You're not going to find common ground. For most of us (those who strongly oppose homosexuality on moral grounds), to compromise on this issue, is to surrender. Yes, I recognize that. And thats very unfortunate for us as an organization. Some people who disagree with you feel just as strongly. Many more who disagree with you might not share the passion that either you or I bring to the debate, but nonetheless feel the sting of being a part of a policy they believe to be foolish or wrong.

Rooster, I have no doubt that this policy won't stand the test of time. I believe that there are too many people that dont see the inherent immorality in gays for the policy to stand. I also recognize that there are significant generational pressures that will eventually come to bear. It may take a while to change, but it will change. Even some of the people who feel as strongly as you have acknowledged on this board that they believe the end of this policy to be a (paraphrasing) "sad, but true fact".

I just searched and read a Gallup Poll from May of last year: 52% of Americans said that they personally believe that gays live an acceptable alternative lifestyle. (Interestingly, 74% of that same group of people thought that they would be well into the minority with their opinion).

My concern is in how poorly we as an organization have handled this whole issue. The BSA traditionally has a terrible sense or public relations as it is, and I feel they really fumbled this issue more than any other. They have boxed themselves and a lot of people into a very tight corner, and now any change in the policy will be seen as surrender".

Many people on this forum have stated that they will "leave Scouting" if the policy is changed. Most who have claimed this will, in fact, not follow through. Some of those will be simply hypocrites, but most of those who stay will do so because they come to realize that the change in policy doesn't really affect them at all. They will notice no difference in their daily and weekly Scouting lives. No difference, that is, except the sharp pain of having waged a battle and "surrendered" their "principles". The BSA is quickly closing into a no win situation: if they maintain the policy or if they change it, both ways will now cause further harm to the organization. Thats not being an idealist, thats being a realist.Rooster7 said: The fact is, you've never come to grips with the idea that we find the behavior to be repulsive and unacceptableRooster, you are right. And you cannot come to grips with the idea that others members of this organization do not find the behavior to be repulsive or unacceptable. That's been my point throughout this entire thread. We both completely disagree on this issue. Now what are we going to do about it?Rooster7 said: ... strong words. Nevertheless, they are merely words of someone who believes in God, country, and family.I believe in God, country and family, and I believe in the Scouting movement that raised me. John Ashcroft was on TV making a speech last night (hes a good man for whom I have done campaign work in the past (shocked DedDad?); he and I agree on much more than we disagree on, though Im sure we share different views on the morality of gays). He was questioned on whether, as a Pentecostal minister he allowed his strong religious convictions to influence how he performs his job. His response was fantastic, when he said simply my religion does not teach me to force my religion onto others. I believe that judgement of others according to your religion is at the heart of your arguments.Dan said: it seems that some of the people I see debating only post in this forum. I never see them in any of the other forums on this board. It makes me wondering if they are really scouters! or just someone trying to stir things up. I'll assume you mean me. I am a frequent visitor to this site, and have been for years. I read the forums here, and have participated outside of the Politics section, though not enough.

I was drawn into this debate for one simple reason: a month ago an outside agitator was on this board and raised this debate... (I believe the preferred name assigned to him by some on this board was "troll"). I found many of his arguments to be detached from Scouting and incongruent, and it was not difficult for folks like DedDad to cast the "troll" as an irrelevant outsider (I use the word troll only as reference, I found it completely unScoutlike (and weak) to be calling each other names, and have avoided lowering myself to that level throughout the course of my participation in this current debate).

I chose to take up the debate because I was very much an insider to Scouting, and I very much disagreed with DedDad and some of the others. I wanted the people reading these posts that agree with my point of view to have a more credible voice in which to relate.

Of course, some of my opponents have attempted to label me as nothing but an agitator or discredit me. Anyone reading my posts should find casual comments of my Scouting credentials and experience... I assure you mine are no less than my opponents in this debate, and likely my Scouting credentials and experience are considerably more extensive (this is not a challenge to prove my dossier is bigger than yours, its simply a qualified response).

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 homosexuality is moral. I concede, I cannot. I cannot prove to you that it is moral. I believe it is not immoral, you believe it is. That's been my point from the beginning, that morality is subjective (you strongly disagree with this, but I again challenge you to prove otherwise within the parameters listed above).

The very fact that (I believe) you can not prove the immorality of homosexuality (no more than I can prove that it's not immoral without using one or more of the techniques listed above) is the essence of why I suggested that the exclusion of gays should be a standard lowered to the local unit level.

So, DedDad (or others), in addition to proving the immorality of homosexuality, I would also ask that you return to the original debate of this thread, and provide specific reasons why the standard should not be lowered to the chartering partner and parents at the local unit level. (Please give specific reasons why this is a bad idea.)

(This post has been edited by tjhammer.)

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 a hike".

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 national policy to bar women from being Scoutmasters make those units that ignored the policy wrong?

Or does their setting of a specific policy--conducive with their unit and the parental preferences of that unit--make them right (since that was the eventual policy change)?

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 outside forces.

And now that I propose a real solution, very few want to comment. I suppose it is because it is hard to disagree with lowering the standard to the local unit level, and I suspect that is the solution that will take hold over the next several years (either through action by National or simply by default out of local units ignoring the policy).

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 organization based on any narrow view of morality (not sectarian, political or otherwise). We are not the Royal Rangers. Universal (or even consensus) opinion does not exist on the issue of homosexuals in Scouting. There is no definitive and universal source for Scouting (we looked at God, religion & Scouting founders) to equate homosexuality with immorality (that is not to say that some do not make that equation personally from an intrinsic truth within). Scoutings gay ban policy is ambiguous and not enforced equally. Scoutings gay ban policy is severely typecasting our organization as something were not, namely narrow, sectarian and exclusionary; and it allows some to marginalize the other benefits of Scouting. Scoutings gay ban is not consistent with any other national exclusionary standard of the organization. The gay ban policy is influenced by numbers the BSA affirmed the policy under pressure from the Mormon Church (which has adopted Scouting as their official boy program for all members, and now constitute 30% of the organization). The BSA does not pull the charters of the other major churches that sponsor units and deem homosexuality moral. The Chief Scout Executive has been quoted as saying the BSA would have to seriously reconsider its policy if membership plummeted. Scouting already has a mechanism for including/excluding leaders from the organization, and the chartering partner of each unit controls it.I believe each of the above statements is fact. Certainly they may be worded or organized in such a way as to argue a specific perspective, but I have tried hard to make sure they are fact nonetheless.

Much as I expected, the other thread has ended in the quagmire of my definition of morally straight is better than yours, because I say so. Well never all agree. And therein is the answer really.

It is not a novel concept; others have suggested it on this board. Certainly it is one that has been discussed nationally, and there is a considerable amount of precedence it. The judgment simply must be left to the parents at the local level. The decision simply must be left to the chartering partner.

We followed this policy with women in leadership roles, and we followed the policy with setting the age for Cub Scouting (both issues that the Mormon Church was heavily involved in). For those that argue that the BSA has a right to set this standard, I agree, I just disagree at what level the standard can be set. The national organization (not known for being in touch with Scouting in the field, or for exceptional public relations) is too broad of a standard bearer. Now that the BSA has won the right to free associate, lowering the standard to the local level no longer risks units having to defend their own policies.

And as was noted on another thread, the fact that Scout units do not operate in a vacuum is a problem local units that have different policies on gays must interact at Camporees, etc. And while that is a difficult problem, its not one that we cant deal with. (Not to pick on the Mormon Church more than I have, but they make a simple example of this many of you have dealt with scheduling weekend Camporees and knowing that the Mormon units would be leaving on Saturday night because they chose to worship Sunday morning in their house of worship a different standard than most of the other troops.)

Ive been accused by some of my opponents in the debate on the other thread of having an agenda. And while its not the agenda they think it is, they're correct. My agenda is to save an organization that I love from cutting off its nose to spite its face. My agenda is to right what I perceive to be a wrong, without forcing my morality on anyone. My agenda is to change the BSA policy to make it a local matter.

And its going to take time. A lot of time. And a lot of debates like the other thread that are passionate but ultimately end in the exact same, frustrating place.

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 chartering organizations (well, and your opinion, we also know that for sure). 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.

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 some use to kick gays out of Scouting.

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 suggest the Royal Rangers.

http://royalrangers.ag.org/royal-rangers/index.cfm(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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 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.

So you can not use God's Word as the basis to exclude members from Scouting. Agreed?

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 morally straight. After opening that door, you wanted to really just limit it to West or B-P. And now that I have asked you to provide a single sentence that would support your claim that those two men (or either of them) were against homosexuals being allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, you want to move on and say that the real source of your definition is the "intrinsic truth" that existed before religion and was given at the time of creation.

So now we're back to God. Can I ask how this can possibly be an "intrinsic truth", if God gave you one truth, and me an opposite, and we both honestly believe our truth is correct? Did God plant in us opposing truths just to create hate? Or is one of us just simply wrong.

Before you fire off another missive to me, can you consider how you would answer a Scout if he asked you that question?

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 "circumstantial evidence" and that most of the unflattering stuff about B-P was destroyed by him, Olave and Hillcourt.

B-P was married and had kids

Yes, and that disproves that he was homosexual? Or bisexual? (Of course, B-P was in his mid 50s when he finally married Olave, a girl in her 20s and his relationship with her was the first relationship with any female noted in any of his volumes of diaries throughout his life.)

Nope, wrong again, I only claimed that the author (which is either B-P or West, I forget who wrote which parts)

OK, I think we're finally getting somewhere. (I'll ignore cjmiam's claim that we're basing the "no gays allowed" policy on all the "founders" of the BSA, and particularly not B-P thats a good claim, though the BSA literature was radically more puritan than B-Ps own handbooks I urge you to read things like Rovering to Success and Paddle Your Own Canoe, books by B-P that were really on the cutting edge for their time, advice to boys on just about any topic (like masturbation, etc) you wouldnt have seen that kind of material in the BSA books, I suppose it was deemed irrelevant to the American Scouting program).

I've been trying to figure out from what high source of morality you want to base your reasoning on.

I first thought it was God. But once I raised the issue of major churches who disagree with the BSA on this issue, I recognized that God and the Church were not your source. Then it became the "founders" of Scouting, and what their intent was. But you don't want a very broad list of founders... you would rather we focus just on one or two men... B-P and/or West.

So, is it because B-P and/or West would have (in your opinion) found homosexuality perverted and in conflict with their membership standards they set that you draw your strength? Is it an oversimplification to say that you are placing all you eggs in their basket, so to speak? Who or what is the "standard bearer" for your statement that homosexuality is immoral and should not be allowed in Scouting?

Your specious character defamations from gay agenda web-sites

You're trying so desperately to typecast me as a radical gay activist (I suppose this is not inconsistent with your desire to typecast in general). I suppose the thinking is, if you can link me to gay activism, then you will discredit me by association.

I haven't "lifted" my arguments from anyone... I am not a "wild gay activist" trying to "destroy the organization". Frankly, when people try to cast me as such on this board instead of addressing the reasoning I present, it only serves to weaken their position further.

What I am, however, is not unlike a lot of people in this organization. People who love Scouting, who have gained from Scouting, and who have given to Scouting. People who, not unlike you, perhaps even more than you, have helped build this organization into what it is today. People, who look at the BSA's ban on homosexuality and find it completely illogical and immoral itself. People who support the BSA's right to free association (I've said several times that I agree with the Supreme Court decision), but now fear that we are going to die on our own sword.

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 of external forces, but rather an internal decision of what is the right thing to do.

And cjmiam, for you to suggest that those opposing this one policy of the BSA should just go start their own organization is indefensibly claiming that Scouting has no worth beyond its "no gays allowed" philosophy.

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 have them do unto you" rule comes closest to absolute morality among humans.

Some morals are almost universal while others are so relative as to not even resemble morals but rather choices. Lying in wait and murdering a member of your own clan? This is so universally shunned among humans that some are tempted to use this case to argue for absolute morality. Homosexuality? Very controversial: you won't get a consensus on this one, thus showing the sheer relativity of this question.

Almost all people hold some things to be absolute. However, it is desperation to take this simple fact and try to force it to show that all morality is always absolute, and that no morality is relative.

Rooster, Can you tell me an example of absolute morality?

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.

Walt Whitman

U.S. poet, author, 19th c.

Oscar Wilde

Irish author, 19th c.

Michelangelo

Italian artist, 15th c.

Leonardo Da Vinci

Ital. Artist, scientist, 15th c.

Christopher Marlowe

Eng. Playwright, 16th c.

Aristotle

Greek philosopher, 384-322 B.C.Herman Melville

U.S. author, 19th c.

Horatio Alger, Jr.

U.S. author, 19th c.

Tchaikovsky

Russian composer, 19th c.

Julius Caesar

Roman Emperor, 100-44 B.C.

Augustus Caesar

Roman Emperor

James I

English King, 16th-17th c.

Queen Anne

English Queen, 18th c.

Marie Antoinette

French Empress, 18th c.

Montezuma II

Aztec ruler, 16th c.

Peter the Great

Russian Czar, 17th-18th c.

Hans Christian Anderson

Danish author, 19th c.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

U.S. author, 19th c.

Edward II

English King, 14th c.

I asked you to produce a single piece of evidence that supported your claim that B-P, Boyce, West, Hillcourt or Seton would have excluded gays from Scouting, because this is now the standard bearers that you claim to defend. Youre making a very definitive claim and speaking for people long gone, the burden of proof is upon you to provide some basis for that claim.

Two of the three most popular biographies of B-P even go so far as to suggest Baden-Powell himself was a closeted homosexual. In fact, both Character Factory and Tim Jeals Boy Man dedicate no less than a chapter on the very subject (and both were written outside the current American vacuum that frames this debate). The most popular biography of B-P (and the one written by someone who actually knew him), Bill Hillcourts Two-Lives of a Hero does not mention this possibility, but admittedly Hillcourts own writings on B-P reveal that his goal with the biography was "to keep the memory of B-P alive".

Granted, I believe all of the evidence that B-P was gay is circumstantial at best, as great care was taken by him and people close to him to discard anything from his personal notes and correspondence that didnt frame him correctly for history. But it was significant enough to warrant considerable ink in multiple major biographies.

It is more important to some, however, that Baden-Powell likely would not have supported the exclusion of gays and lesbians from Scouting programs. His own words at the end of his life make that clear. "[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.

In a final letter to the general public, he wrote a sentence that suggests the dislike he had developed for useless squabbling and exclusion that seems to exist in modern Boy Scouts.

"Looking back on a life of over eighty years, I realize how short life is and how little worth while are anger and political warfare," he said

So I ask again, DD, please provide a single sentence that would support your claim that B-P (or any of the founders) would exclude gays from Scouting. (without projecting your definition of moral behavior onto them).

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 enforced. Yet we are allowing this one issue to define us. Surely no Scout leader would say that this is a major issue in their day-to-day, week-to-week roles as a volunteer in the program. None of us, if asked, would rank teaching the morality or immorality of homosexuality as among the top 10, top 100 or maybe even top 1,000 things we do as Scout leaders.

Gay activists have drawn much attention to this, and the liberal media has jumped on board. And while I'm just as uncomfortable with that spotlight as others, you have to ask if we aren't really deserving of it.

When, not if, the policy changes

I agree with you here to. In fact, most leaders who disagree with the policy have decided that its just a matter of time before it changes. They also believe that they wont enforce the policy when the issue comes up close to home. And, sadly, they also believe that this is not a battle in which they should publicly enter (its a good thing, because as the Supreme Court transcript I cited above clearly states, the BSA will (and has) expelled members who publicly defend the morality of gays). Even I have limited my attempt to effect change to the discourse in this forum.

I think the strongest sign that this is not a policy that will stand the test of time is that the difference of opinion seems to be more generational than geographical.

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 morality and absolute morality. Relative morality is cultural, sculpted by religious principle, laws and teachings. Absolute morality is more fundamental, and reserved for very few moral issues... those things we deem basic human rights.

I guess my previous statement that morality is relative was an oversimplification of my position.

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.

Be very careful with your boastful claims that you are just following in the tradition of Baden-Powell. I suggest you need a history lesson on old B-P and his contemporaries. Scouting could have been (and was) looked upon as a fairly liberal movement (you can be liberal and believe in God) in those early days... B-P's philosophies on teaching boys were definitely "outside the box".

And while I won't presuppose to know how B-P himself would have leaned on the issue of gays in Scouting (and you should not either), I will suggest that you have absolutely NO BASIS for claiming that B-P, James West, ET Seton, William Boyce, Hillcourt and the others meant "no gays allowed" when they wrote that a Scout should be morally straight.

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 down Rooster, I don't mean its possible your son could be gay), I bet your perspective would change some. And I guarantee they would tell you that being gay was not a choice they ever remember making, it was just how they felt from the earliest days of their sexual awareness.

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, 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.

Major religions disagree on the morality of homosexuality.

... a larger issue that we now face is an inconsistency between this policy and our policy to teach a boy Duty to God. If a boy's religion happens to be one that does not believe homosexuality to be immoral, then we are REQUIRING him to choose between allegiance to the BSA policy and his Duty to God.

How do we reconcile this?

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 underlying issue, slavery, was morally reprehensible to the rest of the country. And the battle of states rights became forever linked in history to slavery.

The BSA fought the battle in court for free association, and that too was high ground from which to fight. But unfortunately we now run the risk of that forever being linked to homosexuality.

Your reference to slavery is even more appropriate than just the parallels of the battle lines. Many in the South actually found moral standings for owning slaves... they believed it was their "God given right" to do so, and "blacks were impossible of being moral creatures in God's eyes". But others in the country simply could not understand that perspective, and ultimately it took a war and a subsequent century for the majority of America to find blacks were not immoral people. Morality is completely relative.