tortdog

>what would you propse they do? Should the BSA be allowed to have surprise home morality insepctions, seeking out "contraband" deemed immoral, such as playboy, Maxim, and other "immoral" possesions? If a scoutmaster is found with any photogrpahs of scantaly clad women he will no longer be allowed to participate in scouting?

We could relegate this to be silly basket, but I think it's a legitimate (and serious) question. Certainly we can agree that certain conduct should disquality someone from BSA leadership, e.g., murder and child abuse. I cannot fathom the BSA standing by and allowing a Scouter to remain while engaging in such conduct in his private life.

>Correction, Tortdog, BSA says OVERT homosexuals can't be leaders. It they are "out" as gay, they are out as BSA leaders. Like the military don't ask don't tell.

Maybe this is the key. If you start to stand up and scream "I am gay!" then the BSA says you are out. Maybe the BSA will never send out a secret squad to determine our private sins, but if a Scouter starts producing pornographic movies while proclaiming he is a BSA leader, the BSA would act to remove him.

Similarly, the BSA may not remove all people who abuse children (it doesn't know), but if it finds out that leader is gone. Even with that requirement of "outward expression", hasn't the BSA still drawn a line in the sand by saying you can do lots of things in public but yelling you are gay is not one of them (or perhaps making pornography)?

Thoughts?

>Obtain from his Scoutmaster a signed merit badge application and the name of a qualified counselor for that merit badge.

Well, if you read that LITERALLY then it means the Scout has to go to the Scoutmaster and the Scoutmaster is the one who gives the boy ONE counselor's name.

Now, did the BSA mean that the Scoutmaster is supposed to filter BSA counselors? I don't think so. I see no problem with the boy choosing a counselor from a list. I also see no problem with the Scoutmaster giving the name of the counselor to the boy.

But if you want to be technical (kind of like a technically perfect uniform contrary to the counsel of a local BSA council), it seems to be clear that the Scoutmaster gives the name of ONE counselor to the Scout.

>Canoeing in a metal canoe in an electrial storm, etc.

What's wrong with that?

I was considering making another thread, for fear the discussion might get buried under this title. But the thought came to me as I considered more the diverse opinions brought forward here regarding pornography and scouting:

The BSA has set a standard that homosexual leaders are not acceptable to Scouting, as their conduct violates the Scout Oath/Law.

But, the BSA has NOT set similar standards for anything else, right? There is no automatic removal of leaders who cuss, use pornography, lie, cheat or even steal. Or am I wrong? If not, why did the BSA draw a line with homosexual activities but not these others?

>What if the boy has no interest in environmental science or archery? He paid to attend camp, he should choose what merit badges if any he wants to pursue.

Sure, but getting an eagle required merit badge ought to be fairly high on his list, no?

>What gives you the right to take things that do not belong to you?

Same reason electronics are prohibited at woodbadge, I'd suppose. They interfere and distract from the program and the purpose for which the scouts are there.

>My Son has a cell phone because I gave it to him, we have deep personal reasons for wanting him to have one, these have to do with the health of his mother. If any one took it off him I would be very upset.

Cell phones can be abused, which is why many schools prohibit them. Honestly, is it that harmful to give the boy some time in the camp without outside contact, except for emergency situations that can easily be attended to by the leaders?

In the camps I went to growing up, cell or no you would not have been able to contact home. It was way too remote for any kind of signal. I personally think it's important to get the youth away from the "world" and into nature.

>My feelings are that whatever happens I never ever give up my rights as a parent, when I allow my son to attend a Scouting function. I believe that he has been raised to be Courteous and Helpful,if and when he steps outside of these and any of the other Scout Laws I would hope to hear from the Troop Committee Chairman.

That's fine, but if there are rules that prevent a "right", then that right is forfeited when the scout signs up to attend. Maybe other scouts are not as mature as your son, and allowing electronics and cell phones would merely ruin their own experience. The courteous thing to do might be to keep them out for the benefit of the whole, no?

>Scout leaders should be delivering the program, not spending their time making and trying to enforce stupid rules that have no place in Scouting.

Sometimes the only way the program can be effectively delivered is via rules, and what one may view as "stupid", others through experience may have learned are essential.

Thanks for your thoughts, JD. I'd differ in that I believe there are moral absolutes. However, I don't want the BSA to start defining the morality of everything in the universe.

I guess, for me, I see certain things as beyond the pale. And, yes, to me it is irrelevant whether a scouter engages in moral/immoral conduct whether in or outside of scouting. I think the oath/law are to be upheld in our daily life, and not just at a team/troop meeting or at a scouting event.

I certainly can understand why some would disagree on my views. But, the reason these issues may start to play a greater role in everyday scouting is because BSA has taken stands against shifts in society to behavior which has traditionally been viewed as immoral. When the law pushes the BSA to the brink to where it must decide whether to accept a new morality, or hold the line, it will be interesting.

While I am not Catholic, I am heartened to hear of Pope Benedict's belief that it's more important to have a smaller Catholic church that holds to truth, than a larger church that accepts immoral behavior.

First, the Supreme Court is full of religious symbols. I don't see how that could be questioned.

Second, what's the problem with a school (or city) sponsoring a BSA unit? They do in Houston. We believe that the United States is formed under God. We don't believe it belongs to the Catholics, Mormons, Baptists or Jews...but we do believe it belongs to God. What's the problem with a government that believes in the creator sponsoring a BSA unit that believes in good citizenship and a duty to God and country?

Nice post, Torveaux. The first question was not supposed to be debated. The intent of the poll is merely to ask if pornography is in keeping with the Scout Oath/Law. I provided suggested definitions at the urging of NJ who wanted something definitive.

So, to each his own definition. I really only wanted to see if scout leaders believed you could indulge in pornography and still be viewed as obeying the Scout Law/Oath. My view is that it is like stealing - that a person engaged in it would be morally unclean. I see that all do not agree.

Yeppers. I'm a lawyer (but not a tort attorney). That was the name of our small section torts group in school (a dog that commits torts).

I am astonished that so many find this question difficult. So far, every person I have talked to that I am familiar with has immediately, I mean IMMEDIATELY, responded that any form of pornography has no place in scouts. These same people either have/had children in scouts or are/were scouts and scout leaders. Most are in my church, but I have asked more than a few.

Interestingly, not one sat and debated to themselves whether or not something was pornographic. One, in jest, commented that of course you think of your local Boy Scout Camp Lodge when you think of where to find the best porn.

One last thing that came to mind. Last year as I did the week-long wood badge, I was struck by something as I left. We stopped at a convenience store to pick up soft drinks on our way back home. As we entered, I was struck by the "filth" of the store. Now, it was a fairly new Shell station, but there were seemed like I had come from a clean place (the scout camp) and landed in a porn factory. But it wasn't...it was just a convenience store with the "normal" advertising by beer companies and other advertisers of scantily clad women. My point is, after having been in the scouting environment for one week, the "regular" world was filthy compared to it.

That's a good thing, I think.

Corrected Tally:

A: 1

B: 0

C: 0

D: 3

Lots of talking about how it's hard to pick one. I'm wondering how all y'all do an SAT test...write in the margins?

>I for one consider this thread ridiculously absurd, for it serves no real purpose or leads to any meaningful discussion.

We'll disagree.

>Tortdog what the heck is your point?

I thought I made it clear. The purpose is to get an idea about how the self-proclaimed Scouters in this forum view pornography with the scouting. I am 100% sure that every youth and adult in our four units (cubs/troop/team/crew) would pick D. I'm learning that maybe this issue is not as clear cut among scouters as I had thought.(This message has been edited by tortdog)

The tally so far:

A - 1

B - 0

C - 1

D - 2

BTW, I am not going to pass this as a "judgment" on someone's viewpoint. I have my own, as does each person no doubt, but I'm just curious to see where scouters lie.

I'd also be curious to see how scouters compare with America as a whole.

NJ

>See, Tortdog, you are a moral relativist and you don't even know it.

Dang.

[mutters]

Regarding making morality relative, I would argue that those who do so are taking the easy way out. It allows man to justify wrong behavior and feel good about oneself. I would not label that name-calling, but I do wonder how one could believe in a God who can't make up his mind whether something is wrong or right.

In all seriousness, I'm open to hear the thought behind that proposition.

>So, in those states [that prohibit discrimination against gays], it is morally wrong to exclude gay people, because the people say so, right?

As determined by those people, yes. In such a state, I wonder how the traditional religions will cope (though I am sure there is an exception in allowing religions to continue to discriminate). As time goes on, those religions will be seen in a far dimmer view (not in keeping with society's norms). It would not be the first time that this has happened in the history of man.

Gavvin

>What is moral in some parts of the worl would certainly shock those in others. Morals also change with the times.

This is so true.

>If morality can be so different over time and distance, who is to say which group is correct?

As to the eternal answer, a religious man looks up. As to society, well, society makes the decision.

>I think the only way to define what is moral from a LEGAL standpoint is anything that does not harm the person or property of a non-consenting other. If people are doing things that don't directly harm anyone who has not consented to the risks, leave them alone and don't judge them.

That standard has been proposed more now than ever before in our history. It's a libertarian philosophy, and it has a lot of attraction. In theory, I agree with it. However, we quickly learn in society that our conduct rarely only affects ourselves. Smoking causes harm to the body, and in our current society imposes a cost to the non-smokers. (BTW...I vote against laws prohibiting smoking...go figure.) Drinking while diving causes harm (though in prior days we did not recognize this). We have had one argue that pornography causes no harm, yet studies and experts document that pornography is often associated with sexual predators.

As our society increases forced interaction with each other (shared health costs, closer residences, etc.), I think you will find it hard to find an item that may not affect your neighbor.

BTW, your view is a judgment of morality. You have defined for us when it is right (a judgment of right and wrong) to make a law for society.

>If you are open-minded, you will probably enjoy the book, even if you choose to disagree with it, as he was a talented writer. Close-minded people won't be able to get past the Author's Note.

Quite seriously, I have a feeling that a lot of people would see God as closed-minded, like the one who was struck down for steadying the Ark when he was only trying to help.

Praries. I'm actually a huge states-rights advocate. The reason the U.S. Constitution keeps coming up in my discourse is because usually its the federal courts that use the guise of the Constitution to create new rights that the People never created and therefore restrict the right of the People's legislatures to make law.

>I get the impression that you may think that these local laws don't "count". I'll grant you that a national law could be done by way of a Constitutional amendment, but I don't think it's really required. Couldn't the Congress just pass legislation like this if it so desired?

Yes.

>Would legislation like that be unconstitutional for some reason?

Nope. I see no Constitutional prohibition on a federal law prohibiting federal and state discrimination against gays, though it would need to have an interstate commerce connection (easily met in most cases).

>I do believe that it is not in the best interests of the country to pass laws that show preferential treatment to the views of any particular religious interest.

I agree but only towards ONE religion. I see no problem with legislation that allows society's religions to grow and remain strong. For example, legislation that prohibits taxation of church property is clearly discriminatory. But, I'm in favor of it as long as the Catholics don't get a better deal than the Mormons.

Sorry that you see the fix as a slight, NJ. People will look at the first post, not the third to figure out what the question being asked is. I explained why you had responded as you had, and directly addressed your concern.

BTW, I've asked this same question to three scouters in my office and all IMMEDIATELY responded that in their opinion any form of pornography is definitely contrary to the Scout Oath/Law.(This message has been edited by tortdog)

D for me.

I edited my post because of NJ's question. I also modified "C" to make sure people understand that if you select it you are saying pornography is okay with the Scout Law/Oath.

Too bad we can't do this anonymously, but a question arose in a discussion that I would assume would be unanimous among scouters.

Which answer do you most agree with:

(A) Viewing hardcore* pornography violates the Scout Oath/Law

(B) Viewing softcore* pornography violates the Scout Oath/Law

© Viewing any form of pornography conforms with the Scout Oath/Law

(D) Both A and B.

*To avoid the discussion turning into a philosophical discussion on "what is pornography", please use the following definitions:

Softcore: materials that feature nudity and sexually suggestive scenes.

Hardcore: materials that contains close-ups of aroused genitalia and sexual activities including penetration.

http://www.answers.com/topic/pornography(This message has been edited by tortdog)

>Who is right and who is wrong?

I am.

>Its not mathmatics. There is no defined answer.

Okay...seriously, I have a major disagreement on this point. If there is a creator, then there is a definite answer to right and wrong. You judge as moral any consensual sexual activity within the private bedroom. That is a judgment that you have made. Another man/society may believe that consensual sexual activity outside the bedroom is perfectly fine. That is a moral judgment and you have made it. For people who believe in a God, morality is not relative. Something is or is not moral, based on the definer of morality who is God.

>The logic is free will or A PERFECT God. There is a difference.

No. YOUR logic, but YOUR logic is constrained to a chronological ordering of time. I don't see that you've made any effort at all to understand that it's possible for a being to see everything in time (past/present/future) all at once. Your inability to conceive of this does NOT make it illogical or impossible.

>because Tortdog does not have, nor should he had, any authority over Mr X. Tortdog is not a prophet like Abraham or Moses.

How do you know!?

>It would be no different then if i were to go around and say some other adult is immoral because he eats Veal or drinks Coffee. I dont have that right, i should not have that right.

Okay, seriously I disagree there too. Society says that it's immoral to use illegal drugs. Who made the rules? I did. My neighbor did. My relatives did. My friends did. My enemies did. Who am I? I am one citizen in society, who has an equal right to press for legislation defining the rules of our society.

>At what point do we say "Well the jews dont believe in Jesus as the messiah, so they are immoral and their immorality will directly influence my christian son and i can not allow that. Therefore, Temples must be closed down and the jewish faith must not be 'normalized' by society." It is no different that the persuit to incriminate sexual preference.

Well, in the Old Testament God ordered the destruction of religions that did not worship the God of Abraham. That wasn't a very "free" society. The difference was that society was run directly by God's prophets. I am unaware of any society today directly run by a prophet of God, but I would not be amazed to find rules in that society to prophibit worship of any God other than the God who ordained that prophet...but I digress.

>Immorality would be the departure from an attempt to make society more civil. Vastly different cultures can co-exist in relative peace but only when each side accepts that the other is equal at the same time as being different.

True.

>Blacks and whites can now co-exist in America and relative peace.

True, and WE the PEOPLE passed a law making it so.

>Tension begets conflict. If homosexuals were accepted the only thing that would happen would be peace and civility.

Sure. And if we "accepted" Osama Bin Laden, perhaps we would have more peace. If we "accepted" child molestors (and I'm NOT equating them to gays) then we would have more peace. If we accepted felons and sought to understand them better, we could dramatically reduce our prison populations and have more peace. But...at waht price?

>However, to further promote inferiority only promotes confict, conflict only results in pain.

Standing up for morality does not promote inferiority. It instructs wrong and right, and gives all men the ability to choose his path. Just because a man chooses wrongly does not mean that there is not a natural consequence for that act (or that society levy a punishment).

>I am not minimalizing God at all or ignoring him.

By stating that morality has no absolute does just that.

>There may be things that you do in your privacy that I would not like to do, but even though you do them my life remains utterly unchanged. Im not particularly attracted to big girls, but that does not mean i can stop my friend from chasing them. You seem to think you have more rights then you should and this philosphey is more than a bit pretentious.

Sounds like you don't like laws made by the will of the people if they infringe on YOUR view of right and wrong. You have defined right and wrong, yet deny me the ability to do likewise.

I merely suggest: Let the People decide. What's so wrong with that? The PEOPLE wrote the Constitution. The PEOPLE prohibited discrimination based on race. The PEOPLE protected the freedom to worship. Every right that we have was recognized by the PEOPLE. If the PEOPLE have not recognized that right, then the government (formed by the People) has the right to legislate on that issue.

>As for your veiw on pornography, it is simply conjecture based on no substantial evidence. Factually, there is no link at all to porn causing sexual or violent/nonviolent crimes.

I can't believe you argue that.

>Among the child molesters incited, the study reported that 53 percent of them deliberately used the stimuli of pornography as they prepared to offend.

http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm

>Research conducted involving 36 serial murderers revealed that 81% (29/36) reported pornography as one of their highest sexual interests, making pornography one of the most common profile characteristics of serial murderers.

http://www.prtc.net/~morality/porno/research.htm

>thats an opinion.

Those are facts. Let me ask you in all seriousness: Do you believe that viewing pornography is in keeping with the Scout Law and Oath?

If the question is whether or not it's appropriate at camp, I'd agree that it's not the place. Not because of some moral purpose, but if youth are spending time playing a game at Scout Camp they obviously aren't signed up for enough merit badges. Get them into archery and environmental science. That should take their time up easily.

EV. Actually, I strongly doubt that the ACLU has loads of money. It relies on donations for its "causes". If the ACLU was loaded, this country would be REALLY screwed up. The ACLU does not make money to fight cases...that costs the ACLU money. What the ACLU gets is public attention, and that results in more donations from like-minded people.

>Ok, I'm probably going to get myself into some sort of "debate hole" with this, but let's go ahead.

I'm not trying to bait you, and I'll try to be as open and honest as I can.

>I'll say no, I wouldn't be ok with that because human sacrifice is murder, which is against the law.

I'd agree, and the Supreme Court has opined that where religious practice interferes with society's laws, then the law trumps the right of the free religion.

>The next step would then be for that religious group to try and get laws passed that say murder is ok, because it is in line with their religious beliefs. And, the People should say "no". Isn't that pretty much in line with what I was saying?

That's true (and touches on the morality argument). But that's also okay. If a society wants to legalize murder, then so be it. If a society wants to legalize slavery, then fine. The people choose their rules and their government. So why don't you accord the People of the United States (or the People of Texas) the right to pass laws that coincide with their beliefs of right and wrong? Why would you want ANY law that did not attempt to keep society on a good path?

If society is dominated by the people of one religion (and it's not in our country), then why shouldn't that society reflect those views if the society is governed by the people?

>And I don't think he's actually doing what HE thinks is right, I think it's more like he's doing what Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowicz think is right.

I worked for a partner who knew the Bush family very well. The President is a headstrong man who does ONLY what he thinks is right...and yes he has made mistakes. He's no one's puppet. He is very much his own man.(This message has been edited by tortdog)

>sex between two consentual adult males is not the same as incestuous rape or beastiality, because children and animals are not capable to consent to sexual activity.

First, an 18-year old child can consent. Second, since when did we require an animal's consent? We can kill a chicken and eat it without it's consent. Why would you require consent for sex with an animal but not for killing it, i.e., murder by your analogy.

Before I get into your argument, let me attempt to summarize your viewpoint. You believe that Society cannot prohibit any sexual conduct within the bedroom by consenting adults. You do not limit that sexual conduct. I remain unsure whether you expand this to ANY consensual activity (thus surgery, cannibalism, etc.).

I assume you think it's okay to kill an animal without its consent, but it's not okay to have sex with an animal because it can't consent. I'm having a hard time reconciling those viewpoints.

>Incest can lead to handicaped offspring, and this is why its is wrong.

You listed a "bad" that might result from consensual sexual conduct (otherwise you would be okay with it). How about consensual sexual conduct between a father/dauther where the father is impotent? Also, with the morning-after pill, don't we avoid the "bad" of a handicapped offspring?

The possiblity of handicapped (disabled is the non-offensive term) children is not limited to father/daughter. We have far higher rates when two adults with genetic diabilities have sexual intercourse. Today, we do not prohibit that. Since you use the probability of a disabled child to limit sexual contact, should we prohibit sexual realtions by any person having a genetic disability and where that disability is likely to be passed onto a child?

Should we stop the genetically blind from having children?

>However, two adult men have sex, no one is at all effected. There can be no handicapped offspring and Mr Tortdog is never effected.

I think most people learn after years of experience that rare is the case when private conduct does not affect society, and that includes what you do in your bedroom. You poo-pooh a relationship between porn and sexual crimes. You couch "good porn" and "bad porn." I'll just have to disagree with that. Porn harms the person being photo-captured, regardless of whether she knows it or not at the time. It comes around to roost, and by then it's usually too late. Countless young women have had their lives destroyed by the so-called "good" porn industy.

You and I will part ways strongly on that issue. And, while we're at it, I do not think that a scouter should be watching porn. Do I want to know about it? NO! But is it "morally straight" to watch porn? Absolutely not.

>Suicide by canniblism is hardly the same as gay sex.

Actually, this sexual cannibalism is a documented perversion that some few of us have in society. In the instant case, both parties agreed to it. There was no "victim". There was a video of the "crime" and it was clear that the "victim" had fully consented. I could get into details, but it would likely make you ill. However, using your standard for making law, I don't see why you would object.

Some in my church think its satanic. I never saw a problem with it (unless you carry it to the extreme). I have played Magic, and some in my church had a dim view of that game as well.

I think whether it's good or bad merely depends on how you treat it (as a game or some altnerate reality).

Going down this road, I've heard some churches preach against Harry Potter (satanic and witchcraft). I've always enjoyed fantasy books so I never really agreed with that view.

Short answer: I don't see a problem at all.

If I remember right, the Orthodox Jews and the LDS Church have taken official stances that they would leave the BSA if the BSA accepted those engaged in homosexual activities as being morally straight. I suppose the argument is that the BSA is tacitly agreeing that homosexual activity IS morally straight, by allowing organizations to define it that way. For example, if an organization defined "morally straight" to include theft, I assume the BSA would not allow that organization to sponsor a BSA unit (picturing the mafia as a BSA sponsor).

Regarding the United Methodists, I recall the stark difference between the brief by the UM organization in charge of the youth program (in favor of the BSA) and the UM organization in charge of societal affairs (against the BSA). There was a split then, and I would be interested in how the UM Church is dealing with the issue today.

I am not making the argument that homosexual behavior = (i) incest or (ii) sexual cannibalism. Note that my example was of a father and a daughter, which is not homoseuxal.

A standard was put forward of consensual sexual conduct within the private bedroom as being protected. I argue that this standard is NOT protected (and never has been).

I brought you many examples of where I think a vast majority of the People would agree on legislation in the bedroom: (i) incest, (ii) sexual cannibalism and (iii) surgery (not sexual but still conduct in the bedroom).

I'm asking you to reconcile YOUR view with those examples, and whether you think it's okay for society to criminalize the three types of conduct I mentioned.

>Saying that acceptance of gays means that we are "introducing sexual perversion as normalcy" is just an opinion, although it's stated as if it were a well known fact. It's not.

Of course it's opinion. Laws are based on opinion (majority = statutory; supermajority = constitutional).

>Incest is illegal because it is an act of power and violence, just like rape.

I meant to give you an example of consensual incest - not some violent rape of a daughter. Think of the story of Lot, where the daughters seduced the father. With those facts, your view of legislation would permit consensual incest between a man and an adult daughter, correct?

>The Constitution doesn't cover all eventualities; it provides a construct under which legislation can be created that further details the broad brushstrokes of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Correct.

>Laws have been written that prohibit discrimination against a variety of groups, including prohibitions based on sex, race, etc., as well as "sexual preference".

Incorrect. The People have never passed constitutional language that protected gender or sexual preference. Congress passed an amendment to provide for equal treatment of men and women, but the states did not ratify the amendment. The unelected judges have written in this protection, but even that does not rise to the level of protection from discrimination based on race (which was debated, passed and ratified by the states).

Congress has never debated protecting sexual preference via the Constitution. When it has addressed the issue, it has come down against gay marriage. Most of the states are strongly opposed to protection of sexual preference as some form of right, and when the people vote it is roundly rejected.

>In a sense, then, the PEOPLE, speaking through their representatives, have said that such discriminations do not meet societal norms.

Incorrect. The People have spoken at times but not against all discrimination.

>And, through history, laws change, and in some cases, so does the Constitution, through amendments, to meet what is hopefully our better understanding of each other and the world we live in.

Exactly. And if we want to protect sexual preference as a protected class, let's have the People amend the Constitution. Do you think it would muster 2/3s of the House/Senate and 3/4s of the states?

Um...no.

>As I've said other times, within the context of their own religious beliefs, people can rightfully believe what they want. What is wrong is when they try to legislate their religious beliefs into law to impose their belief system on everyone else.

Incorrect. People with religious beliefs are not foreclosed from legislating their viewpoints, and the laws we have reflect our morals. We believe it is wrong to murder, so we write a law. We believe incest is wrong, so we write a law.

That's how it works.

>Regards what the Founders thought when writing these documents, many of them thought that slavery was a swell idea, too. We have hopefully learned a thing or two in the intervening years since the Founders did their original work. It's all stood up pretty well, all things considered, although that doesn't make it perfect.

Beautiful example. The Constitution allowed for slavery. That law was upheld. Then, a wonderful thing happened, and the People amended the Constitution to prohibit it. Please show me where the People amended the Constitution to protect sexual preference or homosexual activities.

>BSA has taken the subjective view that homosexuality does not meet their interpretation of "morally straight". If they were to change that view, I would happily stay in an organization that would then be interested in getting the best possible leaders without regard for particular religious beliefs.

Yes, I gathered that. I am pretty sure I counted you in the "stay" category.(This message has been edited by tortdog)(This message has been edited by tortdog)

Answering the original question:

>With this hypothetical, my questions is...What would you do? Would you continue in scouting? Would you quit? Would you 'wait and see'?

If the BSA removed God from the scout oath, and accepted homosexual activity as moral, I would reluctantly leave the BSA.

I think that makes the poll:

Stay: 11

Leave: 8

I would do so as I would see the BSA turning from long established norms and traditions of what it means to be morally straight. Having abandoned morality in the desire to be accepted by all parts of society (whether moral or not), the BSA would represent nothing more than another group of people doing outdoors activities.

I would also expect/hope that the LDS (Mormon) Church, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Jews and the United Methodist Church* would join together to maintain a youth program that maintained honor, duty to God and morality as an eternal standard.

(Did I surprise anyone?)

*I mention these churches as they joined in filing amicus briefs in support of the BSA in Dale.(This message has been edited by tortdog)

>In what way does what a homosexual couple does in the privacy of their bedroom brind down society, and in what way does what a homosexual couple does in the privacy of their own bedroom any different then what a heterosexual couple does in the privacy of their own bedroom in terms of directly harming children?

It introduces sexual perversion as normalcy.

In what way does incestuous sexual conduct in the privacy of the bedroom between a man and his adult daughter bring down society and harm children?

In what way does sexual conduct between a man and an animal in the privacy of his bedroom bring down society and harm children?

Reality is that society has the right to determine legal behavior. There is nothing "magic" about the bedroom. Show me where the People passed a constitutional right for private conduct within the bedroom.

We have laws that prohibit various activities, whether in the "privacy of one's bedroom" or not. You need a medical license to perform surgery. Should we allow any person to conduct surgery so long as it is in the "privacy of one's bedroom"? In Germany, a man willingly consented to sex including being killed and eaten by a male partner. Both people consented. Should society allow these acts because they were with consent of the involved parties and in the "privacy of the bedroom"?

If you use your standards, you cannot logically prevent the conduct I mentioned above. I simply disagree. Society has the right to regulate the behavior of its citizens. The Constitution gives us certain restraints on how far the law can go, but I am unaware of any clause in the Constitution that provides that any sexual conduct in the bedroom is constitutionally protected.

>Sorry to say but children are just as effected by witnessing strait sex as they are gay sex at a young age. The same as seeing strait porn and gay porn.

Both harm children. But what further harms society is by normalizing homosexual behavior, it puts traditional norms on the defensive. Churches that continue to teach that homosexual activity is immoral are attacked as bigoted and hateful, for no other reason than refusing to bend to the latest perversion of right and wrong. The degradation of society's morals make it harder for children to be raised in a moral manner.

>Since pornographic material IS legal, how is its existance hurting young children if the young children are being PROPERLY supervised?

First, there was a time when pornographic material was illegal across the board. As a result of the degradation of society's morals, in the 70's society legalized pornography WITH RESTRICTIONS. Why are those restrictions legitimate if we accept your view? Who is society to restrict the viewing of pornography by children, if the parents believe it is moral?

The presence of pornography in society hurts our young women, more than any other class. They are demeaned and men come to view women as objects, as opposed to people with feelings. There is direct harm to our society via pornography (including children). If there is any doubt, look to the increasing problem of child pornography. Also, studies have shown that the abuse of children is often accompanied by pornography. Pornography is certainly a heavy factor in the sexual abuse of children. Can you doubt that?

>In the 60's, im sure a few people said that if "negros" were allowed to go to the same schools and bathrooms, then it would hurt the minds of children.

While that may be, this form of discrimination is unconstitutional. The PEOPLE of the United States agreed to make it unconstitutional. I can point you to words in the Constitution that prohibit this behavior. Where in the Constitution does it prohibit laws against homosexual activity?

To even argue the point is absurd, when the very founders who WROTE the Constitution also criminalized homosexual activity imposing capital punishment. If the founders meant to protect homosexual activity, you would think they would not be passing laws to execute those who engaged in it, no?

>Also, there are many stupid laws on the books across the country. Doesnt make them anything but stupid laws.

The people are allowed to make stupid laws. It comes with liberty and freedom.(This message has been edited by tortdog)

I have acted as counselor for my boy. I think he wishes there was someone else, though. I find it hard to not be HARDER on my own son (expecting more than I otherwise would).