cjmiam

I understand your point, but if misinformation was used to gain peoples hearts and minds, one has to wonder how many might change their opinion. Or if the misinformation wasnt disseminated in the first place, one has to wonder how many would currently be supportive of homosexuality.

Given the fact that this took place at an OA event, I agree that it is disheartening. The Order of the Arrow is to provide leadership and set the example. However, the other OA members seems quite broad to me. Was the lodge chief telling the jokes? Was the chapter chief telling the jokes? Or was it some fellow members that were staying in the same campsite or found hanging out by the commissary? There is no doubt that some Scouts are extremely vulgar. However, I wouldnt say that the Order of the Arrow is responsible for what is more of a societal problem. And for that matter, they aren

I dont recall my biology teacher having a real tough time explaining why I have blue eyes. Looks to me like homosexuality, as you point out is more like a disease such as cancer. Lets not make things complicated here. Your reference to complex mechanisms doesnt explain much of anything. Again, Id call this selective research. When the data doesnt help your theory, attribute it to being just too difficult for us to understand. If sexual orientation is genetic, then both identical twins will always be either heterosexual or homosexual, because they have an identical set of genes. Theres n

Packsaddle, not sure what all that meant. Whatever it was, it certainly didnt appear to unequivocally prove anything. At least not from the short time weve been around on this earth studying that stuff. And unless youve taken a ride on General Clarks time machine, you certainly cant know the future of diseases you mention. (Note: the reference to General Clarks time machine was meant as a humorous comment and not meant to detract from my previous statement(s); please also note that if this note detracts from my previous statement(s) disregard it as well.) From genes to hormone levels

While your at it why not just throw my words into a cement mixer, turn it on high, dump `em out and make a new sentence Better yet, use a blender and we can make margaritas. I never said that sex is only for procreation. What I said is that is its primary role. Thats why it was invented if you like- to maintain the existence of the species. I believe it is a gift from God meant to be shared between a man and a women that have vowed to share their lives together, but Im sure that probably offends some people here. I dont think my references to mother nature necessarily always put her

Got a troop meeting so I dont have much time, but acco40, I dont care how many kids you have. Are you denying that the act of sexual intercourse is not primarily meant to create children? Im not talking about what you personally get out of it. Im talking about why organisms have the ability to do it. And NJCubScouter, Im not talking about frayed extension cords, Im talking about trying to connect the male ends of two extension cords and thinking youre gonna get power. Gotta run.

Why can't you look into the container?

Say what? If we know they are gay, then they are avowed, thus not allowed in Scouting. How is that against BSA policy? Personally, I think avowed or not, they shouldn't be in, but that's beside the point.

Merlyn_LeRoy writes: Should Explorers continue to allow gay adult leaders to youth on the same basis as straight adult leaders? No.

So lets go to the extreme. Should we actively recruit gay leaders that find the sex of those they would serve attractive? It would be much like the GSUSA actively recruiting heterosexual guys to take Juniors, Seniors and Cadets camping. The risk of potential sexual misconduct surely increases.

I never said that!!! Ugggh! I never said that that no homosexual could be trusted with youth. In fact Ive stated quite to the contrary in the past with regard to my kid staying at my gay cousin's house. You mix my words all up and then try to base your case on it. I also never said adult males being attracted to youth females is okay with me. But here's what I did say... Introducing a homosexual into a group with the same sex certainly poses a greater risk than introducing a heterosexual into the same group.

What part of "insisting that all leaders have high moral integrity" is unclear? They'd be kicked out if caught. Or if they were professing adult males that like youth females, they wouldn't be allowed in. Why is this so hard to understand? Hypothetical? I think not... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/893184/posts : Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet4.html : Violence and Homosexuality And let's not forget the recent homosexual priest scandal.

So my views and reasoning are prejudicial? Well of course they are. All moral distinctions by there very nature are prejudicial. I did qualify my statement by singling out those with a distorted view of morality. Your demands for all inclusiveness in my arguments seem to make it appear that I somehow have a double standard or that my reasoning is flawed. You seem to suggest that I would overlook immoral behavior by a heterosexual leader. However, let me assure you, I believe pedophilia is wrong as well. I also believe rape is wrong along with dumping ones RV septic tank on the neighbors

Ummmm, because there are more males in Boy Scouts than there are females. My guess is a lot more, thus a perfect shopping mall for homosexuals.

Never said that the lack of ability to procreate suggests that the individual heterosexual is worthless, wrong, or shouldnt have sex. That would mean that an infertile person should not have sex either. I agree that would be silly. However, the primary purpose of sex is for propagation. Two homosexuals having sex is not only disgusting but is simply biologically impossible for propagation. Why would mother nature intend this??? Or is it simply that mother nature had nothing to do with it. They do it because it feels good.

Now how in the world is that provoking? I know the truth sometimes does hurt. In New Mexico they are considered homosexuals, but do the same thing in Oregon and they are considered pedophiles. Either sex makes no difference. The point is that Scouting is mostly males. I ran a Venture crew and never even thought of sexual relations with any of the Scouts male or female. I had no interest in them sexually, it would be immoral and also against the law. My problem is with those that have distorted views of morality using the law to their advantage. Such would be the case in New Mexico.

Come on. Im not saying that they will necessarily have sex on a campout or during a troop meeting. But what they do in their private life should be none of our business right? Excellent! So Scouting will provide a shopping mall for pedophiles or in New Mexico I guess they would be called homosexuals.

littlebillie, But if the homosexual activists had their way, local standards would be implemented. So then, 13-year-olds would be fair game in New Mexico. My question was hypothetical in nature. I was asking if the age of consent in N.M. is 13 and we allow gays in Boy Scouts in that state, wouldn't it follow that they could see most of the troop as fair game according to the law? And is this okay with everyone?

Whatever, call it a sub species, sexual orientation, individuals with the same thought processes. Call the groups whatever you like. The facts still remain the same. A homosexual guy cannot produce a child with another homosexual guy. The only way they can have any role in human procreation is if they lie about their sexual orientation and have intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. Why would that offend you? If as you state, this is known from birth, how can a homosexual male marry a heterosexual female and not know hes lying? And once again, a species, wait Im sorry, a g

Merlyn, You obviously didnt understand my species argument. First, homosexuals as a species (male to male) would enjoy being on the island together. Try putting 100 heterosexual guys on an island with no women and I believe there would be a mutiny on the ship and theyd turn the boat 180 right back to the mainland. At any rate, to compare the species of homosexuals to heterosexuals, you would need to include women as a part of the heterosexual species. I guess if you want to include lesbians as part of the homosexual species you can, but I dont see the point. The homosexual species c

Okay, you want a scientific experiment eh? Take one hundred professing gay guys and put them on an island. Make sure that they have all the essentials to sustain life such as food, water, and lodging. You can even provide them with extras such as cable, phones, Internet, etc. Leave them there for 50 years and then return. Now tell me what you think your experiment will show. Since I personally have not conducted such an experiment, I must admit that my hypothesis is only speculation. However, my theory is that the population will show grave signs of dieing off. While some individuals m

Rooster, You are extremely clear with your message and your thoughts are very well thought out. It may be that some do not like your message so they somehow want it to appear that you are unclear or contradictory. I re-read your posts several times and see nothing contradictory. The exact term that I thought of was they are not mutually exclusive. And then you posted those very words. Its apparent that you hit a nerve through faith and logic both. How dare you cjmiam

My point??? Its simple. It seems that some of you believe there is a problem with an adult having sex with a minor. Would I dare say that it might even be a moral absolute? So your possible moral absolutes are justifiable, but mine are not? If the age of consent (as tjhammer showed in his handy chart) says its okay in New Mexico for an adult to have sexual relations with a minor at the age of thirteen, then we should allow homosexuals in the Scouting program in New Mexico? It seems to follow that if we did, according to the law, it would be perfectly legal for the adult leader to consid

Wait a sec. The purpose of this little exercise is to get the law and public opinion changed. You cant argue that a law should be a law, because its a law. In my example there are no victims, no one is being forced to do anything. In fact for the sake of argument lets assume that the 16-year-old initiated the relationship. Tjhammer, why did you remove the line about why there would/should be a difference in ages between gay or straight relationships? Littlebillie, not sure what you are driving at with Down Syndrome. Im not suggesting that if you are born with something, that it

Very funny tjhammer, I was trying to be sincere but should have known better. Guess I should just stick to my argumentative side. What if there is no victim? Obviously human rights are violated when someone gets raped or murdered. But lets just use a 25-year-old guy and a 16-year-old young man as an example. We could probably even drop down to 13 or 14, because everyone knows they certainly already have many opinions and a mind of their own. Now lets say that the younger enjoys his relationship very much with the 25 year old. The he doesnt know any better argument cant be used anymore, b