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 arent to blame either. Most of those fellowships require that the members be responsible and act as leaders. Many times if they stay as a chapter, the only person really paying any attention to them is the chapter advisor. This certainly is not a new problem. I certainly wouldnt condemn the OA because of it. If it really bothers you, contact your local chapter advisor. However, theres not much you can do except commend you kids for being Scoutlike and respectful.

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 nothing complex about it.

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 in the womb, to brain structure, there seems to be no end to what the media will spew out in propaganda in order to promote the gay agenda. Alone, much of the so-called studies dont amount to much, but over time the large volume of misinformation takes its toll. It amazes me how much stuff gets printed and aired with regard to junk science aka selective data collection and analysis. The fact of the matter is that most studies disprove homosexuality being genetic, but we dont hear much about that do we? We only hear of things that might show a link, but many times later is found to be wrong or simply nonreplicable.

Id just like to point out that genes alone certainly do not make us behave in certain ways. They may create a tendency, but definitely do not mandate certain actions. Further, according to the 1997 Hershberger study of identical twins, based on the Minnesota Registry, where one twin was homosexual, less than half of the identical twins were found to be homosexual. An Australian study by Bailey, Martin et al, at the University of Queensland found homosexual congruence in identical twins to be only 38%. I hope we can all agree that identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality is biological, this number should be 100%, no? Now I realize these arent lizards, apes, or algae, but certainly a study of actual humans should have some bearing.

cjmiam

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 in the best light. I recall saying that surely couldnt have been what nature intended, Nature surely could not have purposely made a species incapable of regeneration. and most recently I asked, Why would mother nature intend this? Or is it simply that mother nature had nothing to do with it?. I dont think any of these statements really makes a good case for me believing in mother nature. If thats how you took it, I must not have added enough sarcasm. Ill try to do a better job in the future

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 flower garden.

Just because I support keeping the boys safe doesnt mean that I dont care about keeping the girls safe. Because I left them out of my argument does not mean that I dont feel they need to be protected as well. But Scouting does protect them by insisting that all leaders have high moral integrity. To be honest, I currently dont know a single girl that is a member of the Boy Scouting program. Im sure there probably are some, but certainly not even close to the number of boys in the program. Therefore, the statistical probability of a homosexual seeking companionship with a male Scout is far greater than a heterosexual male seeking a relationship with a female.

Ive even seen a handy chart that shows the age of consent to be 13 in New Mexico. Introducing a homosexual into that group with the same sex certainly poses a greater risk than introducing a heterosexual into the same group. You ironically point out that Scouting policy would prohibit such acts, but I have to wonder why that should matter for you when it comes from the same group that you criticize with regard to more restrictive policies on homosexuality?

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. Introducing homosexuals into the population of Scouts in New Mexico would surely put more Scouts at risk.

Im not sure what the percentage of female youth is in the BSA, but I would have to believe that it is quite small. And I believe most straight and morally sound leaders would have no problem keeping sexual interests out of the equation even with a very good-looking well-developed female participant. Now can the same be said for a homosexual leader with a very good-looking well-developed male participant? And even if you were to say yes (leaving questionable morality out of the equation) you cant argue that it creates a higher potential for such problems and puts more Scouts at risk.

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 group of living things that is unable to reproduce dies. Homosexuals require heterosexuals, but heterosexuals do not require homosexuals for the existence of mankind. And if there is conclusive evidence of homosexuality being genetic I havent seen it. You would think something like that would make the evening news.

There's a lot of evidence from other animal species that the incidence of homosexuality tends to increase as the population density increases, and there's a good evolutionary case to be made for having non-reproducing (yet able-bodied and productive) members of the society present, especially if they tend more often to be younger siblings.

Are you saying that we as a society should determine roles for homosexuals? Im not up on the entire animal kingdom matting habits. Is your comparison something equivalent to the worker bee? I guess if we compare humans to animals, insects or plants for that matter, we could draw up some pretty wild scenarios. For example, I believe the worker bee's sole role in life is to work. I could be wrong, but this comparison gets the wheels turning. We may have found replacement workers for the illegal aliens. Again, your idea, not mine. But as long as we are comparing humans to animals, I wonder about my dogs matting habits. See, hes 14 years old and hes been seeing the neighbors 1 year old. Now I know that dog years have changed, but Ill use seven for comparison. My dog would be 70 human years old and the neighbors only 7. I never thought of this, but your animal kingdom comparison logic helps out my pedophile argument greatly. Thank You!

Yet we're still here, and in the same relative proportions independent of race, geography, or societal norms. So how does your hypothesis here explain that?

Well, if you believe it is from birth Id say that its because homosexuals do lie about their sexual orientation, have intercourse or even marry, start a family, then run off to their gay lover leaving their genes behind, even if they go dormant for a generation or two. If you dont believe its inherent, Id say a lack of education, lack of moral teachings, and indoctrination.

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 cannot sustain itself without lying or cheating. Once again, Im not sure how a devout homosexual could procreate naturally. Thus the species dies.

cjmiam

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 may still be alive, they will not have propagated their species. This experiment will show that the species is incapable of interbreeding to produce offspring and thus incapable of sustaining life or its society.

Heterosexuals do not require homosexuals to reproduce or sustain themselves, however, homosexuals do require heterosexuals or homosexuals from the opposite sex. If this sex were to be truly legitimate, should it not be able to multiply? The only way this species can multiply is by pretending to be something that it supposedly is not. Nature surely could not have purposely made a species incapable of regeneration. And if it did, should it not have died off thousands of years ago?

cjmiam

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 consider most of his troop fair game. And you have no problem with that in New Mexico? Why does the law differ from state to state? Are children in New Mexico somehow more mature? Are they more capable of making that decision than say children in Oregon?

Im sorry but there is something very messed up here.

cjmiam

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 means its not a disease. Im saying that part of the homosexual argument is that they dont have a choice, therefore pedophiles can use the same argument. In your second example, human rights certainly have been infringed upon. I think I covered the third example, no force has been used. Finally, with number four you are getting somewhere, but let me just change a few words

1.SOME pedophiles are born as pedophiles

2.Pedophilia is not a disease

3.Mature adult pedophile behavior between a consenting adult and a consenting 16-year-old is an act of love that doesn't increase the population

4.There are no victims

The only additional concept one must accept is that the 16-year-old has the ability to make the decision on his own. And I believe that our court system has established that they do by waving them into adult court and trying them as adults.

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, because our court system has already set precedents that they do know better by trying them as adults and throwing them in jail. Now lets put all of this together using arguments found in all my posts

Pedophiles are born as pedophiles

Pedophilia is not a disease

Pedophilia is an act of love

There are no victims

Now remember, I am not necessarily insinuating that gays are pedophiles. What I am saying is that they're arguments and justification seems quite similar. But I would like to know where the line is drawn. What is the magical age that a relationship is acceptable? Is the 25-year-old only attracted to those 18 and older or might he find a 17-year-old attractive as well. Or is the magical age16, 15, 14...?

cjmiam