DanKroh

Beaver asks: "Can you honestly say that you can not see a difference in smoking and sexual orientation?" You are right, there is a big difference. Smoking is a choice, and a very unhealthy one at that. Sexual orientation isn't a choice. I find it much more likely that my son is likely to pick up smoking as a habit from an authority figure than he is to pick up homosexuality. As far as your example of the closeted gay (potential) molester, for every one of those you give, I can give you at least ten examples of heterosexuals who have molested boys and girls of both the same and opposi

Ed says "For me it isn't a fear of something happening. It's more not wanting my children to think that type of lifestyle is OK." By your reasoning, Ed, since smoking is a lifestyle choice that I don't want my children to think is OK, the BSA should ban all leaders who smoke. Just out of curiosity, Ed, what do you want your children to think about "that type of lifestyle"?

"I have found that from a parent's standpoint, their biggest concern with homosexuals in Scouting is the possibility of impropriety with their Scout." Actually, it is sad that I have no doubt that this is the biggest concern of most parents. However, it is a concern based in ignorance. As OGE has pointed out, empirical evidence within the BSA and all evidence outside the BSA shows that the VAST majority of pedophiles are avowed heterosexual men, often married with children of their own.

"Polygamy is being married to multiple women. Being married to multiple men makes her a polyandist . . . " Actually, polygamy encompasses both polygyny (one man with multiple wives) and polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands). It's just that traditionally, most polygamous relationships have by polygynous, so many people think the two terms are synonymous.... Just my two cents in picking nits

SaintCad, I believe what Ed is trying to get at this that all the consanguinous marriage restriction laws are worded in gender specific language: For example, in Massachusetts, the law reads "No man may marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, aunt, niece, stepmother or stepdaughter, and no woman may marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, uncle, nephew, stepfather or stepson. Any marriage within these degrees is void." So his straw man argument is that therefore, the consanguinity restriction will not apply to SSM because it is not explicit

featherbear, We just had our graduation ceremony Friday night. We do it as an outdoor campfire ceremony. We invite the two Boy Scout troops that our pack feeds to come and build/maintain the campfire, do the ingathering activity (this year, it was building paper airplanes) and lead the songs/cheers/skits throughout the meeting. It is nice to involve the older scouts, since they are pretty much idolized by the cubs, and it gives the older scouts some good leadership experience. The cubs like the campfire, but the centerpiece of the ceremony is the "Cub-o-matic". We have an e

I generally wear the blue and gold baseball-style cap when I am doing outdoor activities. However, probably the only reason is because when my first son joined, the blue and gold cap was THE cap for scouts to wear, too. They didn't have a different cap for every rank level. My younger son is very enamored of the rank hats, so he didn't want his older brother's blue and gold caps, so I acquired them. Can you even get the blue and gold caps anymore now that the scouts wear the caps with the different rank badges on them?

Brent: "How would a brother marrying a brother harm anyone? Please be specific. What if a brother and sister wanted to marry, and wanted to adopt kids instead of having their own? How would that harm anyone? Please be specific." As long as the relationship is not pedophilic or abusive, I couldn't really care less. I have several clients who have spend years trying to recover from incestuous pedophilia or rape, so I have a difficult time envisioning an incestuous relationship that is healthy. But it has certainly been socially acceptable in some societies (pretty civilized ones, too)

Brent, to put it another way, I see the purpose of laws prohibiting something as protective. If we have a law, it is because it is protecting someone from harm or the potential for harm (sometimes even from self-inflicted harm). Exactly who is being harmed by same-sex marriges?

BrentAllen, I thought it was obvious that same-sex marriage fulfilled the conditions of not harming either of the people involved, and that both people involved were mentally capable of giving consent. All of the examples on your slippery slope involve either something that harms the people involved, or someone who is not capable of giving consent (and that includes the 14 y.o., since they are not mentally mature enough to give consent). The only one that doesn't automatically imply harm is the polygamy example, although in traditionally examples of polygamy (which were really a

Barry writes: "Havent most of the differences in issues between political parties come down to a battle of values?" Actually, I don't think the values of the opposing parties differ all that much. I think it really comes down to the willingness to impose those values on other people or to codify them into our laws. In a different discussion, Ed and I actually agreed on a pretty comprehensive list of what we considered "family values". I think if you and I started comparing point by point the things we think are important, and how we would like to see our children raised, and how we b

Barry says: "Im scared to even hear your opinion of adults wanting to give in to their urges toward innocent defenseless children. This is a scary discussion, and from a member of the APA no less. Maybe it is time for the subject to move on." How sad. I agree that when the discussion degenerates into "and I bet you support pedophilia, too. wink, wink, nudge, nudge", yes it is time for the subject to move on. My only reason for bring comparisons to animal behavior is to deconstruct the arguments of anti-gay proponents who erroneously think that homosexuality only exists because humans

funscout says: "I still wonder, though... In the case of the swans and penguins you mentioned, are they acting out sexually, or are they just "roommates" trying to raise their "children" together? In other words, are these animals trying to have sex with each other, or are they just showing the ritual mating signs? Could they be mentally impaired, instead of gay? Who knows?" Well, in the case of the rams in Oregon, there was definitely sexual activity. And 8% is a little high to be attributed to a "mental impairment". I believe that the penguins in NYC were also having sex with each other

SaintCad says: "What would happen if an OC that does not believe in female leadership (like some Christian Churches) wanted to prevent a woman from being a cubmaster or denmaster? Would BSA allow it? Is it a direct violation of BSA policy?? It already happens, my friend. Women are not allowed to hold any position of leadership in scouting programs sponsored by LDS churches. Hunt, UU churches are not allowed to sponsor scouting unit per BSA national council, because the UUs said that they would not enforce the discriminatory membership policies within any units that they sponsored. Ab

funscout asks: "Who out there has actually seen a strictly "gay" animal? " Well, there have been two swans on the Boston Common who have been acting as partners since they were hatched. They make nests, lay eggs, and display all the normal behavior of a mated pair. Except the eggs never hatch because they are never fertilized. The swans are both female. The Central Park Zoo has a pair of male penguins who were living together and simulating egg incubation with a rock in their nest. However, the couple has since broken up. In both cases, we are not talking about animals that are

Barry says: "I also said most folks don't have a problem with civil unions." No, the folks who have a problem with civil unions are the ones who realize that they are NOT equivalent to marriage. This isn't about legitimizing their lifestyle, this is about the fact that civil unions do not get them the same rights and benefits as a marriage. Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government (thus NO federal benefits), or by any other state than the one in which they are registered (so couples who move or even travel out of state could find themselves in trouble). So that's like say

John-in-KC says: "First, to make sure we agree in terms, the Law I speak of is that which in in the OT. Talmud does not count." Well, I was speaking of Leviticus, which is the OT, not the Talmud. I'm having a hard time following the point of the rest of your post as it reads more like a sermon than a discussion. So I'm not really sure if you answered my question or not about whether modern Christians pick and choose what from Leviticus they follow as law. But I won't press you any further.

Barry says: "I would suggest you check all data yourself before you give studies much weight." Excellent advise. I always read the original paper for a study before I give it any credence. My undergraduate training involved rigorous critical analysis of scientific methods, which I also had to apply when completing my doctoral thesis.

John-in-KC says: "So, by not keeping kosher, am I Damned? Yes. Only by accepting God's own complete sacrifice do I have a hope of eternal life with God in Heaven." Ok, you'll have to pardon my ignorance here, but I'm not really familiar with your particular flavor of Christianity (my studies in Christianity tended to occur in the more progressive denominations). But isn't the washing away of sins by Jesus sort of conditional that one should be at least *trying* to uphold God's laws and should be repenitent when one "slips up"? This is an area that has always interested me and ha

John-in-KC, while I agree with the spirit of the second part of your post, there is something in the first part that I must question: "I find it interesting that we men can decide to change the standard God set "on the fly." Yes, there are pieces of Scripture open to some interpretation. The Law as presented in the Pentateuch isn't one of those pieces." So then why don't Christians keep kosher?

Barry says: "I dont think I implied Christian anywhere. In fact, the three major religions traditionally look at homosexuality as sin." Actually, I said Biblical. And, since all three JCI traditions are Biblically based (since the Torah and Qur'an draw from the OT, also), then it is not surprising that those who choose to interpret the Bible a certain way can be found in all three religions. However, Bible/Torah scholars/theologians in both Judaism and Christianity have always disagreed over those interpretations, and those that reject that interpretation are gaining more and more support

Actually, I never really thought of the Whittlin' Chit/Chip (and other Chit/Chip patches) as a flap patch, because it's a different size. It's too tall to fit on a shirt flap. But these Chuck Wagon Derby patches are the exact same size as the OA patches (and the OAA patch).

Hunt, And yet, the BSA has allowed COs to be churches that don't believe in any god (Scientology) and that don't allow women to hold leadership positions (LDS). But has banned churches that would allow gays and atheists to join (UU). And it has only been since 1974 that LDS troops have officially discontinued the practice of denying leadership positions to black scouts. But I guess it's all about who is willing to pay the big bucks.

Barry says: "Marriage is really just a religious thing. The only reason gays want the Government to define marriage is so their behavior is to it as moral." So I guess the 1049 or so benefits available to married couples that are not available to couples who have a civil union have nothing to do with it? So I guess these federal benefits not available in civil unions are irrelevant and unimportant: Access to Military Stores Assumption of Spouses Pension Bereavement Leave Immigration Insurance Breaks Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Sick Leave to Care for Partner

Barry says: " That way over time real religious moral folks over time will come to except the gay beheavior as normal." Excuse me, but I am a real religious, moral folk who already accepts gay "behavior" as normal. So, in fact, does the American Psychiatric Association, so you are going to be hard pressed to define it as "abnormal" in any sense other than a Biblical one (and a Biblical interpretation considered faulty by the many Christian denominations and theologians, at that). But I guess I don't count, since I'm not a Christian, and therefore can't really be religious or moral. T