Dedicated Dad

Just my two cents--the 60 Minutes was pretty slanted away from the BSA too. slont, pretty slanted? Leslie Stahl said that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles. If homosexuals commit 31+% of child molestations and they are only 2-3% of the population they are at least ten times more likely to commit pedophilia than heterosexuals. Further she went on to say that because some of these homosexual/pedophiles were married, they werent gay? Thats right out of GLAADs talking points. Pretty slanted? Total bias if you ask me! OK < /rant off >, thanks for letting me ge

ScouterPaul, you have correctly pointed out that Dedicated Dad's definition has made most heterosexual couples deviantsBob, how sad you as a lawyer could reasonably come to the conclusion that Paul is remotely accurate. You defend this. My wife and I practice oral copulation, coitus interrupts and utilize the use of condoms. I believe that based on definitions this would make me guilty of sodomy and a habitual practitioner of other than normal coitus. First, how is coitus interrupts aberrant? How is the use of condoms habitual sodomy? How is man/woman fellatio aberrant? How are any of these

It appears your only basis for attacking me as a liar (and shaming me, etc etc) was that I inserted the words "given at" before your word "creation". More untruths, how sad you would try to divert attention away from your own written words, they are so easily checked. This is what you quoted from me.Its not a who or a what, it is an intrinsic truth that existed before religion and from the time of our creation. This is how you quoted me, (notice the quotation marks, thats how you know) You have said "homosexuality is wrong because it is an intrinsic truth given at the time of creation" Now wh

Talk about picking and choosing your words. Yes carefully An intrinsic truth that existed since creation cant be interpreted by any reasonable and reverent person to mean anything but God given. Yes, my implied that it is a personal moral system and I reject any such existence there of and given is a reference to divine action and not the period of time between creation and any establishment of RELIGION which was my intent. Are you suggesting that "creation" was not by God's hand? Of course not. Further, I will retract nothing because you know very well your intent was to deceive and was to

Since youve had so much trouble understanding this definition I thought you may want some help. Homosexuality, by definition, is perversion. This is the theorem part. Homosexuality or same-sex sodomy, These are the same thing, the quality or state of being homosexual is of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex. So if youre with me, Homosexuality=Same-sex sodomy. Good so far? is an aberrant sexual practiceThis is the same-sex sodomy part. especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus. This is pretty self-explanatory. I think we can agree on

DedDad, where is your credibility? Are you planning to just gloss over the fact that you called me a liar, and that you have added words (both homosexual and immoral) to the definition of perverted to make your leap? What are you talking about? Your method of debate is very troubling. Im sorry, how can I make it better? You have said that your truth is intrinsic and given at creation. No I have not! I even gave you the references on my last post, cant you read? I didnt say it is MY truth and I didnt say it was GIVEN at creation, this is a lie, purposeful falsehood, false witness, what do

By that line of reasoning a woman raped is assumed to have consented simply because she didn't "ravage" her attacker. That's silly. Not really, man is capable of higher communication skills than animals, we dont communicate disapproval or non-consent with ravaging, we simply say no. Nope. I've already answered that point several times, plurality of opinion on what is or is not moral is not as simple as +50%Sorry, that is a little over my head , what exactly is plurality of opinion, I missed that one? What is the correct % that alters your moral relativity? How is this an erroneous premise, yo

tjhookerSay it!

I must be missing the link to homosexuality on that source you provided. Well try reading it again, only this time with better comprehension. Now, pick a word or phrase that is used incorrectly, that you disagree with or even if you just dont like the way it sounds. Then highlight and right click to copy (so you dont misquote me again) said inaccuracy and paste onto your note pad. Next, comment to where the link is unjustified, its easy! Here is my proof again incase anyone needs to reread it. Homosexuality, by definition, is perversion. Youre welcome to write your own dictionary if you wa

I realize that your tactic, or at least the tactic of homosexual activists, is to wear the other side down. Big bump to that and you Rooster! And cj, slont, weekender and PDC, thanks for your support.

You make the link that "by definition homosexuality is perversion". By whose definition? 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 whether you want them to or not. I asked if want to write your own dictionary and you declined by not addressing any part or any particular phrase, term, word or letter of the definition as it is objectively used. I proved using your conditions, not mine, that homosexuality is immoral by definition, if you had any intellectual honesty you would use your wo

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. Im going to assume by the time I write this you will have summarily rejected proof by definition, I guess definitions can be relative too if morality is relative. So lets add definitions to your list of capricious conditions. Now we have (1) opinion (2) parallel (3) religion (4) testimonial and n

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. And yet you did! 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. Heheheany other capriccios conditions, stand on my head, tie one arm behind my back? Homosexuality, by definition, is perversion. Youre welcome to write your own dictionary if you want to however I dont think that many would conside

As I assume you have figured out by now, I do not agree that homosexuality is intrinsically immoral. How can it be moral? Therefore, a gay person can promise to be "morally straight" without being dishonest. Your use of the word therefore would presume you based your conclusion on some grounds or reason, what would that be? Why, just because you think so? What criteria have you used to establish the sound logic and reasoning behind your opinion? I don't think the meaning of "straight" as "heterosexual" was even dreamed of when the words "morally straight" were made part of the oath. And inde

It is interesting to see that the group here is much more animated on the subject, but I find the reasoning just as weak. Yep, that elusive morally straight thing is pretty weak if you choose to accept the practice of perversion as virtuous behavior. Of course its everyone elses reasoning that is skewed, not yours hmm if you believe people who cant make rational behavioral choices would make good leaders. Your litany of leadership candidates with the former digressions analogy is just that, former. Those who confirm their current status of practicing homosexuality are neither former nor repent

Do I hold him back from his Tenderfoot because he can't do a pull up? No. The requirement is to show improvement, surely he objectively did better than his first attempt. Did you measure the distance his chin was from the bar between now and 30 days ago?

Does the fact that it was national policy to bar women from being Scoutmasters make those units that ignored the policy wrong? Of course it did, it was against the policy. You seem have some real issues with right and wrong, I guess obeying the rules is just another one of your relativitys. Its easy to see that specious analogy is your forte tj; perhaps you can explain how gender is a parallel to behavior. One is innate and the other is chosen. Can you cite the units that ignored this policy, Id not heard of this before? Or does their setting of a specific policy--conducive with their unit an

Crafting Gay Children K, that was a very disturbing article, the sad thing is most Scouters here wont even bother to read it. I dont believe they want to know the truth or even another perspective, its easier to ignore the filth and degradation that is homosexuality than it is to understand its dark reality. Thank you for posting this article, Id not seen it before now. I hope you can post more truth about this heinous attack on our children. Keep em coming.

The Man Song

Dont the ladies have to take care of the men? The way I see it, mines taken care of me for some eighteen years and change, I dont know any reason why I cant take care of her on these little special occasions. Shes earned it!

Please let me know how much time I've got so I don't miss it. Time is only relative while you enjoy your new spacious accommodations, I hope your dog has an extra blanket.

I believe that any poll of individuals will reveal that a significant percentage of people do not disapprove of committed homosexual couples. If the poll said incest and bestiality would be all right, by you logic, then that would be OK, right? Morality by vote, whatever the majority thinks is OK? Is that what you would tell your scouts if they asked, if a poll said prostitution or fill in _______, is OK then that should be good enough for them? some questions simply do not warrant a response. Why? Because you have no way to explain any moral differences. Because you cant possibly justify

Animals TOO SO have rights; dont you keep up with PETA? A letter from Boy Scout camp Dear Mom and Dad: Our scout master told us all to write to our parents in case you saw the flood on TV and worried.We are OK.Only 1 of our tents and 2 sleepingbags got washed away.Luckily, none of us got drowned because we were all up on the mountain looking for Chad when it happened.Oh yes, please call Chad's mother and tell her he is OK.He can't write because of the cast. I got to ride in one of the search & rescue jeeps.It was neat. We never would have found him in the dark if it hadn't be

You cannot see the moral difference between a consenting committed relationship between two adults and bestiality and incest, but I believe that many more people can. I would like to know how the many more people can see the difference. Why cant you explain that? I just dont understand. A committed consenting monogamous loving relationship between two adults in the same family or with an animal is exactly the same thing. You cant frame it any other way. If youre an attorney, surely you have the intellectual capacity to articulate the difference. How is the silent majority supposed to understa

We may not have had to use their services, You actually have without knowing it. He is your representation on The Hill; he is your lobbyist. Thank, Ill pass along your kind words the next time we speak. I admire all you home schoolers, you are the new moral compass leading this country in a new direction. God Bless you all.