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 get that off my chest.

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 practices habitual and preferred over coitus when coitus is involved? I wont respond to Paul because his interpretation is ridiculous. But for you as a lawyer to support his erroneous supposition borders on humor. I look forward to debating the fine points with you regardless of how off-topic we get.

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 which parts underlined are your words and which are mine? Which parts are a reference to your need for some definitive source for morality (a who or what) and which parts misrepresent that premise? Which parts point to a period of time and which parts speciously cite some divine event? Your quote, I mean falsehood, means in total something quite different than what I said. It seems there was never a debate over me inserting an extra word "my". You are correct, sort of, I was responding to this statement of yours, You have said that your truth is intrinsic and given at creation. Not only is this yet another misquote and falsehood, your word your would relate to me as in my, sorry for your misunderstanding. Next time keep better track of what you say. It is obvious to a four-year old that you have deliberately misquoted me and then falsified to cover up your deceit. You have tried to the end to corner me into saying morality is based from religion, something which I purposely NEVER allude to in any statements. To this I will accurately quote you, please take note, on how you have attempted to misrepresent my position, over and over. BTW, these are all untruths in your own unembellished words.

I've read all of your other posts on this subject, and you are the first to link religion to the debate

Your assertion that gays didnt exist and were unheard of before 1960 is naive at best.

without projecting your definition of moral behavior

You plagerized a gay website I haven't "lifted" my arguments from anyone...

the real source of your definition is the "intrinsic truth" that existed before religion and was given at the time of creation. So now we're back to God.

You believe in one truth, and that is the one handed you by your religion

I can only interpret that one way, and that is that you have been taught (or learned) that your position is God given. That's why I continue to return to the argument that you are basing this on your religion. Once again, to regain your credibility in this debate, please retract or defend that I am a liar, I believe that I still have my credibility intact to the satisfaction of all, it is you who has lost yours, and though I regret calling you a liar, I know of no other term that better describes your conduct and it remains accurate. It is your credibility that needs some bolstering; perhaps you can apologize for and retract your blatant untruths. I stand behind everything Ive written, too bad you cant honestly do the same. and explain your definitive source that supports both of the "leaps" in the logic of your theorems. In good time, lets resolve your poor credibility situation first before we reexamine your illogical interpretations, shall we?

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 qualify my statement as being religiously grounded. You are disingenuous in your interpretation of events.

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 this, right?

The condition of being pervertedThis comes directly from the definition of perversion. is to cause to turn aside or away from what is good, right and true And this is the definition to pervert. and this intrinsically conflicts with the definition of moral. Conflict here means in contradiction to, or the opposite of moral and therefore immoral. But, for you, all this depends on what your definition of "is" is.

But this definition is not really necessary because Ive additionally proven the practice of perversion is congruent with incest and bestiality. Remember geometry, two triangles are congruous if each and ever attribute is in agreement?

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 does that make you? Is that not exactly the same as "divinely manifested"? NO! Who created you? My mom and Dad. I agree completely with God given "free will". Do you reject that God gave gays free will? No why would I?

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, you've never even answered the question? You know well and good what premise this refers to but if you want me to answer this question Ill be happy to.

how it was possible that God could give me one truth and you another, and how you would answer a boy in your troop who might ask that very question of you. I would tell him God has given us free will to choose right or wrong, good or bad and truth or prevarication. To say your truth is divinely manifested is truly a miracle. Does He reveal any other facts to you? OK, so is this now your fundamental premise? Moral equivalency? Since the morality of incest can't be proven or disproved, neither can morality of homosexuality? You believe that both behaviors are equal, and by linking homosexuality to incest you feel you have proven your point that homosexuality is immoral because so many more people believe incest to be? Lets see here, NO, Yes, NO and NO.

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 want to however I dont think that many would consider it very factual. Homosexuality or same-sex sodomy, is an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus. The condition of being perverted is to cause to turn aside or away from what is good, right and true and this intrinsically conflicts with the definition of moral. In math, theorems are proven by using definitions, but Im going to guess you dont put much stock in math, too many absolutes, right? Unless you are following the definition of normal coitus, Of course I was, there is only one definition for coitus and there is no need to modify it as normal or abnormal it is still the same. in which case by definition most any sexual activity between hetero couples would be considered "perverted". Nope, coitus is not most any sexual activity, it is very specific and can never be considered perverted otherwise your mom and dad would have to wear that hat. See definition of coitus. Nonetheless, I trust that if this doctionary doesn't support your leap that gay = perverted and perveted = immoral, you will eventually find a dictionary that does. Nope again, this dictionary is just fine and supports the definition rather well. But if you have a little more time to spare would you mind supporting where that leap may be? Were still not clear on this one.

I'll stand behond teh 52% of public opinion that I cited that believes gays to be an "acceptible alternative lifestyle". Yuk, by your logic if incest was 52% publicly supported that too would be an "acceptable alternative lifestyle". What will you do should public opinion change to be less that 50%, by your logic youll have to change your morality I guess? You have said "homosexuality is wrong because it is an intrinsic truth given at the time of creation" You are a liar! You have misquoted me many times over and over on this very same thing and Ive made a point of letting you know that without calling you what you are, but you are a liar. Youve even bothered putting your dilutions in quotes to make it look like Ive said this; those are your words. I dare you to cite the text page where Ive said this, you cant! Do you think if you repeat it often enough it will become truth? Shame on you! This is what I said: Nope, the standard is right and wrong. Morality didnt originate from me, +50% of the population, national or any religion, morality is intrinsically a right or wrong. No, you got it backwards; religious principle is linked to morality. Morality existed before there was religion. When man first walked upright and became endowed with reason, morality existed. Lying, stealing, murder, etc was immoral before any religion ever existed or any law ever written.

Now where did I imply morality is linked to religion? Can I get a ruling on this? You are a real piece of work! I can only interpret that one way, and that is thet you have been taught (or learned) that your position is God given. That's why I continue to return to the argument that you are basing this on your religion. I remind you that major religions disagree on that subject. You still have never answer my question, which I've raised on a couple of occasions now, when I asked how it was possible that God could give me one truth and you another, and how you would answer a boy in your troop who might ask that very question of you. "Is it just as simple as you are right and I am wrong?" Again, look at the time youve wasted on this erroneous premise, both yours and mine. Try another specious routine, this one has had its last gasp. Beasts do not have the capitcity to consent, and by definition Clearly you dont know anything about animals. All animals give consent for you to even be around them much less walk up to them and especially touch them. This is easily demonstrated by the biting, kicking, goring, etc, which would occur should the animal not want you to come in contact with it. And by definition, which simply means approval, should the dirty deed not be consensual the bestial and beast would quickly find him/herself ravaged or harmed. So, how would you not find consent in this loving, committed and monogamous relationship? Hmmm Incest evolved more as a public health hazzard than a moral issue; the "harm" is clearly done to any potential offspring, and offspring are a definite risk in an incestual relationship. This is a common misnomer and I thank you for bringing it up. If this were true then it would be immoral or public health hazard for anyone who has any genetic defect, Downs, cleft palette, Spinal bifita, Cerebral Palsy, etc (95% of all genetic defects are inherited) to have relations. Do you agree? No? How about if those who have genetic defects use protection, is it then immoral? I would think youd say no. Then if its OK for those who carry genetic defects to have relations because they are responsible and use protection, then why is it not OK for loving committed consensual monogamous incestual relationships to be responsible and use protection? Then is it OK? No, still a heath hazard? Then how about if we play the abortion card, then is it OK? No, abortion is immoral you say? Then what about if Mom has had a hysterectomy and or adult son has had a vasectomy, where is the harm? Finally, what about relations between two sisters or two brothers, no health risk could possibly exist and since homosexuality is moral then you must say this relationship is moral. Say it!

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 words to dispute how that definition is wrong. I challenge you to do that. By whose definition? Yours? Some churches, but not others? No no no, thats more dishonesty again tj and I dont appreciate it, these would clearly have been against the rules, your rules, religions, and personal opinion wasnt legal, right? Why cant we just say, "by definition homosexuality is different than heterosexuality"? We certainly can, we can also say homosexuality is different than driving. How about homosexuality is different than washing dishes? These differences are accurate but not the same, right? But I digress; you were really making a comparison to a normal man/woman relationship, werent you? OK, lets call this exercise #2, can you please tell me how homosexuality is the same as, Ill even give you more latitude than that, how homosexuality is like a normal man/woman relationship? Why is the word "perverted" a better choice than the word "different"? Because we as humans, the highest order of beings on earth, have words that have real and objective meanings, even a four year-old can understand this. If one were to read your post only causally, it would seem that you had done some research and were citing empirical evidence, but in fact, you can't support your argument without making a non-sequitur (linking gay life as a perversion, and attaching the negative stigma to that word). Well lets work this out, see exercise #1 above. Please, please, please show me the error in my definition. I would have a much easier time arguing that murder, or bestiality, or prostitution, or drug use or even lying are immoral than I would arguing that gays are immoral. Someone is inherently hurt or taken advantage of in each of the first five behaviors; no one is inherently hurt when a loving gay couple forms a committed long-term relationship. No one. Ive only challenged you and NJ to explain any moral differences between homosexuality incest and bestiality, and this is the closest youve come to doing that. Good for you, thank you. Now, why/how/who is inherently hurt in a committed long-term loving incestual or bestial relationship? Please explain! You believe in one truth, and that is the one handed you by your religion and the influencing factors in your life. More dishonesty again, shame on you, didnt you learn your lesson on the other thread? Ive never said, implied or pretended that religion or any influencing factors have anything to do with right and wrong. Reread, miscomprehension is not an admiral trait. Right and wrong exists without your perspective or my perspective, it exits with religion and without religion, and it exists whether you and I agree or not. DedDad, I have asked if you actually know any gay couples? Or gay people? I have assumed that you do not, given your very staunch opposition to gays and your stereotypical view of the lifestyle. Your tendency to cast gays as evil makes me suspect you may have at least one very serious and very unfortunate example in your past of an evil person who affected you or someone close to you; if that is the case, it was because the person was evil, not because they were gay. This is so wrong on so many levels, Im going to give you the opportunity to retract it and apologize. I believe there is no difference between a normal, healthy and moral gay person and a normal, healthy and moral straight person. And, I believe there is no difference between a normal, healthy and moral gay person and a normal, healthy and moral incestual person. Where am I wrong?

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 now (5) definition. However, I would propose that you are close minded to any legitimate way to demonstrate the truth as it pertains to the practice of perversion being immoral But, regardless of your arbitrary conditions for proof, the fact remains, verification by congruence IS a legitimate way to demonstrate proof IFF and only IFF the integrity of the congruence is true for each and every example. So let me start you off, homosexuality is more moral than incest because ____. I would also ask that you return to the original debate The original debate as you have framed it assumes moral relativity as legitimate means to resolve the issue and that feign premise has only one resolution, total rejection. provide specific reasons why the standard should not be lowered to the chartering partner and parents at the local unit level. Specifically, Lowering Standards is bad because the BSA is an elite organization with High Standards and debasing its principles dishonors its integrity.

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 consider it very factual. Homosexuality or same-sex sodomy, is an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus. The condition of being perverted is to cause to turn aside or away from what is good, right and true and this intrinsically conflicts with the definition of moral. In math, theorems are proven by using definitions, but Im going to guess you dont put much stock in math, too many absolutes,right?

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 indeed it wasnt because in 1916 there would be no need to modify the word morally to exclude the practice of perversion, it surely wouldnt have been considered to be moral anywhere at that time, I think we can all agree on that cant we? "Morally straight" means to be of good character, an upstanding person, honest, a good egg, a mensch, etc. Agreed but still it cannot include those who practice perversion. I believe a gay person can be those things, or not, just as a straight person can be those things, or not. People believe lots of wrong things, it seems silly you dont base it on anything tangible other than because you think so. We're both part of the same organization. Not if the organization recognizes perversion as moral, nope, myself and most of the others wont be part of that same organization. So how about you don't have any gay leaders in your unit, and if my unit wants to admit one or more, let us. Can't we all just get along? (Well, I know, we probably can't, not on this subject.) No Rodney, we cant. You want the BSA that means whatever to whomever, I want the original that stands for the unwavering traditional values of Baden-Powell and James West. As for "perversion as virtuous behavior," I accept neither the perversion part or the virtuous part. You know what, youre welcome to make up your own definitions and believe what ever you want, its a free country, but that wont change how perversion is defined. It is just behavior. Well, actually I think that sexual orientation is genetically influenced, but I understand that this has not been conclusively proven scientifically Specifically what genetics are you referring to that you base your opinion on, heredity, hormonal influences, etc. Do you have a favorite study or research scientist you follow? and my opinion that it is not immoral does not depend on the ultimate scientific outcome. So if it is a choice why is it ethical and moral? Ill need to revisit that concept sometime, no time now. That is incorrect. First of all, I believe 2 of my examples were of CURRENT, not former behavior -- the person living with a woman to whom he is not married, Do you think this person is an acceptable role model for scouts, be honest? I dont, and like your pro-perversion amigo tj, just because there is no rule to prohibit such doesnt mean it acceptable or moral. In fact, there are no specific rules prohibiting those who practice necrophilia, pornography, prostitution or any myriad of unknown illegal activities, by your logic I guess we should let each troop choose if these are acceptable under the moniker of the Boy Scouts of America. If there is no specific rule its all OK, like your absurd example of a paroled murderer/rapist/et al, its ridiculous and again your analogy is invalid. and the man who is morbidly obese because he eats too much. This is just a tad erroneous dont you think? First, how could he pass the physical, he couldnt. Second, how could he lead any troop on a hike, canoe trip etc, he couldnt physically. Lastly, if he could do all that, he deserves the position and judging someone on their physical appearance is not the scouts I know and love, shame on you and your sophistical analogy. I would expect that about 75 percent of units would reject the cohabitant but 25 would not, assuming that he is otherwise qualified and has no other problems. Do these statistics have any basis in fact or do we chalk these up to the because you think so reasoning? Youve made this up out of whole cloth. As the offense gets more serious, and as the time gets closer, more and more units (and eventually all units) are going to reject the person because they feel his proven past acts are evidence of bad character NOW. For each of the infinite points along the seriousness/time continuum, the percentage of units accepting the guy will change -- all based on their judgment of his character now, as evidenced by his past behavior. So the analogy is a good one. Not really, Im kind of confused how any past digressions become an absolute future digression. I can understand how one unit may feel a past digression hasnt had enough time pass to be considered repented but how on earth do you leap to an avowed future digression as being the same, it makes absolutely no sense! Your analogy remains the same, invalid, but that was some absolutely amazing Word Aikido you just preformed, nice try. I say, let the unit decide whether he may be of good or bad character -- the same decision the unit makes when faced with the petty drug offender or the errant driver. Or the fat Cubmaster or the living-together Scoutmaster. Or the nechrophiliac, pornographer, prostitute and your favorite and mine the incestual and bestial. No thanks; one BSA with one standard is all we need. The standard of right and wrong. And since an avowed gay orientation is not necessarily "avowed wrong behavior," my analogy remains valid. A unit should get to choose. Umm, you still havent established it isnt wrong behavior and since there is NO difference morally to incest and bestiality Im surprised you waited this long to try and establish any difference. Surprise, surprise! As long as nobody is getting hurt or coerced (as in pedophilia, adult-to-child incest and, your apparent favorite example, bestiality), the unit should get to choose. (By the way, I suspect that bestiality may also violate the Outdoor Code. Nice try, well not really, you introduced two completely different immoralities which Ive not made any parallel to, pedophilia and incestual pedophilia. What were talking about here is private consensual monogamous loving adult incest and bestiality relationship, and youve proffered no harm of coercion to its relation. Make your case unless its going to be another because I think so. Incest and bestiality are morally equal to homosexuality period. I have enrolled my son and myself in a "hate group," Im glad you dont think so, love the sinner, hate the sin, right? Some people can be so short sighted.

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 repentant of their wrong behavior. Your analogy is invalid. If a unit wants a paroled murderer to be Scoutmaster, and nobody in the unit complains, I know of no reason to believe the council will step in. I have one word for that too, ridiculous. So don't you see, the national standard banning avowed gays is an EXCEPTION to the usual rules governing who can be a leader. No not really, the difference between repentant wrong behavior and avowed wrong behavior are mutually exclusive.

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 and the parental preferences of that unit--make them right? Making up your own rules goes right along with your Absolute Morality System. I guess if it isnt murder or rape little things like rules are simply choices. Your version of the BSA challenges the ethics of the founders intent, morally and philosophically. We can call it Relatively the Boys Scouts of America. If the parents wanted to be inclusive of incestual and bestial members then thats OK under your version. Show me anywhere Baden-Powell, James West or any of the founders said incest and bestiality wouldnt be welcome. You are a mouthpiece for the gay agenda. Your presence here is a testimony to the kind of subversion they use to seep into the cracks of the foundation of that which is good, right and true.

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 one over the other. Because they are all the same whether the majority votes it is or not. Your warrant is disingenuos and a dodge. we have reported, others will decide. You have reported nothing but the gay agenda. How sad.

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 been for the lightning. Scoutmaster Walt got mad at Chad for going on a hike alone without telling anyone. Chad said he did tell him, but it was during the fire so he probably didn't hear him. Did you know that if you put gas on a fire, the gas can will blow up?The wet wood still didn't burn, but one of our tents did.Also some of our clothes.John is going to look weird until his hair grows back.

We will be home on Saturday if Scoutmaster Walt gets the car fixed.It wasn't his fault about the wreck.The brakes worked OK when we left. Scoutmaster Walt said that a car that old you have to expect something to break down; that's probably why he can't get insurance on it. We think it's a neat car.He doesn't care if we get it dirty, and if it's hot, sometimes he lets us ride on the fenders.It gets pretty hot with 10 people in a car.

He let us take turns riding in the trailer until the highway patrolman stopped and talked to us.Scoutmaster Walt is a neat guy. Don't worry, he is a good driver In fact, he is teaching Terry how to drive. But he only lets him drive on the mountain roads where there isn't any traffic. All we ever see up there are logging trucks.

This morning all of the guys were diving off the rocks and swimming out in the lake.Scoutmaster Walt wouldn't let me because I can't swim and Chad was afraid he would sink because of his cast, so he let us take the canoe across the lake.It was great.You can still see some of the trees under the water from the flood.Scoutmaster Walt isn't crabby like some scoutmasters.He didn't even get mad about the life jackets.He has to spend a lot of time working on the car so we are trying not to cause him any trouble.

Guess what? We have all passed our first aid merit badges.When Dave dove in the lake and cut his arm, we got to see how a tourniquet works.

Also Wade and I threw up, but scoutmaster Walt said it probably was just food poisoning from the leftover chicken, he said they got sick that way with the food they ate in prison.I'm so glad he got out and become our scoutmaster. He said he sure figured out how to get things done better while he was doing his time.

I have to go now.We are going into town to mail our letters and buy bullets.Don't worry about anything.

We are fine.

Love, Cole

PS: How long has it been since I had a tetanus shot?

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 understand if you, a lawyer, cant demonstrate any discernable distinction between homosexuality incest and bestiality? The truth is, you cant councilor!

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.