Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tjhammer

Scouting's Real Gay Policy

Recommended Posts

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed writes:

 

> Being gay is a lifestyle - a chosen lifestyle. There is no proof that one is born gay.

 

Just because you keep saying that over and over again doesn't make it true.

 

The AMA, the APA, and almost the entire body of scientific research on the subject supports the notion that sexual orientation is fixed at a very early age -- probably by birth, and almost certainly before the age of five. Several large-scale scientific surveys (n > 1000) show that gay people report profound feelings of "being different" beginning at an early age (5-8) even though they don't associate this feeling with anything sexual yet. The median age for youth recognizing their sexual orientation is about 13, with an average of 4 years more before they begin the "coming out" process -- usually to friends before family.

 

Twin studies show a strong correlation between genotype and sexual orientation, but this is not deterministic. In plain English, with identical twins (geneticially identical), if one is gay, there's about a 50% chance that the other will be too, while the proportion is significantly smaller if they are fraternal twins, although still much better than chance based on similar, non-related subjects taken from the population at large.

 

Some male homosexuality (about 30% of cases) has been shown to be a heritable, maternal trait (therefore carried on the X chromosome). The correlation of these cases to a certain sequence in section 28 of the "q" branch of the X chromosome is established to a P value of 0.00001 (about 1000 times stronger than is needed to publish in most scientific journals).

 

More recent studies of birth order among males siblings shows that younger siblings have increasingly higher chances of being gay or bisexual. These finding, in conjunction with earlier studies, have lead to a new hypothesis regarding interaction effects with the hormonal reactions that some mothers have to the androgens released by the developing male fetus in utero. This accomodates what we already know about non-deterministic genetic components or pre-dispositions to homosexuality as well as self-reports from thousands of gay people interviewed in the course of these studies.

 

I could go on, of course, but I don't really see the need to start pulling out references here. The sad truth is that most people who are genuinely interested in the "proof" are usually quickly convinced by the huge body of scientific knowledge already accumulated on this subject, not to mention the official positions of professional medical and psychological associations.

 

But for those who decide beforehand what they want to believe and only afterwards start scrounging around for some "proof," well... they have to start searching the web for pseudocientists like the rejects at NARTH in order to find some ammunition to bolster their beliefs.

 

 

Ed, I would hope that you would be receptive to at least reviewing the relevant scientific and medical research on topic before issuing blanket statements like that -- especially since the implication of your statement is that I don't know what I'm talking about (or even that I'm flat-out lying), even though I've got a lot more first-hand knowledge on the issue. But I seem to recall that we've covered this ground before...

 

YiS,

-Mark

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cjmian writes:

 

> 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.

 

Perhaps the point that you're missing is that homosexuals aren't a "species." Just as males and females aren't a "species." Humans are.

 

And humans, like most other primates, are extremely social and tend to live together in fairly large communities (there's some anthropoligical and psychological evidence that we're optimized for social networks of about 150 interpersonal relationships each).

 

So we don't exist all on our own, and don't self-segregate based on these sorts of criteria. 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.

 

But now I'm getting back onto the subject of my earlier post. Perhaps you might want to read some of the research on this subject for yourself? ;-)

 

 

> The homosexual species cannot sustain itself without lying or

> cheating.

 

Not only false, but needlessly inflammatory and insulting. See above.

 

 

> Once again, Im not sure how a devout homosexual could procreate naturally. Thus the

> species dies.

 

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?

 

YiS,

-Mark

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time a gay couple adopts an older child that has been bypassed over and over by straight families, I think society and the adoptee have been helped. Now I know there are those that say kids without families are better off being institutionalized until the age of 18 and then being placed on their own, than to be placed with a gay couple - but I disagree. Strongly.

 

When folks argue that homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn't lead to procreation, yet counter all the examples of homosexuality among animals with the further argument that MAN has a moral sense, I really wonder if man doesn't have a practical sense? WE ARE OVERPOPULATED to the point where MAN with his moral sense is destroying the soulless natural world - species gone to extinction, thousands of acres of rain forest burned and levelled every week, the soil that grows our food daily leaching out to sea... yes, you're right - breeding is a certainly good and moral thing to do.

 

Every time someone says, it hasn't been shown that gays are borns so, they leave out that corollarily it hasn't been - oh, you go ahead and finish that one.

 

Man is the only animal with a conscience? I think that statement can only be made by someone who's never kept a dog...

 

Isn't it odd that a religion becomes myth after all its adherents have died? there are more Moslems than Christians across the world - if we reach a point where there are NO Christians, does Christianity become a myth, I wonder?

 

And every time I hear that the Bible is the Last and Final Word, I refelct that I have yet to hear of any version that has been definitively proven to be an exact and Final translation. Does "...no other gods before Me" really equate to "There are no other gods"?

 

As far as the 100-gays-on-an-island-for-50-years reality show goes, it's probably a good thing there's no procreation, or everyone would die a lot sooner as the island was stripped of all things edible.

 

Sure we'll take tax money from gays - and then get upset when Merlyn fights to make sure that the tax money gets allocated by the rules that the Scouts themselves fought to have applied!

 

Y'all folks is crazy!

 

By the way, is it ok to put camp and jamboree patches on the back of the merit badge sash? I'm starting to see this more and more, and my son wants to start doing it - I tend to be a purist when it comes to this, but I'm not sure what's evolving generally...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mark,

I think I will stick to my guns on this. There is no proof that one is born gay. Therefore it is a learned behavior. Therefore it is a lifestyle. Until there is absolute proof that one is born gay, I will not change my opinion.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how old Baden-Powell was when he married Olave? And then, how old was she?

 

If the debate over the "properness" of sexual activity is measured by the ability to procreate then it follows that sexual activity that has no chance of procreating must be deemed "wrong".

 

If all sexual activity that has no chance of procreating is wrong, I am going to have to sell all my stock in Viagra, even though its one of the most common prescription drugs sold to men over 60, very few of them and their partners are looking to be parents.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer OGE's question, Baden-Powell was 54 when he married his 22 year old wife Olave. Yeah, he's definately the role model I want my brother to look up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised by the reactions/responses from Mark Noel, Merlyn_LeRoy, CubScouterFather, and some others. They have reason to defend their positions so strongly. They have chosen a direction in life and they're staking their souls on the outcome. I am a bit surprised by the reactions of some others. To these folks, who I will not name, I can only say - I hope and pray that you don't fall into the same darkness that these gentlemen have found. Accepting immorality has a way of allowing folks to sleep better at night. Perhaps some of you are thinking: "My God is more loving and forgiving then his God". Or, on a subconscious level, maybe you're saying to yourself, "If I accept other people's sins, then surely God must accept mine". I can only guess. I am truly befuddled. I realize that last statement will open the door for some nasty replies, but it matters not to me. Im just amazed that so many folks are willing to close their hearts, minds, and eyes. Friends, sleep well, because there are only so many tomorrows. As for me, I want as much oil for my lamp as possible, because we do not know the day or hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is no proof that one is born gay. Therefore it is a learned behavior. Therefore it is a lifestyle. Until there is absolute proof that one is born gay, I will not change my opinion."

 

 

There is no proof that one is NOT born gay. (or, There is no proof yet, although there are certainly some suggestions, that one is born gay - take your pick.) Therefore it may or may not be a learned (or acquired or imparted) behavior. Therefore, it may be a genetic predisposition or a lifestyle choice, or both...

 

apparently the concept of "innocent until proven otherwise" extends so far, and no farther.

 

this kind of absolutist rhetoric - while providing no truly logical argument - IS proof that prejudice can be self-blinding.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

littlebillie,

Good point. We don't know for certain if someone is NOT born gay. My belief is they aren't. That said, I will still stick to my earlier post.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed,

 

a good, reasonable response. we disagree on this, I know, but I'm proud to have someone like you to disagree with! you are a principled man of conscience - there's no point talking this kind of thing with any other kind of person...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why would mother nature intend this?"

 

Well, as population control with reduction of sexually induced stress, for one reason. Rat studies have demonstrated that in a limited space, with unlimited food, rats will breed to a point of overpopulation; one of the results of that is an increased incident of observed homosexual contact.

 

The bonobo also displays a wide range of non-procreative behvior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The primary purpose of sex is for propagation."

 

Cjmiam, are you nuts? I'm the proud father of three children and I can say that I have had sex more than three times! Why is birth control, abortion, condoms, etc. so popular?

 

Research the life of the Spartans (of Sparta!) of ancient Greece to get a handle on a society based on homosexuality. In our present society, heterosexuality is valued much more that homosexuality and therefore, not many "choose" homosexuality. Other society's have valued homosexuality much more than our present one and the populace was much more homosexual.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...