Scouting's Real Gay Policy

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Two homosexuals having sex is not only disgusting but is simply biologically impossible for propagation. Why would mother nature intend this???

 

cj, I'll bet you thought that was a rhetorical question. But there is an answer. Leaving aside the specific issue of homosexuality for a moment, it is fairly obvious that our species was "designed" so that it would survive even though some portion of the population does not reproduce. There are a number of reasons why some people do not, some of which are within the person's control, some of which are not, and some on which the jury is still out. Some people die young before they have an opportunity to become a parent. Some people are physically incapable of having children, and although the number of such people has been reduced somewhat by modern medicine, there are and always will be people who cannot reproduce. And then there are the spouses of those people. Some people simply choose not to have children. And some people are not attracted to the opposite gender. The species gets along quite well with only 95 to 98 percent of population being heterosexual, and the percentage of people who reproduce is significantly less than that for some of the reasons I went through. (Of course I realize that some gay people do reproduce.) I have not noticed any shortage of people around.

 

 

[cjmiam 10]

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.

[packsaddle 753]

Quote from Ehrlich again, "People can be produced in vast quantities by unskilled labor who enjoy their work." And it doesn't take many to get it started. Lewontin once estimated that any two random mated persons would be capable of expressing 80% of all the human genetic variation on earth. As NJ says, a small non-reproducing segment of the population has little impact.

In 1960 world population reached 3 billion for the first time in history. It doubled before the end of the century. It will add another 3 billion before 2050. It may level at around 12 billion in a hundred years or so...if everything goes well. If not, it will be really bad news for everyone.

 

But CJ, your statement about sex only being for reproduction reminds me of a favorite line from Monty Python's 'The Meaning of Life'. The Protestant man, casting aspersions on a large Catholic family states, "Those Catholics, they have a child every time they have sex." and his wife replies, "Its the same with us, dear. We have two children".

Sorry Acco40, disproof by analogy to satire.

 

CJ, I am nevertheless puzzled by your use of the term, 'nature' or 'mother nature'. Rooster does this too. Are you saying that 'mother nature' is the same thing as God? Rooster mentioned nature as a designer. Are you using these terms synonymously? Or are you saying there is another supernatural force out there that also controls things?

[cjmiam 10]

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

 

[packsaddle 753]

I...ahem,...also..have two children, h'mmmm. Your point is taken. For me, at least, the use of 'purpose' or 'intent' is a bit troubling, as science cannot address such. "Whose purpose or intent? Why? How do you know this?" These are questions that I wonder when I read such usage.

 

I can't respond for the others but for you to add sarcasm probably will just make interpretation of your ideas more difficult. As a reader, it would then be even more difficult to identify which of your messages are sincere.

 

But to continue on the earlier thought, your response, for example, still makes reference to mother nature as if it is something that exits. And when I reread the passages you list as sarcastic I still see an implication that the writer (you) uses the concept as if it exists. I'm not trying to criticize, rather I am interested in the views that people have about 'nature'. As a concept, it greatly predates the concept of a deity or deities. Yet it is popular for nearly everyone to continue to use it casually, regardless of their religion, as if their usage 'naturally' explains their ideas. I just find it interesting.

Philosophically, I do see a potential conflict if 'nature' is used synonymously with God. If one or the other is used consistently and exclusively for separate discussions, that is a little clearer. But in this forum, when the two concepts are used simultaneously, I have to view this as an attempt to distinguish them from each other, thereby acknowledging the existence of both. Alternatively, they must be the same thing. I hope this explains why I asked.

[acco40 95]

cj, actually the term you used was propagation, not procreation.

 

This reminds me of the group of engineers who all sat around discussing God. The EE stated that God must be an electrical engineer because the human nervous system was such a wonderous and complex electrical system. The ME stated that God must have been a mechanical engineer because of the complex and beautiful bones & muscle system were the perfect mechanical design. Finally, they reluctantly agreed that God must be a civil engineer because only a civil engineer woould have put a waste disposal system right in the middle of a recreational area.

[Rooster7 11]

I cannot speak for CJ, but let me explain why I use the term "nature" or "mother nature". First, just so there's no confusion, I believe in God. However, I also realize that there are many on this board that claim to believe in a god without an agenda...They vehemently argue that we do not know who God is or what His standards may be. They maintain that we have no idea what God approves, or disapproves of, and thus, we cannot bring morality into the argument. So, why do I use the term "nature" or "mother nature"? It is so these folks can reason their way through my argument without using the "morality argument" to discredit it or to prevent themselves from comprehending the point.

 

Unfortunately, stubborn as some folks are, they often fail to recognize the difference between the terms. They presume that God and nature must be one in the same. However, nature has a meaning of its own separate from religion. I am aware of that difference, and I intentionally used the term to separate my argument from religion (at least for that particular point).

 

So what is the point? The point is, even if you are godless, it is plain to see that homosexual sex is a perversity. It makes no rational sense. Nature makes this clear by the biological design of our bodies. So, if you want to argue that there is no such thing as nature's design, only randomness - I suppose you may have an argument that homosexuality is just one of many random options with no implication of perversity or immorality. However, if you make this argument for homosexuality, then you have to make it for every perversity. After all, if there's no perversity in the physical union of two people of the same sex - then who's to say forced sex is a perversity. Be consistent. Are we talking about nature, which has no moral standards? Or are we talking about morality? Morality says rape is wrong. Does nature say rape is wrong? Rape, pedophilia, and incest, all occur within the bounds of nature. Using the same logic of some folks in this thread, these things should be accepted as part of natures design.

 

If you accept the fact that moral standards do exist, then explain to me where you get your morality. You cannot have it both ways. Dont try to use these bogus arguments such as natures way to control the population to rationalize the acceptance of homosexuality. The same logic can be used to justify bestiality. If there was a drop in the female population, the same misguided reasoning can be used to justify incest and rape. You cant have it both ways. Either you believe nature has a design (and thus a designer) or it is completely random. If its the latter, then you have to abandon the pretence of a moral foundation, because you have nothing to base it on. If its the former, then explain to me - If God has no agenda if His standards cannot be determined, where do you get your morality?

 

I say it is inherit. I say God makes many things obvious as obvious as the sexual perversity that homosexuality represents both in nature and in Gods Word. If you cannot see it - then you must have scales over your eyes. Even if you refuse to recognize the Bible as Gods Word, if you are a thinking being, nature clearly demonstrates that homosexuality is perverse.

 

[packsaddle 753]

Rooster, Thanks for your explanation. Your usage is more sophisticated than that of most persons who just use the term - with little thought as to what they mean by it.

I wanted especially to respond to your statement, 'Dont try to use these bogus arguments such as natures way to control the population...' I agree with this completely. However, it cuts both ways. I try not to use nature to 'explain' anything. Therefore while you and I agree it can't be used to accept anything, I also do not consider it valid to use it to reject anything.

 

One final note. What I am about to write neither supports nor rejects your views, it is just a personal admission. I have become sensitized to some of the things written in this thread with regard to 'natural' or 'unnatural' acts. Many times I have heard identical arguments against interracial interactions of all sorts, from marriage to merely sitting together at a table. I doubt this is unique to my region but I understand that the Southeast carries a special stigma with regard to racial prejudice. Occasionally I still hear remnants of those things. Therefore, when I hear such arguments, regardless of topic, it sets me on edge. I hope you understand.

I am reminded of a walk I took with friends many years ago on the shore of Lake Michigan near U. Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Interracial couples were everywhere that evening, sprawled out on the grass in great numbers. My friend, who suffered from deep prejudices, made a remark about the scene. I responded with sarcasm, "Yes, it's almost as if it's not unnatural." He accepted the response as sincere. I just shook my head in sadness.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

rooster7 writes:

I say it is inherit. I say God makes many things obvious as obvious as the sexual perversity that homosexuality represents both in nature and in Gods Word. If you cannot see it - then you must have scales over your eyes. Even if you refuse to recognize the Bible as Gods Word, if you are a thinking being, nature clearly demonstrates that homosexuality is perverse.

 

Parthenogenic lizard species exist, where the entire species is female, and each female produces fertile eggs. Pairs of females will still go through mating rituals; even though it isn't needed for reproduction, it increases their fertility. So if your god makes homosexuality "obviously" perverse, why are there species of lizards that reproduce this way?

[Rooster7 11]

When I referenced nature, I was talking about man with his mental capabilities and his biological design. The fact that you have to point to some obscure lizard to "score a point" for human homosexuality, only proves my point.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

No, it completely undercuts your point; your point was that nature "clearly demonstrates" that homosexuality is perverse, when it clearly does no such thing, since there are entire species that engage in homosexual sex exclusively. If, by "nature", you mean only the human race, you should have said that; but I suspect by "nature" you actually mean your opinion.

[packsaddle 753]

Rooster, I must note that Merlyn's lizard is by no means the only organism engaged in parthenogenesis. Many organisms do this and one reason why was explained by Maynard Smith in 1975 who showed that there was a two-fold decrease in fitness for species with sexual reproduction as opposed to parthenogenesis. That said, single sex populations with parthenogenesis DO reproduce. Just not sexually. And I would hesitate to characterize such populations as analogous to human homosexuals for a variety of reasons that ought to be obvious.

 

And THAT said, I do think that a reliance on 'nature' for support of one's argument cannot lead to 'proof' of anything because 'proof' is an exceedingly difficult condition to attain and 'nature' is an exceedingly weak means of attaining it. Unless, of course, you agree with Spinoza that 'nature' and God are one and the same. In that case it becomes a matter of religion and 'proof' becomes, as Merlyn suggests, a personal matter.

 

But mammals are not parthenogenetic animals, indeed parthenogenesis is impossible for most (all?) of them due to genomic imprinting. Presumably some other advantage outweighs the associated reduction in fitness as a result of sexual reproduction. At this time there are well more than a dozen hypotheses regarding the selective advantages that maintain sexual reproduction.

Here's the really good part...to understand the leading hypothesis you need to begin by reading Alice's dialog with the Red Queen in 'Through the Looking Glass'. Good words to you.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Rooster7 11]

Merlyn,

 

I see you were finally able to deduce the obvious - yes, I meant human beings.

 

As I've already noted numerous times before, homosexuality and other perversities including rape, incest, and pedophilia can be found in other species. But so whatthese species don't have the intellectual capability to know better - like a dog who finds your shin to be ever bit as satisfying as his mate.

 

I agree that the nature argument does not work, when folks use frogs, spiders, and snakes (or lizards as the case may be) as analogous examples of acceptable behavior for humans. I thought I presented my arguments in such a manner that most folks could understand that point, even the ever persistent Merlyn. I never attempted to show parallels between two different specifies to support any of my opinions.

 

However, I think the nature argument does work when one demonstrates a truth within the bounds of human biology - the same species. So if homosexuality is not learned, how is it passed on from one generation to the next. Are lesbians and gay men secretly meeting to breed future generations? The obvious truth - homosexuality is a learned behavior. If it was hereditary as some insist, the homosexual population would be dwindling down with each passing generation.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

However, I think the nature argument does work when one demonstrates a truth within the bounds of human biology - the same species. So if homosexuality is not learned, how is it passed on from one generation to the next. Are lesbians and gay men secretly meeting to breed future generations? The obvious truth - homosexuality is a learned behavior. If it was hereditary as some insist, the homosexual population would be dwindling down with each passing generation.

 

Well, I'll believe actual biologists over people like yourself who use religious arguments and who don't know about things like kin selection.

[packsaddle 753]

Merlyn, after rethinking some of my earlier responses (especially the last one) this thread probably isn't the best place to bring someone up to date on basic biology. Not enough space and I wonder if they really care anyway. I wonder, regardless if homosexuality is learned or if it is not learned, does it really matter to any of us (outside of academic curiousity?) If there was sufficient evidence for a genetic link - so that even skeptics had to admit it, I submit that most of us who condemn homosexuality would still feel the same way about it. And for reasons that have little, if anything, to do with science. Just a thought.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)