Now that we disagree, can we agree?

[Dedicated Dad 10]

 

 

I quoted you fully, so that I won't be accused of taking your statement out of context, etc. Thank you so much, thats more than some have the integrity to do. leads me to conclude that the examples given by ScouterPaul do not involve "physical usually leading to by your definitive definition, must be perverse. No, I disagree. 1. Condom use does not change the act, if you think so please explain in detail. 2. Coitus Interruptus cannot occur without the coitus first, if you disagree please explain how the usually clause is not involved. Now would you answer my question? How are any of Pauls practices habitual and preferred over coitus when coitus is involved? Regardless of how any may twist and turn these definitions, Ill take that as being directed to me, would you mind citing my twists? maybe you can explain to us by what policy BSA has turned over to Merriam-Webster Online the setting of scout policy. Bob, as a lawyer surely you should know that words have real definitions and meanings that cant depend on what my personal definition of what the word is is. Without any way to define words, no policy can exist, the BSAs, yours, who ever, or mine. You tell me if your Blacks dictionary doesnt give you the definitions you can rely on to make your case and Ill contend youre making up your own law, in mean local option. I will say that at least I can find Merriam-Webster Online, which is more than I can say for the BSA policy regarding homosexuality. Still waiting for some guidance there. Asked and Answered Bob, its in the Oath and Law.

 

 

 

 

[sctmom 11]

Dedicated Dad writes:

 

"I disagree, the oath and law are our policy. "

 

Once again we are back to the differing definitions of the words in the oath and law. A difference we will never resolve. For as many dictionaries that show homosexuality is preverse, I can show you a dictionary that doesn't show that definition. I've looked in the numerous dictionaries here in my home, along with some online, a current World Book encyclopedia and the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary (mainly this refers to the actual scriptures that reference sex with someone of the same gender, not really a definition of homosexuality or preverse). I can use them to prove either side of the argument.

 

So back to TJ's VERY FIRST comment in this thread:

"OK, the other thread has finally gotten to the inevitable conclusion I knew it would, which is ultimately no conclusion. Debate over Scoutings policy to ban anyone who does not profess homosexuality to be immoral is a quagmire. Honest Scout leaders strongly disagree on morality, and it is their right to do so. "

 

 

 

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

never intended to give up the moral principles on which they were founded in order to accommodate Big bump to that Roo!

[FScouter 24]

Several posters here have repeatedly demanded to see a definitive BSA policy regarding homosexuals. They seem to imply that without a clearly defined policy, BSA should be obligated to admit homosexuals. The burden however is upon those pushing for change to justify their position, and to persuade the executive board to write a policy to admit homosexuals. In light of the recent resolution adopted by BSA just three weeks ago, that seems unlikely.

 

The resolution says in part that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the traditional values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law. It goes on to say an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the values of the Oath and Law. One can pick apart the wording, or declare the policy unclear or not definitive enough. But it is very clear indeed that homosexuals are not welcome in this organization.

 

Regarding local option, the resolution says the BSA's values cannot be subject to local option choices, but must be the same in every unit. Right or wrong, valid or not, that is the position of our Boy Scouts of America. Those that oppose that position still have the option to try to persuade our executive board to change the organizations position. But given the extensive study and extensive testimony presented to the Board, any change in position seems unlikely.

 

Here is a link to the official resolution from the official BSA web site:

http://www.bsa.scouting.org/press/020206/resolution.html

 

 

[tjhammer 10]

Rooster:

 

You insist that we continue to debate the morality of gays. I ended the last thread and started this one by conceding that there was no conclusion to that debate, and in fact that was what I expected from the onset. I will never change your opinion. You will never change mine.

 

You expect me to prove that gays are moral. You insist that I defend relative morality in order to prove my argument that gays are moral.

 

There is no burden on me to prove gays are moral. The BSA and you are making a claim, I'm simply challenging whether you can prove that claim. You insist on shifting the burden to me. No one has proven that gays are immoral. We have asked on many, many occasions for a source that defines it as such. There is no possible way for the BSA to maintain a universal position if they (or you) can't back up their definition.

 

 

Let me state this clearly: I do not claim gays are moral, any more than I try to prove non-gays are moral. I object to the BSA's statement that they are immoral. (This is not an either or situation; heterosexuality, in and of itself, is neither moral or immoral.)

 

The BSA, you, DedDad and others have proclaimed gays immoral. I have repeatedly asked but one thing: prove it. (DedDad, in case you are wondering, I think that is the question that everyone means you still have not answered; explain your leap that gay = perverted and perverted = immoral.)

 

You say: You keep avoiding this fact - Your proposal is to define morality at the local level by majority vote.

 

No, my proposal is to define immorality at the local level by whatever method they see fit. Really major difference.

 

And if a Scout unit in your neighborhood defines gays as immoral (using the discretion that the Chartering Partner has ALWAYS had), then the option is for those members that disagree to simply go to another unit (or start there own). That's pretty straightforward. (And I'll remind you once more, I don't have the option of starting my own Scout program; the BSA has a Congressionally protected monopoly on the program in the US, and a long history of protecting that monopoly in court; I value all of the other aspects of Scouting except their exclusion of gay people simply because they are gay).

 

You said: "Once you remove God from the equation, no one can claim anything is morally wrong"

 

I don't want to remove God from the equation. I have told you several times on this board that I believe morality is ultimately linked to God. I believe in God. All Scouters do, it is a fundamental and clearly expressed foundation of our program.

 

You said: "... it is an organization that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (just like this country). While BSA has invited all of the world's major faiths to join, I stand convinced that they never intended to give up the moral principles on which they were founded in order to accommodate these faiths"I said in my earliest posts: Amicus briefs filed before the Supreme Court by Scouting's chartering religious denominations are revealing.

 

The National Catholic Committee on Scouting, the General Commission on United Methodist Men of the United Methodist Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and Agudath Israel of America, were among those who submitted or joined a brief in favor of the BSA policy.

 

Amicus briefs in opposition to the BSA policy were submitted or joined by the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the Unitarian Universalist Association. One brief noted that even some individual churches within the Southern Baptist Convention have ordained gay clergy.Most of those above are Judeo-Christian. And they disagree with you and the BSA. I don't cite this in order to prove the morality of gays. I cite it to show that this opinion is far from consensus, and bolster my position that in such a case, I support placing the interpretation as close to the parents as possible. I don't see how that could ever be considered wrong.

 

 

 

The discretion to exclude immoral people from participating in Scouting should remain where it has been since 1910, at the local Chartering Partner level and as close to the parents as possible.

 

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[scoutmom 10]

TJ,

 

Forgive me if I am repeating anyone here, but I got tired of reading after page 5.

 

To answer the question that you began your post with ("Now that we disagree, can we agree?"), I think the clear and definitive answer is NO.

[cjmiam 10]

hmmmm... while things have quieted down, I think I'll sing. This is my favorite verse. Sing along with me now

 

Our fathers' God, to thee,

author of liberty,

to thee we sing;

long may our land be bright

with freedom's holy light;

protect us by thy might,

great God, our King.

 

Animatedly, cjmiam

 

"Now go do the right thing"

Dr. Laura

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

cjmiam says:

 

hmmmm... while things have quieted down, I think I'll sing. This is my favorite verse. Sing along with me now

 

Our fathers' God, to thee,

author of liberty,

to thee we sing;

long may our land be bright

with freedom's holy light;

protect us by thy might,

great God, our King.

 

Animatedly, cjmiam

 

"Now go do the right thing"

Dr. Laura

 

I personally would like to thank cjmiam for reminding us of God's role in all this. I personally would not want to be the current BSA executive board members, or the leaders of certain religious organizations, or some of the posters on this forum, or Dr. Laura for that matter, when they get to the Gate of Judgment and learn to their dismay that God made 2 to 5 percent of his children gays and lesbians as a test for the rest of us, to see how well we treat all aspects of His creation. And that the writers of the Old Testament fire and brimstone about how he who layeth with a man as with a woman shall surely die, are still serving 5-to-10 (thousand) in purgatory for failing the same test.

 

So I'll gladly sing along with you, cjmiam, if nothing else, as practice for the Heavenly Choir that I'm pretty sure I'll join someday because, if I do say so myself, I'm passing the test.

 

Animatedly back atcha, with tongue about half in cheek,

H.T., Assistant Cubmaster, somewhere in the great Garden State of New Jersey

[peavey 10]

This is my first time, but I believe the saying goes:

 

Big Bump to that NJCubMaster!

[Dedicated Dad 10]

when they get to the Gate of Judgment and learn to their dismay that God made 2 to 5 percent of his children gays and lesbians as a test for the rest of us, Gees, I hope Im not wrong about the 2-5% of His incestual and bestial children who test us as well. Like tjhmmmer said, theirs no proof for them either. Go figure?

 

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

DedDad asks: tj, are you homosexual?

tjhmmer complains:I really shouldn't dignify your question with any response, but...

 

Why do you ask? Hoping to "discredit" me by further identifying my "agenda" or attaching a stereotype?

 

What right do you have to ask me or anyone else that question? Even the BSA does not claim that right.

 

Do you "suspect" everyone that fails to believe gays are immoral or has gay friends are really gay themselves?

 

Simplicity, ala McCarthy Commission. Wow, playing the McCarthyism card over a question about something you consider to be moral? That doesnt make any sense unless you hold homosexuality in relation to communism. My reason for asking was based on your comment about knowing multiple unavowed homosexuals in Scouting. If they are unavowed they have not openly declared their status, it would only follow that if you were homosexual you would know, dont they call that gay radar or gaydar? And yes, Ill be honest, I do think if you were gay that would explain a certain agenda right or wrong. You really shouldnt be ashamed or embarrassed to declare your sexuality either way if you truly believe in your cause, logically thats non sequitur. So anyway, inquiring minds still want to know, are you gay?

 

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

There is no burden on me to prove gays are moral. The BSA and you are making a claim, I'm simply challenging whether you can prove that claim. tj, that doesnt make any sense and youve got it backwards. The BSA has not made a claim or needs to; they have simply taken a position to which you disagree. The burden is on you to make a claim, or a declaration to challenge their position. I would think your best way to challenge is through proof of morality. No one has proven that gays are immoral. Thats not true, Ive demonstrated three ways that BSAs position is valid.By definition. By congruence. By preponderance of the founders state of mind when the policy was written. We have asked on many, many occasions for a source that defines it as such. This source that you require, it would seem you have become obsessed in finding it. Its like(this is an analogy not a reference to religion) you need for someone to prove the existence of God through some kind of objective or tangible evidence. What specifically is an acceptable source for you to consider as proof? Where does it exist? Does it exist? How must it be conveyed to you? There is no possible way for the BSA to maintain a universal position if they (or you) can't back up their definition. I reiterate, there is no need for the BSA to have a universal position, the burden is on you to demonstrate their err. (DedDad, in case you are wondering, I think that is the question that everyone means you still have not answered; explain your leap that gay = perverted and perverted = immoral.) Are we back to this again? I wrote out a rather simple flow chart on page 6, and should you have anything specific to question Ill be happy to explain. Otherwise repeating the word leap over and over without any particular reference is rather ludicrous and unworthy of response.

 

 

 

 

 

[slontwovvy 10]

TJ says that he does not claim that gays are moral. He also says that he disagrees with the statement that they are immoral.

 

What does that leave us if they are not moral or immoral? It leaves amoral, the absence of morality. Still something I don't think the BSA wants to promote in its leaders.

[Rooster7 11]

TJ,

 

You said,

 

Amicus briefs in opposition to the BSA policy were submitted or joined by the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the Unitarian Universalist Association. One brief noted that even some individual churches within the Southern Baptist Convention have ordained gay clergy.

 

Most of those above are Judeo-Christian. And they disagree with you and the BSA. I don't cite this in order to prove the morality of gays. I cite this in order to show that this opinion is far from consensus, and bolster my position that in such a case, I support placing the interpretation as close to the parents as possible. I don't see how that could ever be considered wrong.

 

Unbelievable! Just where do you think these churches stood in 1910? Do you think for one second that they would have made these proclamations back then? The answer is obvious. Just like it is obvious where the founders of BSA stood in 1910. This is why you want to argue moral relativity. By doing so, you can make absurd claims about how morality has changed since 1910. Not true. I think you know better, but will never admit it.

 

You said,

 

The discretion to exclude immoral people from participating in Scouting should remain where it has been since 1910, at the local Chartering Partner level and as close to the parents as possible.

 

Again, not true! This is a false premise. BSA never allowed local charting partners to establish their own criteria for morality. If they had, we wouldn't be arguing now.

 

You said,

 

You expect me to prove that gays are moral. You insist that I defend relative morality in order to prove my argument that gays are moral.

 

Obviously, you cannot defend such a system. No one can. You judge BSA to be disingenuous because they deem homosexuality to be immoral by no objective standard. Your judgment of BSA is hypocritical. You have no objective system yourself (aside from majority vote). Your system cannot prove any behavior to be moral or immoral. Consequently, you are willing to tolerate any behavior the majority is willing to tolerate (at the local level). I agree that BSA's stance is not based on an objective system. It's based on a Holy God (Judeo-Christian values that are rooted in the bible). Once again, I state - BSA was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (just like this country). While BSA has invited all of the world's major faiths to join, I stand convinced that they never intended to give up the moral principles on which they were founded in order to accommodate these faiths. The invitation was an effort to include as many boys as possible, but not at any price.

 

If your vision comes truebeing an Eagle Scout, or even just being a Scout, will be reduced to some meaningless badge. Scouting is not about camping skills. It's about character. A Scout's character should not be subject to interpretation at the "local level". BSA has its standards, and so far (God willing), they're going to keep them.

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

 

 

Your system cannot prove any behavior to be moral or immoral. Proof by congruence. Unbelievable! Just where do you think these churches stood in 1910? Do you think for one second that they would have made these proclamations back then? The answer is obvious. Just like it is obvious where the founders of BSA stood in 1910. Proof by preponderance. Bump!