Now that we disagree, can we agree?

[Dedicated Dad 10]

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?

 

 

 

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

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.

[Rooster7 11]

DD,

 

Did you get my email response?

[tjhammer 10]

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

 

 

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?perversion

 

I must be missing the link to homosexuality on that source you provided. Unless you are following the definition of normal coitus, in which case by definition most any sexual activity between hetero couples would be considered "perverted". Nonetheless, I trust that if this dictionary doesn't support your leap that gay = perverted and perverted = immoral, you will eventually find a dictionary that does. I'll stand behind the 52% of public opinion that I cited that believes gays to be an "acceptable alternative lifestyle".

 

You have said "homosexuality is wrong because it is an intrinsic truth given at the time of creation"

 

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. 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?"

 

moral differences between "homosexuality" incest and bestiality

 

Beasts do not have the capacity to consent, and by definition are taken advantage of in bestial relationships, which clearly is an argument for the immorality of bestiality. Incest evolved more as a public health hazard than a moral issue; the "harm" is clearly done to any potential offspring, and offspring are a definite risk in an incestual relationship.

 

I see no relative comparison between gays and bestiality or incest.

 

(This post has been edited by tjhammer.)

 

 

[tjhammer 10]

slontwovvy said: Except for the fact that one likes the same sex cannot procreate, and is not allowed in the BSA, while the other can procreate, likes the other sex, and is approved by multiple religious books. Hmm...those sound like differences to me....and that's just the start.... Of course. But how are those moral differences? Are you suggesting that you must be able to procreate to be moral? And as for "multiple religious books", please refer to my point that major religions stood before the Supreme Court and argued AGAINST the BSA's policy. You cannot claim moral high ground because your religion believes something mine does not. Finally, your point that homosexuality is against BSA policy (and thus must be immoral) is at the heart of this entire debate.

[Bob White 20]

tjhammer,

You stated early in your posts that you wanted to discuss this topic outside the arena of the morality of homosexuality.

 

I will give you that opportunity, however it makes the entire argument rather compact.

 

When you registered as a adult voulunteer in the BSA you signed a document agreeing to "comply with the Charter and Bylaws, and the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America and the local council".

 

The quality of our program depends heavily on the personal integrity of our leaders.

 

Do you intent to keep your word and comply with our rules or not?

 

Homosexuality is just one of several characteristics and activities that are identified as not being condusive to the goals of the program. Let's say you like to use liquid fuel to start campfires. The morality of it is not in question, it has been determined to not be in keeping with the what we are trying to achieve and is not allowed. A leader who uses it can be removed. (I realize this is over-simplification of the topic, but it is just another rule that you agreed to follow.)

 

If you intend to act within the rules then your arguments are pointless. If you do not intend to abide by the rules then you have chosen not to be a member of this particular organization. Either is fine but you need to choose.

 

 

[tjhammer 10]

 

Bob:

 

And the rule of the BSA regarding gays is "don't ask, don't tell". It further stipulates that I need not be gay to be kicked out of the program, only that I not advocate to the boys in my charge that the BSA is wrong.

 

I grant you that places me in a precarious situation when a boy comes to me on this issue, but homosexuality is not a topic of discussion in my unit (nor is heterosexuality).

 

If you suggest that by my posting on this public forum I have violated the BSA rules, I would refer you back to the text of the transcript of the Supreme Court Case, which clearly states that I will not be expelled if I "work within the system to try and change the policy". Granted, this is very murky ground (am I working within the system right now or not?), which only goes to illustrate how murky the BSA's current policy is.

 

To directly answer your question, the BSA expects me to teach my boys to have strong character, rise above political and sectarian differences, and stand up for what they believe to be right. Sometimes that requires hard choices, and disobedience of authority. I believe that the policy is wrong, and there for given the choice between disobeying it and adhering to the principles Scouting teaches, I would violate the policy.

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

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!

 

 

 

[ScouterPaul 11]

Dedicated Dad

Please help me out. I'm trying to make sure that I correctly understand your basic argument. Are you saying that homosexuality is immoral and for thar reason alone homosexuals should not be allowed as members of the BSA?

[tjhammer 10]

DedDad:

 

Homosexuality, by definition, is perversion. That's the one I'm not seeing in your source. Show me where that is please? Your source defines perversion, it does not define homosexuality as perversion. I challenge that leap. I also challenge the leap that you make that by definition anything "perverted" is immoral.

 

 

 

 

[Bob White 20]

Once again it seems you are avoiding the facts. The fact is that you are not working within the system. This forum has nothing to do with "the system" publicly advocating homosexuals in scouting is not within "the system".

 

The fact is that the current rules of scouting are not to your liking and rather than present your views to a member of the the executive committee and let the debate continue within that forum you are breaking your word.

 

The character we are buiding in scouting is defined by the scouting program not your personal morals. We are not wrong just because a percentage of the population disagrees with us. We have set our boundaries and you signed an agreement to stay within them.

 

We are not a political organization, we are a youth service organization. Your only interest is to further your personal agenda, that makes it political and a detraction from our program.

 

The Supreme Court of United States has no problem with the operating guidelines of the BSA. That works for millions of members who have kept their word when they joined, knowing full well, as you did, what the rules were when we joined.

 

I realize that those rules don't work for everyone. There are lots of other clubs to join.

 

 

[tjhammer 10]

You have called me a liar and accused me of placing words in your mouth attributing these words to you "homosexuality is wrong because it is an intrinsic truth given at the time of creation". Refer to your fifth post on this page of the other thread and call me a liar again. Excerpt in question:

 

I said: Who or what is the "standard bearer" for your statement that homosexuality is immoral and should not be allowed in Scouting?

 

DedDad said: Its not a who or a what, it is an intrinsic truth that existed before religion and from the time of our creation. Didn't you bother to read anything Ive written?You seem to think if you can state something with a lot of conviction it will be assumed true whether it is or not. Just like your placing words into the definition of perversion (the two biggest words I'd say are absent in your source are both homosexuality AND immorality).

[Dedicated Dad 10]

tjhookerSay it!

[ScouterPaul 11]

Dedicated Dad

A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, couryeous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

 

I think you have crossed the line.

[tjhammer 10]

I said: Beasts do not have the capacity to consent

 

DedDad said: easily demonstrated by the biting, kicking, goring, etc, which would occur should the animal not want you to come in contact with it ... should the dirty deed not be consensual the bestial and beast would quickly find him/herself ravaged or harmed.By that line of reasoning a woman raped is assumed to have consented simply because she didn't "ravage" her attacker. That's silly.DedDad said: should public opinion change to be less that 50%, by your logic youll have to change your morality I guessNope. I've already answered that point several times, plurality of opinion on what is or is not moral is not as simple as +50%I said: 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?"

 

DedDad said: 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.How is this an erroneous premise, you've never even answered the question?DedDad said: 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!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?