Jump to content

A Political Ideology Challenge, Scouts Honor you follow the rules

Recommended Posts

I am just jumping in to the exchange between Rooster and Kasane. Rooster, you say that a majority of voters defines whether homosexuality is a "perversity" or not. I am a bit surprised to see you accept the idea that morality can be determined by a vote. I actually do NOT fully accept that; instead, I believe that in fact, a society's moral standards are determined by a consensus of society, and that the "battleground" issues are those where there is no consensus. On those issues, like acceptance of homosexuality, I would say that because society does not agree with itself that something is immoral, it should not be treated as being immoral. Of course, I understand that those who feel that something is immoral would want to "call the tie" in favor of moral condemnation.


But all this aside, let's look at what the majority actually does believe. I do not recall seeing any polls asking flat out, do you think homosexuality is immoral, but I suspect that the numbers of yes and no would each be less than 50 percent with "not sure" taking up the middle. However, the polls are really irrelevant anyway. In our system of government a "majority" is determined by the majority vote of the peoples' representatives sitting in a legislature. That being the case, Rooster, what do you make of the fact that in a number of states, homosexuality is no longer against the law, and that in some of those states, discrimination against gays in jobs, housing etc. is illegal? Obviously a state that outlaws discrimination against gays does not view their conduct as a "perversion." I don't know how many states fall into which category, but I do know that MY state bans discrimination against gays; that is the same statute that got the James Dale case started in the first place. So, the logical result of your argument is that homosexuality is a perversion in Texas or Georgia, but not in New Jersey or New York or California or a host of other states. I'm sure you think it is a "perversion" everywhere, but the "majority" in many states do not agree with you. So who gets the final say? I know you think it's you, or your interpretation of the word of God, but it doesn't work that way.


Linking this back up to Scouting, it is yet another reason why there should be local unit option on the gay issue. Perhaps council-wide option would be another variation to consider; I would suggest statewide option, but there is no decision-making body at the state level in Scouting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic



I never said morality could be decided by a majority vote. What I did say was, concerning moral issues; the government should respect the will of the people (via majority vote). I may not be happy with the outcome, but Id rather live by the standards set by the majority (here on earth), then to have those standards dictated to me by politicians who in many causes are just pandering to special interest groups.


As for some states treating homosexuals as a protected class (like race or gender), this does not necessarily mean the majority of voters are being given due consideration. While many folks are opposed to homosexuality, they very often treat the issue as if its of minor importance. Consequently, many states carried by democrats, tend to get their candidate in office not because he/she embraces gays, but in spite of it. Nevertheless, if the majority of voters made it so, either by referendum or by getting their man in office, Id accept it for what it is the will of the people. As I said I may not like it, but itd be better then laws born out of political pandering. The fact that I accept this as a fair way to govern a nation of people does not mean I accept the resulting standard of morality.


Linking this back up to Scouting, the BSA is a private/national organization that should be free to create and impose a national standard. Here too, I may not always like the outcome. But then again, my family and I are always free to leave and/or to seek out a new organization that is more closely aligned with our values.


Life is about choices. Those empowered to direct the BSA, have the right/choice to create and impose standards for that particular organization. You, as an ordinary member, have the right/choice to stay or leave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is facinating. Let me also say, Rooster, that your earlier post was a good one and explained youself very well.


I absolutely agree with Rooster that one of the basic differences between people is whether or not you view humanity as inheritly good or inheritly bad. As Rooster would predict, I personally believe that most people are basically good and strive to do what is right and the best they can for themselves, their families and communities. I also believe that a minority of people are inheritly evil, no question about that either. But ultimately people behave the way they are taught and that much ill in the world can be overcome.


But what I find particularly interesting is Rooster's point that one's opinion of humanity's goodness is the basis for his and other's political philosophy. Do the rest of you believe that conservatives see humanity as basically evil and liberals see it as basically good?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Rooster, let me go back to what you originally said:


I believe a nation of people can and should set moral standards for itself. If the collective nation recognizes homosexuality as a perversity, then politicians and the courts should honor that standard. Jurists and those who hold office should not attempt to treat behavior as a protected class, especially when it flies in the face of the peoples will.


I think that I (and Kasane) took your statement to mean that you believe that "the collective nation recognizes homosexuality as a perversity." In other words, I read the "If" to be a rhetorical device, meaning: What comes after the "if" is true, and should lead to the results that come later in the sentence. If you truly meant the sentence to merely be hypothetical, then fine, but it sure did not seem that way -- especially in light of the last sentence about jurists and people who hold public office. But I guess that even in that sentence, the word "when" turns it into a mere hypothetical as well.


The fact is that the "collective nation" no longer "recognizes" homosexuality to be a "perversity." It did at one time, but it no longer does. Some think it is a "perversity" but others do not. So unless you are talking about particular states where the homosexuality-is-perverse crowd is still in the majority, the "standard" that should be honored is one of treating gays as people, not perversions. I think that in 40 or 50 years this will all be moot -- not because I think God will have descended and given us the definitive answer, Rooster, but because in the polls I have seen, the 18-to-34 year-old age group seems to have much less of an issue with this than society as a whole. I just went back and looked at the poll that was the subject of an earlier thread, and in that age group, 77 percent thought gay people should be able to serve openly in the military while only 16 percent did not. Likewise, in that age group 70 percent did not believe gays should be excluded from leadership positions in youth groups. Someday, Rooster, that age group is going to be in charge of things, including the BSA executive council. It would be nice if this inevitable result could happen a bit sooner, though, because while it remains unresolved, society is going through a lot of pain and damage over this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites



I don't know, let's ask George Bush and Al Gore.


Nice shot...and your point is taken. I don't have a problem with changing our Constitution and getting rid of the Electoral College. Hey, then maybe my vote in Maryland might mean something. However, being that we do have the Electoral College, and to my knowledge Al Gore and most of America had no problem with that fact prior to the 2000 election, I have no problem with the process or the outcome. But for future Presidential elections - hell yeah - I'd love to see my vote mean something.




In other words, I read the "If" to be a rhetorical device, meaning: What comes after the "if" is true, and should lead to the results that come later in the sentence. If you truly meant the sentence to merely be hypothetical, then fine, but...


I actually meant both -


Yes - I think most Americans still believe homosexuality to be a perversity. But I wasn't stating it as a definitive - I intended to use the word as it was meant to be, as part of a conditional phrase.


By the way, a lot of teenagers grow up. So dont get your hopes up for that glorious future that youre predicting. Believe it or not, I was once a long hair, "can't wait for a second Woodstock", flaming liberal when I was about 17 or 18. Of course, after I went to college, I realized that most my political views had more to do with arrogance (thinking that my generation had its act together, more so than my fathers or his fathers), naivet (thinking that my generation had its act together, more so than my fathers or his fathers), and hormones (wanting to hook up with a van full of girls in hip huggers who espoused the same free love that I was looking for) more than anything else that comes close to logic or faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites


I loved your explanation and I totally agree with you.(It's good that you can explain your views that well, I never could have)


Twocubdad, and anyone else who thinks that humans are inherently good:

We are all scouts or scouters here, and we promise every week, on our honor, to do our duty to God. For most of us, that is the Christian God, which means you believe the Bible, as I do. For everyone else, my argument will have no effect.


If you have a Bible, you may recognize this verse(quoted from memory-may be a little off):


"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness"-Second Timothy 3:16. Basically, God either spoke Himself or inspired writers to write the entire Bible.


Now, if you believe that, you should, by extension, believe all of these:


Genesis 6:5

Job 14:4

Ecclesiastes 7:20

Jeremiah 13:23

Jeremiah 17:9

Mark 7:21-23

Romans 1:24-25, 29-32

Romans 3:9-20

Ephesians 2:1


If that won't convince any Bible-believing Christian, I don't know what will.


P.S. Rooster, can I copy your explanation and use it in other places(i.e., not on the scouter forums)?(This message has been edited by bsat4jb)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fat Old Guy writes: "Last time I checked, the federal government was supposed to mint money, provide for the common defense and regulate interstate commerce. State and local governments really aren't supposed to do much more than provide an infrastructure."




"Supposed to" if you use the strictest and most literal interpretation of the Constitution. A valid position, to be sure, but not the only position--and not one that I find intellectually compelling or politically attractive.


(And I'm in good company: Jefferson himself overstepped his presidential authority--if strictly interpreted, anyway--both when he bought Louisiana Territory from France and when he sent Lewis and Clark to have a look at it! )



Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring, and shifting from the tedious and tiring sparing between liberals and conservatives, but trying to stay within OGE's rules I'll continue the post what I started...as stated, I'm an iconclastic properterian anarchist


As an anarchist I'm aware of the choas created by such freedom, as it is the human nature to be base, greedy, self serving and destructive. However, it is a postion that those of us who are native Americans need to take in order to become more inclusive within the present government that has conquered and subjugated us. We need to raise holy political hell. Not for a homeland as that would be impossible. However, I feel that this country could be divided into two political regions with the dividing line being the Mississippi. Those tribes in the west would elect two Senators, and an appropriate number of Congressmen based on population. Those of us in the east would do like wise. Additionally, would be the phase out of the BIA, and the creation of a cabinet position.


As an iconoclast, my feelings toward the Christian religion is hostile, as it was the principle element to destroy what was left of our culture after the Federal government decided to stop killing us. We need to return to our roots freeing our selves from this imported posion.


As a properterian we Native Americans need to better protect our culture, and cease from selling it off in cheesy tourist traps. That our burial grounds are off limits, and that past treaties agreed on, but ignored by this government will be honored....


Maybe then, I can settle down into the mundane and decide if I want to be a liberal, or a conservative....but, until then, there's a civil rights fight that needs to be fought before this century is out....

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 1760's Chief Pontiac was assinated by the Illiniwek during a council in Southern Illinois, in revenge the Pottawatamis and Ottawas and their friends wiped the Illiniwek off the face of the earth, every man, woman, and child of them. Genocide, and not a white man in the mix.....



Link to post
Share on other sites

TP....so true, this would also include the Olmec, Toltecs, Aztecs, Mayans, as well as the Seneca, Sioux and other bands. Since our ancestors had no written history we'll also never know the complete history of pre contact genocide. It would be great if we could. However, we're not perfect, never were, never will be, we're human like everyone else with the same human flaws.....however, neither the Ottawa, nor the Potawatomi continued on to become he dominant power of this country either....

Link to post
Share on other sites

"you use the strictest and most literal interpretation of the Constitution."


If we can't accept what the writers said as being what they meant then the whole document is useless.


"and not one that I find intellectually compelling or politically attractive."


I get it, the Constitution is to be ignored unless you can use it for your own purposes. Very Humpty-Dumpty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just as the major parties are blending more and more ("my blender is broken" - Dr Dolittle), so I think more and more we as individual tend to pick and choose from those parties' planks. And indeed, that's the way it should be - how can 2 parties totally and definitively represent the hundreds of millions of us in this country?


I'm all for welfare - but only for those who are citizens or here legally.


I am not entirely opposed to the death penalty - but anyone convicted who requests DNA analyses should be able to get it.


I am strongly opposed to NAMBLA, but I would support gay unions.




And so it goes.


liberal? conservative? I guess I'm a coniberal.



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
  • Create New...