NJ - This one is for you. Gay debate rages on...

[Rooster7 11]

NJ This thread is for you because 1) I know you cant get enough of this subject and, 2) I am compelled to respond to your not-so-subtle accusation.

 

Smearing someone doesnt make your stance stronger. Truth be told, you only degrade yourself when you misrepresent others. Find all the posts you want. I havent been hateful. While I am repulsed by the homosexual agenda and the political pawns who promote their life-style choices, I have never condone hateful attacks.

 

As for my word choice, if I thought homosexuality to be something other than a perversion, I wouldnt be defending the merits of the BSA policy. I use this word because I think it accurately describes sexual activity between two men. However, in my dictionary (and in my mind), perversion is not linked with hate. I also think people with fetishes are guilty of embracing a perversion. Nevertheless, my opinion of these peoples behavior doesnt cause me to hate them. Perhaps that is your problem you cannot disagree with someone elses choices in life or their opinions in regard to serious issues, without hating them. Thats a sad state of affairs.

 

As for my support of previous posters who may have stated their opinions more stronglySo, its guilt by association eh?

 

When I support a posters viewpoint, Im usually pretty specific. I tend to do this (be specific), because I know there are people such as you who want to discredit my position not based on logic, but by associating me with people, words, and acts which are contrary to my stated beliefs. Again, this is a tactic, which many liberal politicians embrace without conscience (apparently most of American has started to realize this too, because the dems seem to be losing more and more seats in Congress and elsewhere). If Ive made a post that you disagree with, then quote it specifically and point out where your disagreement lies. I know you said that you werent going to do that but why? Is it because its too much effort, or is it because your argument is weak? If I support another poster, its because I saw the value in some of his/her words. It doesnt mean I support everything that a particular poster may have said. NJ, be a man and argue against my position based on its merit or lack thereof. I cant respect you if all your arguments end with you pointing an accusatory finger of hate.

 

From another recent thread on the same subject:

 

 

NJ,

 

Of this I am guilty:

 

I dislike the homosexual lifestyle. (They live in a very dark world, which is consumed by their so-called sexuality. On average, the homosexual has dozens of partners. Few of them find happiness. Their suicide rate is high.)

 

I dislike what they do. (They are driven by their sexual desires. They debase themselves and others in a futile effort to find companionship.)

 

I dislike their politics. (They defend their practices knowing full well how sick they truly are. They try to force everyone to accept their lifestyle and viciously assail those who oppose their agenda.)

 

However, contrary to your allegation, I do not thoughtlessly approve of anything "that constitutes an attack on a gay person." That is what I call a "liberal smear". Very typical your indignation was predictably pious.

 

I simply support policies and laws that treat homosexuality for what it is - a sexual perversion. So, for example, while I support laws against thievery, I do not want to see the poor attacked. I have sympathy for the poor and their plight. Similarly, I pray that all homosexuals seek out and find compassionate, trained counselors. Unfortunately, it appears most will not. Even if theyre strong enough to fight off their own denials and come to grips with their ugly and sinful lifestyle, they still have huge, almost insurmountable hurdles such as homosexual activists who harass them as traitors and/or bait them back into the fold via their mutual yet depraved desires; Or worst of all, heterosexual liberals who flock to their side in a self-exalting attempt to convince them that they are not sick, just victims of Christian conservatives. Their struggle is truly horrific, the likes of which, few outside their world can appreciate. Meanwhile many banally contribute to their downfall. Its very sad. I would never condone attacks, but nor do I condone the behavior. They need help.

 

In the meantime, I believe the BSA policy is the prudent course of action. The BSA is one of the few remaining non-religious organizations that has the guts to stand up for something other than the bottom line.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I feel so honored.

 

I'll have to get back to you.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OK, Rooster. I had to consider how to respond without trying to turn this into a personal brawl, and also keeping in mind the rules of the forum.

 

I stand by what I have said. I never accused you of intentionally or knowingly "hating" anyone or anything. However, I know what impression I have gotten from some of your posts. The one you quote in this thread is one of them. Maybe you think you were expressing compassion for gay people, but when I read what you write, I certainly get the impression that you consider ALL gays to be of lesser moral character than you, because of what they do, or what some of them do. You base this not on the behavior of any particular individual, but on their behavior as a group, or what you perceive to be their behavior as a group. Is this "hate"? Whether it is or not, that is not the term I used. I said "expressing hatred," which in my mind covers a pretty wide range. It does not depend on what you actually think. It looks only at what you say, and the feelings that your words instill in others. I don't think I specifically accused you of "expressing hate," and I won't now. As I said before, I know what my opinion is, and others can form theirs.

 

You also challenge what I said about past posts. One of the great things about this forum is that the posts stay here, if not forever, then for a long time. Anyone can go back and read them, and if anyone really cares enough about this to go back and read old posts, I would recommend the ones from March of 2002. You will there find Dedicated Dad making a number of truly offensive references, and Rooster agreeing with him. You will also find Rooster personally attacking me, and accusing me of "dishonesty" among other things. (March 14, 2002, at 3:49:12 PM.)

 

So, Rooster, if you want to pretend to be an innocent victim, you can, but anyone can go back and read all the posts.

 

I could respond to the rest of what you write, but I don't see much point. I just have to laugh at the taunt of "be a man," is that how you think you are going to "win" an argument? By using the tactics of a schoolyard bully?

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

"Be a man."

 

Since I cannot physically reach you, I don't see how you can compare me to a schoolyard bully. The analogy doesn't work. I think you're smart enough to know, I meant it in terms of being ethical. If you want to accuse me of something - such as being hateful or mean-spirited in this forum, then quote me. I don't even mind if you expound so long as you make reference to a specific quote and not a twisted interpretation of the same. Who knows? I might even agree with you. I've said things in the past that I wouldn't say today.

 

More tomorrow...not enough time or energy today.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I don't even mind if you expound so long as you make reference to a specific quote and not a twisted interpretation of the same.

 

Well, who is doing the accusing now? What did I give a "twisted interpretation" to? I think it's pretty clear what you meant when you accused me of "dishonesty." I think it's pretty clear what Dedicated Dad meant when he suggested that I was in favor of sexual abuse of children. (March 14, 2002 at 7:06:26 AM.) I won't repeat exactly what he said. If you think I "twisted" what he said, that's fine. Just so you know, Rooster, when I talked about expressions of hate in the forum, I wasn't just talking about one person.

 

I think this will be my last post in this thread. It isn't about me and you, Rooster. It is about whether the BSA policy is the right policy for the organization to have at this time, and in the future. Obviously we will continue to disagree about it, and I will continue to post about it when I feel like it.

[dsteele 20]

Hi guys.

 

I have no right to interfere in this thread. I am not a forum moderator, nor am I any sort of owner of any sort of server on the web.

 

I feel like a cop sticking his nose into a domestic dispute. I feel like I could get my nose shot off by either party.

 

Please let me put it to you as simply and as logically as I can.

 

1) I have not read either one of you in this thread. I really don't know the viewpoints. Quite frankly, I have only skimmed them and know that you're having a disagreement over something to do with homosexuals.

 

2) I like, admire and respect both of you.

 

3) You are the only two, until now, who have posted on this thread.

 

4) You can private message each other and have this argument without (so far having it read 99 times) 94 other people reading it and drawing impressions about us from those readings.

 

5) In short, take it outside, would you please?

 

 

I understand that passions run high in this issue. Mine do, too, but that doesn't mean that we have to let go of personal decorum. There are youth present who read every thread.

 

One way or another we're in this Scouting thing together and it's for the good of our youth.

 

If I am wrong and should not interfere here, I would like to hear it from other Scouters.

 

If not, let's call a truce and move on to more important matters -- how to make our mission come more true -- to instill values in young people, etc.

 

This is not a chewing out to the above parties. It's intended to be a reminder to all of what we're about.

 

DS

[Rooster7 11]

Okay, I will follow dsteeles recommendation. However, I will make one last pubic post before I do.

 

First, I invite everyone to read those threads constructed back in March of 2002. I have reread the specific posts that NJ has referenced. I stand by my comments made back then. While I do not agree with Dedicated Dads graphic descriptions, I understood many of his points (not necessarily all of them). I think he did cross the line by injecting NJ and TJ into a hypothetical partnership defending gays and pedophiles, whereas he graphically describes their potential clients. Nevertheless, I never claimed to support every thought posted by Dedicated Dad.

 

Second, I did accuse NJ of dishonesty, but it was in reference to his debating style. If my posts are read in context, I think that point is clear. Obviously, I feel he has not changed much since then, which was a secondary point (or maybe the primary point) of this thread. In regard to this BSA policy, he likens those who support it especially those of us who support it on moral grounds to self-righteous hate mongers. This is not only false, but does nothing to bring value to his position.

 

Lastly NJ these are your own words:

 

Those of us who choose to debate here should be able to handle what goes on, or we can leave.

 

Im not trying to attack anyone on a personal level, but I cant ignore debating tactics (such as inferring hate as a motive) that impugn me personally. Its a tactic thats employed by people who dont have logic on their side, and I wont ignore it. I will call you out especially if my silence can be misconstrued or distorted as passive agreement.

 

[buffalo2 14]

Thank you Dave

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Rooster, I am satisfied to let the words that you and I have written speak for themselves. People who read what we have written can draw their own conclusions.

 

But I can't help pointing this out: You accuse me of "tactics" that "impugn" you personally... but in the very same post, you again "impugn" me personally. Do you think that a different set of "rules" applies to you than to me?

[acco40 95]

Against my better judgement ...

 

One sign of intolerance and or ignorance is attributing similar qualities to a vastly diverse group.

 

Think about it. What if I labeled all conservatives (or liberals, or heterosexuals or homosexuals or Scouters, or ...) at "they", "their agenda", "their lifestyle", "their politics", in general, "them." It debases individuals. Nazi Germany used that practice very often. I don't like to see that tactic used on this forum. Got a beef with a particular activity, opinion, cause, or indivudual? No, problem. But don't try to smear a group.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Mostly against my better judgment too, but...

 

Acco makes an excellent point that takes us out of the interpersonal sniping here and back to the main point of the BSA policy itself:

 

Got a beef with a particular activity, opinion, cause, or indivudual? No, problem. But don't try to smear a group.

 

That's the problem with the BSA policy regarding gays. It says that all gay people are of insufficient moral character to be adult leaders. Not just those who are depressed or suicidal or who have a particular "lifestyle" or who "live in a dark world" or whose lives are "driven" by sexual desire, or who have had dozens of sexual partners. All gay people are excluded. I have known gay people for whom these descriptions would be ridiculously inaccurate, and I have known some people, both gay and heterosexual who unfortunately do fit some or all of these descriptions. But the BSA doesn't exclude heterosexuals just because some are promiscuous sex addicts, and the same should be true for gay people.

[Rooster7 11]

Since no one else is showing any "better judgment":

 

The act itself, and/or the embracing of those desires, is immoral. It isn't a generalization to say a group is immoral when they openly embrace and defend the immoral act.

 

[Proud Eagle 13]

Not to get into this too far but...

 

I think BSA has banned promiscuous individuals. Since most people would say that type of conduct is contrary to the Scout Oath and Law, then it would be rather hard to live up to those standards while engaging in that patern of activity.

 

Also, has BSA ever definied what exactly the term "homosexual" means in regards to the policy? I don't think I have ever seen a clear BSA defintion of the term. That would seem to be a key weekness in the policy. Some people define homosexuality as a choice, a lifestyle, or based on some other readily controlable criteria. Others define homosexuality as being a predetermined characteristic, or mearly as being in some way attracted to those of the same sex. Precise defintions are needed to clarify both the policy, and the positions taken in the debate about the policy.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Proud Eagle,

 

I believe the BSA policy say "avowed" homosexual. That means the person has to publically declare themselves as such.

[Proud Eagle 13]

That does not define the term homosexual. It does say that the person must have in some way declared themselves to be such. However, a definition is still needed both for the purpose of debate and for clarifying the policy.

 

Let me explain the policy implications

 

If SM X says around the campfire, "I find men attractive." That would be avowing an attraction for men. The policy is unclear as to weather or not being attracted to men is enough to constitute being homosexual. The policy could intend that only those who are engaging in homosexual activity be banned. In which case the SM would have to say something like, "I was out on a date with my boy friend last night and..."

 

Further, it is absolutely impossible to have a meaningful debate over an issue when the issue is not defined. So, at the very least it is necessary for the various debaters to make certain that they clearly define homosexual as they are using it in their arguments. It is not safe to assume that everyone is using the same definition from the same edition of the same dictionary when so much depends on one word.