So What Would You Do?

[DugNevius]

Tort your examples are not legit.

 

sex between two consentual adult males is not the same as incestuous rape or beastiality, because children and animals are not capable to consent to sexual activity. Incest can lead to handicaped offspring, and this is why its is wrong. However, two adult men have sex, no one is at all effected. There can be no handicapped offspring and Mr Tortdog is never effected. Suicide by canniblism is hardly the same as gay sex.

 

So your arguement is as follows:

 

Homosexuality is wrong.

It is wrong because it will teach kids its ok.

 

Sort of circular reasoning here.

 

Also, there is no credible link to child porn and magazines like playboy. This is a false argument that is frquently made but can never be proven. There is no credible link to porn and violence. Playboy does not turn people into rapists, assaultists or murders. Neither do gay male porn. Only consenting adults can buy porn and it is the responsability of parents to keep their children away from porn. The women photographed are consenting and paid well.

 

The existance of porn does not effect children, rather the lack of responsible parenting guidance is a factor.

 

If Mr X has gay sex with an adult male in his bedroom, along with owns a few gay porn mags which stay in his bedroom then children are not effected at all.

 

It would be like trying to restrict what two heterosexual adults do in the bedroom. Millions of adults all across the world do nothing different then what two adult gay males or two adult gay females do. You think we need to stop the homosexuals? How? do we make laws to persecute them for bedroom activity? Are heterosexuals under the same guidlines? When is it enough? Should gay men be allowed to kiss? Hold hands? Can heterosexual adults kiss in public?

 

While we are at it, lets outlaw bikinis on the beach. And plastic surgury. And Miniskirts and tube tops. lets move to censor TV and radio heavily. Hey, in texas there are a few politicians trying to put laws on the books regarding cheerleader outfits. While we are at it, lets have seperate bathrooms for the "coloreds".

 

Isnt this America, land of the free? Mr X isnt raping anyone. Hes not hurting anyone. If you dont want your kid watching gay sex, keep your kid away from peeking through Mr X's bedroom window. Society has the right to govern its members when its members are causing problems that effect each other. Rape. Theft. Fraud. Child endangerment. Not sex.

 

I am not effected by what Tortdog does in his bedroom the same way Tortdog is uneffected by what mr X does.

[Eagledad]

>> Are you actually saying that people who don't believe and worship your God are immoral? That non-believers only live by a might-makes-right code? OR are you saying that there is no morality without a grounding in SOME kind of religion, be it Judeo-Christian or other?

[tortdog]

>sex between two consentual adult males is not the same as incestuous rape or beastiality, because children and animals are not capable to consent to sexual activity.

 

First, an 18-year old child can consent. Second, since when did we require an animal's consent? We can kill a chicken and eat it without it's consent. Why would you require consent for sex with an animal but not for killing it, i.e., murder by your analogy.

 

Before I get into your argument, let me attempt to summarize your viewpoint. You believe that Society cannot prohibit any sexual conduct within the bedroom by consenting adults. You do not limit that sexual conduct. I remain unsure whether you expand this to ANY consensual activity (thus surgery, cannibalism, etc.).

 

I assume you think it's okay to kill an animal without its consent, but it's not okay to have sex with an animal because it can't consent. I'm having a hard time reconciling those viewpoints.

 

>Incest can lead to handicaped offspring, and this is why its is wrong.

 

You listed a "bad" that might result from consensual sexual conduct (otherwise you would be okay with it). How about consensual sexual conduct between a father/dauther where the father is impotent? Also, with the morning-after pill, don't we avoid the "bad" of a handicapped offspring?

 

The possiblity of handicapped (disabled is the non-offensive term) children is not limited to father/daughter. We have far higher rates when two adults with genetic diabilities have sexual intercourse. Today, we do not prohibit that. Since you use the probability of a disabled child to limit sexual contact, should we prohibit sexual realtions by any person having a genetic disability and where that disability is likely to be passed onto a child?

 

Should we stop the genetically blind from having children?

 

>However, two adult men have sex, no one is at all effected. There can be no handicapped offspring and Mr Tortdog is never effected.

 

I think most people learn after years of experience that rare is the case when private conduct does not affect society, and that includes what you do in your bedroom. You poo-pooh a relationship between porn and sexual crimes. You couch "good porn" and "bad porn." I'll just have to disagree with that. Porn harms the person being photo-captured, regardless of whether she knows it or not at the time. It comes around to roost, and by then it's usually too late. Countless young women have had their lives destroyed by the so-called "good" porn industy.

 

You and I will part ways strongly on that issue. And, while we're at it, I do not think that a scouter should be watching porn. Do I want to know about it? NO! But is it "morally straight" to watch porn? Absolutely not.

 

>Suicide by canniblism is hardly the same as gay sex.

 

Actually, this sexual cannibalism is a documented perversion that some few of us have in society. In the instant case, both parties agreed to it. There was no "victim". There was a video of the "crime" and it was clear that the "victim" had fully consented. I could get into details, but it would likely make you ill. However, using your standard for making law, I don't see why you would object.

[DugNevius]

Barry, i think you are off on what i have been saying. I have not tried to minimalize God at all simply injecting objectivity and logic into a debate where most of one side has been built on subjective opinion and faith. I said before, faith sure is a slippery way to make an argument because its unsubstantiated.

 

Faith is subjective. It relies totally on interpretation. It evolves drasticly over time. Its the same as the Life On Other Worlds debate. Some say it exists, some dont. Morality, as shown in this very debate is not universal in many cases. Tortdog veiws homosexuality as immoral, i do not. Who is right and who is wrong? Its not mathmatics. There is no defined answer.

 

I never said i view religious people as ignorant!

 

I also have not been saying its either free will or God. The logic is free will or A PERFECT God. There is a difference.

 

Now, your examples of Scoutmaster judging his scouts and a parent judging his child are again not the same as Tortdog judging Mr X, because Tortdog does not have, nor should he had, any authority over Mr X. Tortdog is not a prophet like Abraham or Moses. It would be no different then if i were to go around and say some other adult is immoral because he eats Veal or drinks Coffee. I dont have that right, i should not have that right.

 

My examples of using race is simply this, we, as citizens of a free society should not begin to try to sperate and classify other neighbors based on differences they have even if those differences have zero consequence to us. Ill use a better example then: religion. At what point do we say "Well the jews dont believe in Jesus as the messiah, so they are immoral and their immorality will directly influence my christian son and i can not allow that. Therefore, Temples must be closed down and the jewish faith must not be 'normalized' by society." It is no different that the persuit to incriminate sexual preference.

 

Immorality would be the departure from an attempt to make society more civil. Vastly different cultures can co-exist in relative peace but only when each side accepts that the other is equal at the same time as being different. Blacks and whites can now co-exist in America and relative peace. Tension begets conflict. If homosexuals were accepted the only thing that would happen would be peace and civility. However, to further promote inferiority only promotes confict, conflict only results in pain.

 

I am not minimalizing God at all or ignoring him. I see the importance in spirituality in life. However MY God is not the same as Your God, the same way that there are a million varried interpretations of God.

 

Tortdog- In all honesty, any kind of sex between consenting adults is perfectly fine being that it remains in the privacy of a bedroom. Because you may not like it does not mean it is definied wrong, because you are no authority established to moderate what a couple does. There may be things that you do in your privacy that I would not like to do, but even though you do them my life remains utterly unchanged. Im not particularly attracted to big girls, but that does not mean i can stop my friend from chasing them. You seem to think you have more rights then you should and this philosphey is more than a bit pretentious.

 

As for your veiw on pornography, it is simply conjecture based on no substantial evidence. Factually, there is no link at all to porn causing sexual or violent/nonviolent crimes. Im not "pooh poohing" anything. fact. This is the same empty argument made for years by those attempting to promote censorship. Personally, i veiw censorship as much more immoral then a naked woman.

 

thats an opinion. We must establish here on that Opinion is NOT tantamount to fact. sometimes that point gets fuzzy.

[tortdog]

>Who is right and who is wrong?

 

I am.

 

>Its not mathmatics. There is no defined answer.

 

Okay...seriously, I have a major disagreement on this point. If there is a creator, then there is a definite answer to right and wrong. You judge as moral any consensual sexual activity within the private bedroom. That is a judgment that you have made. Another man/society may believe that consensual sexual activity outside the bedroom is perfectly fine. That is a moral judgment and you have made it. For people who believe in a God, morality is not relative. Something is or is not moral, based on the definer of morality who is God.

 

>The logic is free will or A PERFECT God. There is a difference.

 

No. YOUR logic, but YOUR logic is constrained to a chronological ordering of time. I don't see that you've made any effort at all to understand that it's possible for a being to see everything in time (past/present/future) all at once. Your inability to conceive of this does NOT make it illogical or impossible.

 

>because Tortdog does not have, nor should he had, any authority over Mr X. Tortdog is not a prophet like Abraham or Moses.

 

How do you know!?

 

>It would be no different then if i were to go around and say some other adult is immoral because he eats Veal or drinks Coffee. I dont have that right, i should not have that right.

 

Okay, seriously I disagree there too. Society says that it's immoral to use illegal drugs. Who made the rules? I did. My neighbor did. My relatives did. My friends did. My enemies did. Who am I? I am one citizen in society, who has an equal right to press for legislation defining the rules of our society.

 

>At what point do we say "Well the jews dont believe in Jesus as the messiah, so they are immoral and their immorality will directly influence my christian son and i can not allow that. Therefore, Temples must be closed down and the jewish faith must not be 'normalized' by society." It is no different that the persuit to incriminate sexual preference.

 

Well, in the Old Testament God ordered the destruction of religions that did not worship the God of Abraham. That wasn't a very "free" society. The difference was that society was run directly by God's prophets. I am unaware of any society today directly run by a prophet of God, but I would not be amazed to find rules in that society to prophibit worship of any God other than the God who ordained that prophet...but I digress.

 

>Immorality would be the departure from an attempt to make society more civil. Vastly different cultures can co-exist in relative peace but only when each side accepts that the other is equal at the same time as being different.

 

True.

 

>Blacks and whites can now co-exist in America and relative peace.

 

True, and WE the PEOPLE passed a law making it so.

 

>Tension begets conflict. If homosexuals were accepted the only thing that would happen would be peace and civility.

 

Sure. And if we "accepted" Osama Bin Laden, perhaps we would have more peace. If we "accepted" child molestors (and I'm NOT equating them to gays) then we would have more peace. If we accepted felons and sought to understand them better, we could dramatically reduce our prison populations and have more peace. But...at waht price?

 

>However, to further promote inferiority only promotes confict, conflict only results in pain.

 

Standing up for morality does not promote inferiority. It instructs wrong and right, and gives all men the ability to choose his path. Just because a man chooses wrongly does not mean that there is not a natural consequence for that act (or that society levy a punishment).

 

>I am not minimalizing God at all or ignoring him.

 

By stating that morality has no absolute does just that.

 

>There may be things that you do in your privacy that I would not like to do, but even though you do them my life remains utterly unchanged. Im not particularly attracted to big girls, but that does not mean i can stop my friend from chasing them. You seem to think you have more rights then you should and this philosphey is more than a bit pretentious.

 

Sounds like you don't like laws made by the will of the people if they infringe on YOUR view of right and wrong. You have defined right and wrong, yet deny me the ability to do likewise.

 

I merely suggest: Let the People decide. What's so wrong with that? The PEOPLE wrote the Constitution. The PEOPLE prohibited discrimination based on race. The PEOPLE protected the freedom to worship. Every right that we have was recognized by the PEOPLE. If the PEOPLE have not recognized that right, then the government (formed by the People) has the right to legislate on that issue.

 

>As for your veiw on pornography, it is simply conjecture based on no substantial evidence. Factually, there is no link at all to porn causing sexual or violent/nonviolent crimes.

 

I can't believe you argue that.

 

>Among the child molesters incited, the study reported that 53 percent of them deliberately used the stimuli of pornography as they prepared to offend.

 

http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm

 

>Research conducted involving 36 serial murderers revealed that 81% (29/36) reported pornography as one of their highest sexual interests, making pornography one of the most common profile characteristics of serial murderers.

 

http://www.prtc.net/~morality/porno/research.htm

 

>thats an opinion.

 

Those are facts. Let me ask you in all seriousness: Do you believe that viewing pornography is in keeping with the Scout Law and Oath?

[NJCubScouter]

Tortdog was asked:

 

>Who is right and who is wrong?

 

And answered:

 

I am.

 

You are what? Both right and wrong at the same time? See, Tortdog, you are a moral relativist and you don't even know it.

 

(Unless you mean "I am" as the name of God in the book of Exodus, or was it Leviticus, but presumably not since He is never wrong, only right.)

 

Seriously though, I think we are all moral relativists, it's just that some of us admit it while others choose to think of our relativistic beliefs as absolutes so we can call other people names. Well, not "we" since I am not in the second group.

 

Tortdog also says:

 

Sounds like you don't like laws made by the will of the people if they infringe on YOUR view of right and wrong. You have defined right and wrong, yet deny me the ability to do likewise.

 

I merely suggest: Let the People decide. What's so wrong with that? The PEOPLE wrote the Constitution. The PEOPLE prohibited discrimination based on race. The PEOPLE protected the freedom to worship. Every right that we have was recognized by the PEOPLE. If the PEOPLE have not recognized that right, then the government (formed by the People) has the right to legislate on that issue.

 

Without discussing all of the implications of this (because I think there are some implications of it that are clearly incorrect), I would point out that the People of my state, and about half the other states, have prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well. So, in those states, it is morally wrong to exclude gay people, because the people say so, right?

 

[gavvin]

Eagledad: I am glad I asked instead of going with my first interpretation!

 

You are correct in pointing out that morality springs from religion. Some may argue that morals come from "cultural values", but these are largly derived from the sharing of a common religion. However, morals tend to differ from one culture to another for this same reason. What is moral in some parts of the worl would certainly shock those in others. Morals also change with the times. Could you imagine the scandal a woman would create in the Victorian age if she showed up wearing modern fashions?

 

If morality can be so different over time and distance, who is to say which group is correct? I think the only way to define what is moral from a LEGAL standpoint is anything that does not harm the person or property of a non-consenting other. If people are doing things that don't directly harm anyone who has not consented to the risks, leave them alone and don't judge them.

 

The person who made this argument best was Peter McWilliams in his book "Ain't nobody's Business If You Do". The entire book is available online at:

 

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm

 

Unfortunately, Mr. McWilliams passed away a few years ago after choking to death on his own vomit caused by the nasea he felt while undergoing Chemotherapy. Ironically, he was an avid proponant of medical marijauna, known to abate the nausea.

 

If you are open-minded, you will probably enjoy the book, even if you choose to disagree with it, as he was a talented writer. Close-minded people won't be able to get past the Author's Note.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Wow, I go away for a couple of hours and pages and pages of posts appear. Must be a popular topic!

 

Tort,

Your responses have carried a thought, very well constructed by the way, that seems to indicate that think, I believe, that issues like this need to be handled within the U.S. consitution. Yet, many local governments, be they state, city, etc., have passed laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual preference. With your references to the Constitution, I get the impression that you may think that these local laws don't "count". I'll grant you that a national law could be done by way of a Constitutional amendment, but I don't think it's really required. Couldn't the Congress just pass legislation like this if it so desired? Would legislation like that be unconstitutional for some reason? (I'm asking seriously because I'm not sure myself). I'll grant you also that a good number of states are passing laws to prohibit things like gay marriage, but I think that might be equal parts politics and honest conservative view. I don't really know where the answer is; I do believe that it is not in the best interests of the country to pass laws that show preferential treatment to the views of any particular religious interest. They may very will have the ability to do so; it's just my personal belief that it shouldn't be done.

[tortdog]

NJ

 

>See, Tortdog, you are a moral relativist and you don't even know it.

 

Dang.

 

[mutters]

 

Regarding making morality relative, I would argue that those who do so are taking the easy way out. It allows man to justify wrong behavior and feel good about oneself. I would not label that name-calling, but I do wonder how one could believe in a God who can't make up his mind whether something is wrong or right.

 

In all seriousness, I'm open to hear the thought behind that proposition.

 

>So, in those states [that prohibit discrimination against gays], it is morally wrong to exclude gay people, because the people say so, right?

 

As determined by those people, yes. In such a state, I wonder how the traditional religions will cope (though I am sure there is an exception in allowing religions to continue to discriminate). As time goes on, those religions will be seen in a far dimmer view (not in keeping with society's norms). It would not be the first time that this has happened in the history of man.

 

Gavvin

 

>What is moral in some parts of the worl would certainly shock those in others. Morals also change with the times.

 

This is so true.

 

>If morality can be so different over time and distance, who is to say which group is correct?

 

As to the eternal answer, a religious man looks up. As to society, well, society makes the decision.

 

>I think the only way to define what is moral from a LEGAL standpoint is anything that does not harm the person or property of a non-consenting other. If people are doing things that don't directly harm anyone who has not consented to the risks, leave them alone and don't judge them.

 

That standard has been proposed more now than ever before in our history. It's a libertarian philosophy, and it has a lot of attraction. In theory, I agree with it. However, we quickly learn in society that our conduct rarely only affects ourselves. Smoking causes harm to the body, and in our current society imposes a cost to the non-smokers. (BTW...I vote against laws prohibiting smoking...go figure.) Drinking while diving causes harm (though in prior days we did not recognize this). We have had one argue that pornography causes no harm, yet studies and experts document that pornography is often associated with sexual predators.

 

As our society increases forced interaction with each other (shared health costs, closer residences, etc.), I think you will find it hard to find an item that may not affect your neighbor.

 

BTW, your view is a judgment of morality. You have defined for us when it is right (a judgment of right and wrong) to make a law for society.

 

>If you are open-minded, you will probably enjoy the book, even if you choose to disagree with it, as he was a talented writer. Close-minded people won't be able to get past the Author's Note.

 

Quite seriously, I have a feeling that a lot of people would see God as closed-minded, like the one who was struck down for steadying the Ark when he was only trying to help.

 

Praries. I'm actually a huge states-rights advocate. The reason the U.S. Constitution keeps coming up in my discourse is because usually its the federal courts that use the guise of the Constitution to create new rights that the People never created and therefore restrict the right of the People's legislatures to make law.

 

>I get the impression that you may think that these local laws don't "count". I'll grant you that a national law could be done by way of a Constitutional amendment, but I don't think it's really required. Couldn't the Congress just pass legislation like this if it so desired?

 

Yes.

 

>Would legislation like that be unconstitutional for some reason?

 

Nope. I see no Constitutional prohibition on a federal law prohibiting federal and state discrimination against gays, though it would need to have an interstate commerce connection (easily met in most cases).

 

>I do believe that it is not in the best interests of the country to pass laws that show preferential treatment to the views of any particular religious interest.

 

I agree but only towards ONE religion. I see no problem with legislation that allows society's religions to grow and remain strong. For example, legislation that prohibits taxation of church property is clearly discriminatory. But, I'm in favor of it as long as the Catholics don't get a better deal than the Mormons.

[packsaddle]

To repeat myself from another old thread, a moral code nearly indistinguishable from the one we currently embrace can be derived simply and without involving religion. It merely requires use of the thermodynamic laws and a single assumption that greater efficiency is better (more moral) than lesser efficiency. It works!

[DugNevius]

Ha, first, Tortdog, i shall address the porn points.

 

Your statistics do not at all prove that Porn cause crime. They simply point out that sex criminals like porn. It does not show how many millions of americans watch or read porn and do not commit any crime. That is like saying knives make people murder because of all the people who used knives to kill someone used a knife. It can not be proven that porn turns good men into sex offenders and of all the studies of sex offenders none have stated that it was porn or that porn led up to the crime. Rather, studies can not prove that porn causes crime at all. http://www.netspeed.com.au/ttguy/refs2.htm#lab

 

evidence regarding the postulated causal link between pornography and rape, using data on the incidence of rape in 4 societies (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and the US) where pornography is widely available. While earlier research found no evidence of a causal link between pornography and rape, a new generation of behavioral scientists has attempted to prove such a connection, especially for aggressive pornography. Aggregate data on rape and other violent or sexual offenses in these 4 countries seem to exclude the possibility that the availability of pornography has any detrimental effects in the form of increased sexual violence.

 

Before the civil rights movement many whites classified African Americans as inferior. Before the civil rights movement there was mass conflict and tension between races. AFTER equality was established the violence between races decressed drasticly. The same goes for the anti-semetic ideas in Europe before the holocaust. Would not hate crimes against homosexuality decrease if society accepted homosexuality? There IS a direct link to discrimination and crime.

 

You skipped my question about the jews. Since the jews do not accpet Jesus as the messiah are they immoral? If they are immoral, why should we allow them to exist as normal and why shouldnt we try to stop public judaism?

 

Again, subjective faith is not evidence. Stick to what you can prove.

 

Lastly, i do not feel that porn is any more a violation of the scout oath and law then fire arms, a case of beer, a g string bikini or a Victoria's Secrets cataloge are violations. If you dont like playboy dont buy one. If you dont like gay sex dont have sex with a man. If you dont want to listen to Howard Stern on the radio change the channel. To attempt to restrict basic human rights is the beginning of facism.

[Kudu]

Trevorum writes:

 

> NJ, I appreciate the empathy. Really. But I have never been made to feel

> like a 3rd (or 2nd) class Scouter (except perhaps by those on either end

> of the extremist spectrum - from Rooster on the right to Kudu on the left -

> who for different reasons think I and other UUs should be BSA pariahs

> because of our faith).

 

As a member of the UUA, I don't understand the accusation.

 

My view on the UUA's problems with the BSA is that the BSA is dominated by conservative churches for a reason. I would like to see a church historian examine the history of the UUA's relationship with the BSA. My impression (not based on any facts) is that most liberals simply do not relate to ongoing citizenship training that involves getting their knees dirty around a campfire once a month. Therefore, liberal institutions tend not to sponsor Scouting which in turn leads to the domination of the BSA by conservative churches.

 

> Kudu on the Left

 

You will have to look elsewhere for a leftist icon :-/ I do object to BSA's neo-conservative values. Neo-conservatives differ from true conservatives in that they want the government to favor (and often fund) values based on a selective literal reading of the Bible. Liberals and leftists are opposed to these specific policies, but they share with neo-conservatives the desire for the BSA to retain its monopoly on Scouting.

 

Therefore, in American Scouting, the opposite of right-wing politics is not the left, but libertarianism: "Free Minds, Free Markets!"

 

I would also point out that the greatest damage done to the BSA's program (as reflected in membership decline) was not the current religious intolerance toward girls, gays and the godless, but the 1972 progressive movement that undid everything that William Hillcourt built. While Hillcourt's outdoor and uniform methods were eventually restored, his first Method of Scouting ("A Game, NOT a Science) was not, which leads to a lot of the rigid thinking we see in Scouting these days.

 

So, to reply to SemperParatus's original post in this topic, I would beg the question. I agree with Bob White that the BSA will change its values about the same time as the Sun becomes a Red Giant. Given the popular vote in the last two presidential elections, it might take slightly less time to challenge the BSA's monopoly on Scouting.

 

In most Western democracies, gays in Scouting is a non-issue. As I understand it, this is true even for religious Scouting associations such as the Christian "British Boy Scouts."

 

In a free-market America, an alternative to the BSA would probably conform to this international standard of Scouting. Similar policies are already common in most American youth programs (the Girl Scouts, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Campfire USA, etc.).

 

More important to me is the issue of "Duty to God." As others have pointed out, Baden-Powell's Scout Law does not include an equivalent to "reverent" (or "brave"). His Scout Promise does not include "morally straight" either.

 

According to tradition, B-P wrote a Scout Promise called the "Outlander Promise" for cultures (such as Buddhist Burma) that are not based on deism:

 

On my honor I promise to do my best:

To render service to my country;

To help other people at all times;

To obey the Scout Law.

 

I would use that as an alternative Promise. However, when I proposed establishing an alternative Scouting association at my Unitarian-Universalist church, my minister insisted on using Baden-Powell's traditional Promise:

 

On my honor I promise that I will do my best:

To do my duty to God and my country;

To help other people at all times;

To obey the Scout Law.

 

The point is if a young atheist is challenged by a neutral Scoutmaster to define the God that he does not believe in, then he has "done his best" and is headed down a road of spiritual inquiry. Scouting as a game is all about indirect methods. Sometimes these are the boys who return ten years later to tell you they are now a minister, priest, etc.

 

If my views on religion in Scouting are viewed by other UUs as "the end of the extremist spectrum" it is only because liberals are so accustomed to the religious policies of the BSA that they can not imagine freedom of choice in the context of Scouting.

 

Kudu