A possible solution to the gay issue

[camilam42 10]

@ TomTrailblazer,

 

"I believe that homosexual behavior is unhealthy, but I also think the current BSA policy is wrong."

 

First, greetings. Second, I have a degree in Philosophy, so you'll have to pardon me if I come off dry, it is in my nature to do so, based upon my educational background.

 

What I see in this statement is a bit of an oxymoron. My reasoning is this...if you believe that homosexual behavior is unhealthy, why would you expose Scouts to it? What you are suggesting is akin to saying, "I believe that chicken pox is unhealthy, but I also think that the current school policy is wrong." You wouldn't have that child exposed to chicken pox would you, knowing the outcome?

 

Some will say that it is not a fair comparison, because the factors are quantifiable with chicken pox whereas they are not with homosexual behavior. I disagree. It is clear that the BSA has judged the factors related to the homosexual issue are quantifiable. If they did not, they would not have the policy in place.

 

There is discrimination there, but discrimination is not always a negative thing. You don't let girls into the boys locker room after a high school football game. That is discrimination, but it is acceptable. Women who belong to PEO don't allow men to attend the meetings and know what PEO stands for, that is discrimination. Discrimination is a good thing when it is applied to the common good. The BSA has determined that the homosexual issue is one which merits discrimination. Should I find the discrimination offensive? No. Should I strive to understand the reasoning behind it? Yes.

 

"Local units will never be required to accept gay Scouters, but some units may choose to accept help from openly gay volunteers if they sign the "Declaration of family values" and promise to live a morally clean life."

 

Since there is a clear understanding by the BSA of what constitutes "morally straight," and that understanding is incompatible with openly gay volunteers, because of their behavior, then it would stand to reason they cannot be volunteers. That however does not mean that they cannot still and should not still support Scouting in other ways.

 

Several cases which speak to this directly are:

 

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S.640(2000)

Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of Boy Scouts of America, 952 P.2d 218 (Cal. 1998)

Boy Scouts of America v. District of Columbia Commission on Human Rights, 809 A.2d 1192 (D.C. 2002)

Chicago Area Council of Boy Scouts of America v. City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations, 748 N.E. 2d 759 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)

 

These cases show that the Scout Law and Oath are incompatible with homosexual behavior.

 

"The best way for Scouting to shed its current image as a right-wing anti-gay organization is for more liberals to get involved."

 

Interestingly enough, the only groups that think this are left-wing and pro-homosexual groups. I believe that if you were to do a poll about the BSA, this issue would not even come up, unless you targeted the ACLU, MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice, Citizens for Tax Justice, Handgun Control, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, Planned Parenthood, and the like.

 

The reality is this, the BSA has a right to be discriminating in who it allows to be members. It chooses, based upon it's moral code who it believes to be the best example for the Scouts it is charged with teaching life lessons to. If they find that a group is incompatible, they will deny them that privilege. This isn't simply homosexuals, but homosexuals have made the loudest bang about it.

[ScoutLass 10]

The moral argument doesn't fly, as not all organizations represented within the BSA feel that homosexuality is morally wrong in any way, shape or form. The BSA is not a Christian organization, though many seem to think otherwise.

 

Now, I have a degree in anthropology. History shows that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality. It has been documented for thousands of years. In fact, some people at different points in history believed those that had "two genders in one body" had special powers and were closer to the god(s) than the average heterosexual male or female. Most major religions, and even athiests and agnostics, can agree on a basic set of morals -- don't kill, steal, lie, hurt others, etc. It's these peripheral beliefs packaged as morals where disagreement lies, which is why there shouldn't be an across the board decree made on them by the BSA -- an organization that tries to be inclusive of all religions.

 

The key line in scout oath and law is "morally straight." Any arguments that homosexuality is not morally straight do not hold water because this is a peripheral moral that is not held by all religions represented in the BSA. (Thus local option being the best choice to handle these differing peripheral morals).

 

This issue has been raising some issues in my own home. My son, who is crossing into Boy Scouts soon, recently discovered the homosexual ban when he was working toward his religious medal. Our (straight if it matters) priest raised the question in regards to a conversation about the precepts. My son is really bothered by it, which is understandable considering his favorite great aunt is homosexual and has been with the same partner for over two decades. I have explained that I belong to and support an organization that is not in line with our family or religious values in this regard because I view it the same as with him. When he does something bad or wrong, I don't stop caring for him or kick him out of my life, I work to steer him onto the correct course. The BSA is a wonderful organization that is wrong in this regard, so we don't turn it out, we strive to steer it back onto the correct course. My son's latest idea is to write religious leaders and organizations that are active in the BSA but not supportive of discrimination against gays, voicing his concerns and why he thinks they should be concerned and take action. His argument is compelling. He says all these scoutmasters he has been talking to stress how their scouts are boy led and how they are here for the boys, so shouldn't it be the boys that lead the BSA away from it's backwards stance on this subject?

 

And oddly enough, I am not left wing. Sit just right of center on most things. The argument that only left-wingers even care is not based on fact in any way, shape or form.

 

 

[camilam42 10]

@ ScoutLass,

 

Respectfully, I must disagree with you on this issue. You state, "The moral argument doesn't fly, as not all organizations represented within the BSA feel that homosexuality is morally wrong in any way, shape or form."

 

I don't quite understand what you are getting at. What organizations within the BSA are you speaking of? And if they didn't think that they were morally wrong, why don't they allow for homosexuals to serve as volunteers then? The answer to that is pretty clear, because the BSA doesn't think that it is "morally straight" to do so. The cases that I listed are clear examples of this being upheld.

 

As for the anthropology piece, you say, "History shows that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality." And how many times in history have the participants been incorrect? And how do you know, with any certainty (outside of theoretical) that it was considered morally acceptable? You also speak of ideals that have become extinct over time. Why, because they have no legs to stand on. Because something existed at another time doesn't mean that it was correct. So the idea that one is "more powerful" because of dual sexuality roles is what doesn't hold water, precisely because it has been proven to be a false ideal, through the scope of history.

 

You go on to say, "It's these peripheral beliefs packaged as morals where disagreement lies, which is why there shouldn't be an across the board decree made on them by the BSA...Any arguments that homosexuality is not morally straight do not hold water because this is a peripheral moral that is not held by all religions represented in the BSA."

 

These ideals are not peripheral. They are core teachings. To simply say that ideals like the 10 Commandments or the Beatitudes or other major moral teachings are peripheral is not being genuine, when above you're citing ideals proven through history to be wrong as more binding than those which have remained standing through the test of time and in the face of history. There is a reason why pagan Rome converted to Christianity, anthropologically speaking.

 

I will not speak to your personal experience, because it is not in my privy to do so, but I can give you my own understanding of how it is interpeted, from a like minded point of view, since, presumably, we are both Catholic. The Catholic Church teaches clearly through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC #2357)

 

It goes on to say, "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (CCC #2358)

 

And finally, it says, "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." (CCC #2359)

 

This is not inconsistent with BSA policy at all. The BSA policy states, "For more than 80 years, the Boy Scouts of America has brought the moral values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law to American boys, helping them to achieve the objectives of Scouting.

 

The Boy Scouts of America also places strong emphasis on traditional family values as being necessary components of a strong, healthy society. The Scouting program is designed to be a shared, family experience.

 

We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.

 

Because of these beliefs, the Boy Scouts of America does not accept homosexuals as members or as leaders, whether in volunteer or professional capacities.

 

Our position on this issue is based solely upon our desire to provide the appropriate environment and role models which reflect Scouting's values and beliefs.

 

As a private membership organization, we believe our right to determine the qualifications of our members and leaders is protected by the Constitution of the United States."

 

The two positions are incredibly similar. Neither condemn nor vilify homosexuals. However, both are very clear that the action in which a homosexual may participate in is not acceptable. Because of this, s/he is excluded from serving as a volunteer or a professional. However, nothing is said about a homosexual supporting Scouting in another capacity, which is not as a volunteer or a professional.

 

My point is this, to simply take it to the base level of science doesn't work, because science doesn't take into account the human condition. Science is too narrow and specialized. It simply shows raw data which has to be extrapolated. The moral imperative which is really at question here cannot be mentioned in science, because science is not prepared to answer that question. That is why anthropology cannot work to defeat the ideal of morality or any other ideal.

[shortridge 184]

These cases show that the Scout Law and Oath are incompatible with homosexual behavior.

 

No, they don't. A United States judge would never rule on such a point. What those cases did show is that a private organization has the right to determine its membership. Simple.

 

I don't quite understand what you are getting at. What organizations within the BSA are you speaking of? And if they didn't think that they were morally wrong, why don't they allow for homosexuals to serve as volunteers then? The answer to that is pretty clear, because the BSA doesn't think that it is "morally straight" to do so. The cases that I listed are clear examples of this being upheld.

 

ScoutLass is talking about the various chartered organizations, local owners of the BSA "franchise." They're not allowed to permit homosexuals to serve as Scouting volunteers within their organization because of the National dictates.

 

And again ... none of those court cases upheld the position that homosexuality is not "morally straight." Try reading them again.

[Scoutfish 16]

"And if they didn't think that they were morally wrong, why don't they allow for homosexuals to serve as volunteers then? The answer to that is pretty clear, because the BSA doesn't think that it is "morally straight" to do so. The cases that I listed are clear examples of this being upheld."

 

WHAT? That makes no sense at all!

 

Basically you are saying that the reason the CO doesn't allow gay volunteers is because National DOES NOT LET THEM! So what does that prove about various religions views on what is morally acceptable?

 

NOTHING!

 

It only proves, as ScoutLass siad: "The moral argument doesn't fly, as NOT ALL ( emphasis mine) organizations represented within the BSA feel that homosexuality is morally wrong in any way, shape or form.

 

Not everybody thinks being gay is morally wrong. Just because SOMEBODY else has a rule on it...does not change individual opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

camilan42 writes:

@ TomTrailblazer,

 

"I believe that homosexual behavior is unhealthy, but I also think the current BSA policy is wrong."

...

if you believe that homosexual behavior is unhealthy, why would you expose Scouts to it? What you are suggesting is akin to saying, "I believe that chicken pox is unhealthy, but I also think that the current school policy is wrong." You wouldn't have that child exposed to chicken pox would you, knowing the outcome?

 

I think a better analogy would be smoking. Presumably, the BSA considers smoking to be unhealthy, yet they don't prohibit smokers from being adult leaders.

 

And chicken pox IS unhealthy, yet people DID deliberately expose their own children to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pox_party

 

[Basementdweller 608]

Most of my experience has been with the households with multiple Moms.

 

No it doesn't get weird. They attend the the functions as a family unit. It is really a non issue.

 

Camping is no problem because the tenting is same sex. right?!?

 

In my opinion non-married heterosexual couples are a bigger pain to deal with. they are not to share a tent right??????? Explain that and get a couple who have been living together for 8 years to understand. Our CC refused to camp with us because of it, he was living with a gal and expected to share a tent with her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BadenP 93]

This issue has always been and will continue to be a nonstarter and a road to nowhere.

Philosophical arguments are like clouds in the air, they move in every direction and contain very little substance at their core. There is no real solution to the "gay issue" because you either agree or disagree with it, there is no middle ground. IMO as long as religious institutions are the main chartering organizations in the BSA and control its rule makers the issue of gays in the BSA will never change no matter what argument you care to use.

[camilam42 10]

@ shortridge,

 

You respond, "No, they don't. A United States judge would never rule on such a point. What those cases did show is that a private organization has the right to determine its membership. Simple."

 

Actually, Judge Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court with regard to the Dale case. Judge Werdegar delivered the opinion in the Curran case and so on. I don't disagree that the cases show what you say, they most certainly do, but they are also opinions rendered by Justices and Judges.

 

From www.bsalegal.org, "The United States Supreme Court reversed the New Jersey Supreme Court and held that a state may not, through its nondiscrimination statutes, prohibit the Boy Scouts from adhering to a moral viewpoint and expressing that viewpoint in internal leadership policy and that the New Jersey Supreme Courts decision violated Boy Scouts First Amendment right of freedom of association."

 

and

 

"Ultimately, an Illinois appellate court held that the Boy Scouts were allowed to require job applicants to observe the Scout Oath and Law when they were seeking to serve as professionals acting in representative capacities for Scouting."

 

There most certainly was a judgment made on a moral impotice which includes the Scout Oath and Scout Law.

 

 

@ Scoutfish,

 

You say, "Basically you are saying that the reason the CO doesn't allow gay volunteers is because National DOES NOT LET THEM! So what does that prove about various religions views on what is morally acceptable?

 

NOTHING!"

 

I disagree. The CO is follow the dictates of National. What are National's reasons. I've posted that. The CO is following the "morally straight" viewpoint of the BSA. Again, the BSA's viewpoint, "We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.

 

Because of these beliefs, the Boy Scouts of America does not accept homosexuals as members or as leaders, whether in volunteer or professional capacities."

 

There is nothing but consistency in my logic.

 

You go on to say, "Not everybody thinks being gay is morally wrong. Just because SOMEBODY else has a rule on it...does not change individual opinions."

 

I understand that. I really do. And I doubt the BSA thinks that a homosexual person is morally wrong. What they do believe is that because of the actions and behaviors in which they engage, they are incompatible with the morals the BSA espouses. The question then becomes, if an out homosexual were to recant their behavior and promise to live a "morally straight" life according to the BSA, then I believe the BSA would reconsider on a case by case basis.

 

By the way, who says the opinions of individuals who support homosexual behavior is the correct view? There is a lot more evidence to support the contrary.

 

@ Merlyn_LeRoy,

 

My point is that the vast majority of parents will not expose their child to chicken pox. I suppose that if one looks hard enough, one can find the absolute to anything....good on you for finding that one!!! LOL!!!

[Scoutfish 16]

"The CO is follow the dictates of National. What are National's reasons. I've posted that" - Yep...just what I said: National's reasons, not the CO's.

 

"And if they didn't think that they were morally wrong, why don't they allow for homosexuals to serve as volunteers then? The answer to that is pretty clear, because the BSA doesn't think that it is "morally straight" to do so. The cases that I listed are clear examples of this being upheld."

 

What we have here is BSA telling CO that "This is what you are going to do, to be able to be chartered."

 

That means BSA has determined what is morally righta s far as the rules go. That does not say or indicate that all people agree with them,only that they have to follow BSA's rule in order to charter a Unit.

 

The Co does not have a choice as top wether to allow a homosexual to serve. BSA took that decision away from the CO. IF a CO actually fely having a Gay person be a volunteer, they still couldn't do that per BSA's rule, not their own feelings of morals.

 

"By the way, who says the opinions of individuals who support homosexual behavior is the correct view? There is a lot more evidence to support the contrary."

 

I never said, indicated or implied either side had the correct view.

 

 

I only sid that your logic in the - "And if they didn't think that they were morally wrong, why don't they allow for homosexuals to serve as volunteers then? - argument didn't stand up.

 

But as far as correct view...It wasn't that long ago that the evidence supported that it was morally okay to think of women as property , that black people were inferior and deaf people were just stupid.

 

 

At one time, the "correct" view was that the world was flat, that slavery was perfectly moral and that women really didn't need to have an opinion, vote or do anything else besides run around barefoot and pregnant while fixing supper for the man.

 

But evidence suppoprts that the "correct" view is much different now!

 

So define correct for me. Is it defined as: WHat the majority thinks at any particular time?

 

If that's the case, then who knows what will be "correct" in ten years.

 

My only feeling is this: A gay person's sexual preference should not have any more influence or impact on scouting that my own. And do you know how much that is?

 

ZERO! I do not bring my sex life into scouting. Scouting has nothing to do with sex as far as I am concerned.

[camilam42 10]

@ Scoutfish,

 

You say, "What we have here is BSA telling CO that "This is what you are going to do, to be able to be chartered."

 

That means BSA has determined what is morally righta s far as the rules go. That does not say or indicate that all people agree with them,only that they have to follow BSA's rule in order to charter a Unit.

 

The Co does not have a choice as top wether to allow a homosexual to serve. BSA took that decision away from the CO. IF a CO actually fely having a Gay person be a volunteer, they still couldn't do that per BSA's rule, not their own feelings of morals."

 

And what are we talking about here? We are talking about the BSA and the fact that in order to be affiliated with the BSA, then the CO has to abide by the wishes of the BSA.

 

The BSA didn't take a choice away from the the CO, that is an absurd statement. The CO never had the ability to make the choice that you are ascribing to them. Some CO's attempted to make them arbitrarily, but were told that they were not in keeping with the morality of the BSA.

 

If the CO doesn't want to abide by the rules, then they do have a choice. They can choose to no longer belong to the BSA. So, you are committing a pretty big logical fallacy by going down that road. It is called "An appeal to Consequences of a belief."

 

You say, " never said, indicated or implied either side had the correct view.

 

 

I only sid that your logic in the - "And if they didn't think that they were morally wrong, why don't they allow for homosexuals to serve as volunteers then? - argument didn't stand up."

 

And I showed you how it does. It does stand up. My logic is both valid and sound.

 

You go on, "It wasn't that long ago that the evidence supported that it was morally okay to think of women as property , that black people were inferior and deaf people were just stupid.

 

 

At one time, the "correct" view was that the world was flat, that slavery was perfectly moral and that women really didn't need to have an opinion, vote or do anything else besides run around barefoot and pregnant while fixing supper for the man."

 

No, it wasn't morally acceptable to think of women as property, that black people were inferior and that deaf people were just stupid. Those views were accepted, but they were wrong views. This has been proven to be the case. It was the case then, it is the case now.

 

As for the second part of your statement, you're all over the place. There is an argument that certain forms of slavery are moral, however, unjust slavery is not. I am assuming that you are talking about the latter. It is clear that this line of thinking is not nor was it ever a moral action. Because people do immoral things under the guise of morality, mean that it cannot be proven to be wrong. As far as women's suffrage, the same holds true. We have to allow for development of that which was NEVER moral to be proven to be so.

 

However, with homosexual behavior, we are not talking about that. What we are talking about is something that has always being viewed as immoral continued to be shown to be immoral. So, you're view doesn't follow with the conclusion, because your premise is flawed.

 

In other words...

That which was immoral, but purported to be moral can be proven to be immoral. You are attempting to make that same move to prove that which was immoral, purported to be immoral can be proven to be moral. It can't be proven.

 

Finally, you say, "My only feeling is this: A gay person's sexual preference should not have any more influence or impact on scouting that my own. And do you know how much that is?

 

ZERO! I do not bring my sex life into scouting. Scouting has nothing to do with sex as far as I am concerned."

 

While I understand that this is strictly your opinion and you're entitled to it, my response to the statement is this...

 

A homosexual person's preference doesn't have much influence, but his behavior does. It is an immoral action in which he is engaging, in direct contradiction to the BSA.

 

A heterosexual person's perference doesn't have much influence, but his behavior does. It is a moral action in which he is engaging, assuming that he is following the precepts of the BSA.

 

As an aside, in defining terms, we have to use the terms as defined by the BSA, because that is the defining body.

 

So, while you may have your opinion, and you do, it doesn't necessarily prove anything. That is why I normally do not give my opinion, because there is no authority in it and it means absolutely nothing to anyone other than me.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

camilam42 writes:

A homosexual person's preference doesn't have much influence, but his behavior does. It is an immoral action in which he is engaging, in direct contradiction to the BSA.

 

What action? Breathing? Standing? Talking?

[ScoutLass 10]

Camlan-- No, I am not Catholic. I am not a member of the Christian faith, and I only have minimal knowledge of its teaching (primarily what I learned in said history and anthropology texts and classes).

 

Homosexuality is still morally acceptable in many areas of the world, in first world, second world and third world countries. It isn't a theoretical argument, but a facet of history that is happening at this moment as we speak. Oh, and "Pagan" Rome did not convert to Christianity, it split apart,as empires do as they fall -- Islam and Christianity played major roles, along with all the various small-tribe religions of conquered people that were no longer held under the imperial thumb. Rome was eventually reduced to a city-state. Even Constantinople fell. Historically speaking of course. The decline of Rome also heralded in the dark ages and the crusades -- which most historians tend to agree were more focused on greed and power that religious zeal. So Rome isn't the best example to use here...

 

Most of your argument fell apart once you began quoting scripture and what I assume is church policy(? not sure of proper terminology here). A religious argument, even of my own religion, is based on faith and therefore can hold little weight when being passed off as fact.

 

What makes a family value traditional? That confuses me. Traditionally, people sent their children to the fields or factory at a young age. Traditionally, women were second class citizens. Are they traditional because they are your family values, or the values of the loudest person or the person with the deepest pockets? The religion I follow predates Christianity by about 500 years, give or take a century. Are my family values more traditional than yours because they are older? No, of course not, but both of our values deserve the respect of equal consideration by the organization that we have pledged our time and resources to forward.

 

I will never convince you of my side nor will you convince me of yours. This is why local option is the only option that will really work.(This message has been edited by Scoutlass)

[shortridge 184]

camilam,

 

You seem very knowledgeable on your church's doctrine. Where I think you veer off is in your understanding of just what the courts have ruled in the various BSA cases. You claimed: These cases show that the Scout Law and Oath are incompatible with homosexual behavior.

 

In fact, as I stated, a United States judge would not rule on such a thing. Yes, judges wrote decisions in those cases. You misunderstand my point there: The judges were not ruling, and would never rule, on a question involving the content or interpretation of the Scout Oath and Law. That is a decision for a private organization to tackle, and not a legal question for the courts.

 

What the courts did rule is that a private organization such as the BSA has the right to set its own rules on membership. They did not take a position one way or the other on the rightness of those rules. They did not state, as you claimed, that the Oath and Law are incompatible with homosexual behavior. That issue was not before the courts.

 

There most certainly was a judgment made on a moral impotice which includes the Scout Oath and Scout Law.

 

No, there was not. These cases were not decided on moral grounds. They were decided on legal grounds. Upholding National's decision to take and enforce a position on homosexuality is not an endorsement of National's position on homosexuality. You completely misunderstand the nature of American law if you believe that. When the Supreme Court upheld the rights of the KKK to march in Skokie, Ill., the justices were not saying "We agree with the KKK's stance on integration." They were saying "This is a point of law, and this is our decision."

 

To state that courts have upheld the argument that the Oath and Law are not compatible with homosexual behavior is flat-out wrong at best and naively absurd at worst.

[camilam42 10]

@ ScoutLass,

 

"Oh, and "Pagan" Rome did not convert to Christianity, it split apart,as empires do as they fall -- Islam and Christianity played major roles, along with all the various small-tribe religions of conquered people that were no longer held under the imperial thumb. Rome was eventually reduced to a city-state. Even Constantinople fell. Historically speaking of course. The decline of Rome also heralded in the dark ages and the crusades -- which most historians tend to agree were more focused on greed and power that religious zeal. So Rome isn't the best example to use here..."

 

Pagan Rome did convert to Christianity, when Constantine as Emperor in February 313, passed the famous Edict of Milan, it essentially converted the Roman Empire to Christianity. Sure it took time to have it disseminated, but that was the moment it happened.

 

Sure the Empire fell, but it didn't fall because of Christianity v. Islam. It fell for a host of other reasons. The Great Schism (between East and West) which you seem to be alluding to didn't occur until 1054AD. And Islam wasn't even founded until the 7th century AD. Islam had very little to do with the Fall of the Roman Empire. The split between East and West had more to do with it and even then, the more important thing to know was that Rome as centralality was abandoned, which is most likely the reason. Moving the capital to what is now Istanbul made it to hard to rule, because it was so far from the center of the Empire. And techinically, from an anthopological POV, the Roman Empire didn't fall until 1453 with the abdication of the crown by Constantine XI.

 

I apologize for assuming that you were Catholic. You spoke of a priest as if he were your pastor, so it was a fair assumption to make, from a Catholic POV.

 

You say, "Most of your argument fell apart once you began quoting scripture and what I assume is church policy(? not sure of proper terminology here). A religious argument, even of my own religion, is based on faith and therefore can hold little weight when being passed off as fact."

 

No, the argument didn't fall apart. There wasn't any Sacred Scripture posted, there was clear Church teaching. The teaching isn't based upon Faith soley, but rather it is based upon reason and rational conclusions drawn from history and logic. This really isn't so much a religious argument, but rather a rational one. I simply used Catholic teaching to show how it is consistent with BSA ideals.

 

As an aside, how is my argument invalid? Everything that I have presented is valid and sound. Just because you don't espouse the belief doesn't mean that it isn't true. You have to show HOW it isn't true. I've given proofs to support the BSA position all along and have, by and large, left opinion out of the whole conversation.

 

That being said, do you actually know what my personal thoughts on this issue are?

 

And as has been pointed out to me by shortridge (thank you, I see your point), legality doesn't equal morality. He is quite right. The legality of homosexuality in the US, Russia, Australia, Canada, most of the EU and parts of South America doesn't mean that it is moral. Again, my statement on morality stands in which I said, "That which was immoral, but purported to be moral can be proven to be immoral. You are attempting to make that same move to prove that which was immoral, purported to be immoral can be proven to be moral. It can't be proven."

 

There are many immoral laws out there which are justified on rocky ground, yet we're quick to expect espousal of an immoral action as legal and acceptable. Bottom line....the BSA doesn't allow for homosexuals who espouse homosexual behaviors to be members, vlounteers or professionals. If a homosexual who is espousing those behaviors wants to support the BSA, which I believe they still could and should, s/he can find another way to do it. What that way is, is not for me to determine. That is the decision of the BSA.(This message has been edited by camilam42)(This message has been edited by camilam42)