Merlyn_LeRoy

No, it completely undercuts your point; your point was that nature "clearly demonstrates" that homosexuality is perverse, when it clearly does no such thing, since there are entire species that engage in homosexual sex exclusively. If, by "nature", you mean only the human race, you should have said that; but I suspect by "nature" you actually mean your opinion.

rooster7 writes: I say it is inherit. I say God makes many things obvious as obvious as the sexual perversity that homosexuality represents both in nature and in Gods Word. If you cannot see it - then you must have scales over your eyes. Even if you refuse to recognize the Bible as Gods Word, if you are a thinking being, nature clearly demonstrates that homosexuality is perverse. Parthenogenic lizard species exist, where the entire species is female, and each female produces fertile eggs. Pairs of females will still go through mating rituals; even though it isn't needed for reproduction, it increases their fertility. So if your god makes homosexuality "obviously" perverse, why are there species of lizards that reproduce this way?

cjmiam writes: So lets go to the extreme. Should we actively recruit gay leaders that find the sex of those they would serve attractive? No. Should Explorers continue to allow gay adult leaders to youth on the same basis as straight adult leaders?

cjmiam writes: What part of "insisting that all leaders have high moral integrity" is unclear? The part where you assume NO homosexual male adult leader can be trusted with male youth, but you have no problem with heterosexual male adult leaders being trusted with female youth. All of your assumptions are that every single homosexual adult male cannot be trusted, yet you don't make this assumtion for heterosexual males and female youth. They'd be kicked out if caught. Or if they were professing adult males that like youth females, they wouldn't be allowed in. Why is this so hard to understand? Because, in the case of female youth, a male adult who is attracted to females is OK with you; you add the requirement that he not profess being attracted to "youth females". Yet you don't use the same standard for males, instead assuming that ALL homosexual males WILL be attracted to male youth. And I called it "hypothetical" in the specific case of known homosexual adult leaders in traditional BSA units. For that matter, Explorer units have allowed gay adult leadership since moving to Learning for Life in mid-1998, so why don't you call the BSA's Career Explorer program a "shopping mall for pedophiles"?

Do you have a link to the text of the Fair Practices ordinance?

You DO have a double standard; you're concerned about hypothetical homosexual male adults with male youth, but heterosexual male adults with female youth actually happens NOW in the BSA program, yet you're not advocating that the program be changed to protect THEM. You're only concerned about male-male sexual contact, not male-female.

But that doesn't explain why you aren't at all concerned about females being subjected to sexual advances of adult leaders. If you have a group of 100 boys and 10 girls on a rock climb, do you ignore the safety requirements for the girls because there are fewer of them? You yourself claim (with no support) that male heterosexual adult leaders can be trusted around girls, but male homosexual adult leaders can't be trusted around boys. But the only reason you offer is your own prejudice.

cjmiam writes: Im not sure what the percentage of female youth is in the BSA, but I would have to believe that it is quite small. And I believe most straight and morally sound leaders would have no problem keeping sexual interests out of the equation even with a very good-looking well-developed female participant. Now can the same be said for a homosexual leader with a very good-looking well-developed male participant? Why do you think it would be any different than the heterosexual case? And even if the percentage of female youth in the BSA is small, why aren't you up in arms about the possibility of heterosexual contact between youth and adult leaders? You only seem to be concerned when gays are involved, not straights: http://www.sptimes.com/News/050600/NorthPinellas/Report__Police__Explo.shtml

cjmiam writes: Come on. Im not saying that they will necessarily have sex on a campout or during a troop meeting. But what they do in their private life should be none of our business right? Excellent! So Scouting will provide a shopping mall for pedophiles or in New Mexico I guess they would be called homosexuals. Only in the same way that Scouting and Venturing allows opposite-sex contact between leaders and youth members now. But you knew that.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

cjmiam writes: Okay, you want a scientific experiment eh? Take one hundred professing gay guys and put them on an island. ... And do you think the same experiment run with 100 heterosexual guys will be more successful? I don't think so.

rooster7 writes: No - that is NOT the right question. Reread the bold type. "The Gay Report," the 1979 work of homosexual researchers Jay and Young revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed admitted to having had sexual relations with boys ages 16 to 19 or younger. This study is NOT talking about gay men who had sex when they themselves were young. This study is talking about the majority of gay men who admit to having had sex with very young boys - in many case, minors. Well, I've read the bold type, and it doesn't say how old the surveyees were when they had sex, so I don't see how you can claim they are referring only to adults with 16-19 year olds. The way it's phrased, a 17-year-old who had sex with another 17-year-old could be asked 20 years later and answer "yes", and it doesn't mean a 37-year-old had sex with a 17-year-old.

And an organization that didn't consider blacks or Jews to be good role models would likewise run counter to Philadelphia's Fair Practices Ordinance; what's your point?

I had heard that Nixon didn't swear too, but the Library of Congress site doesn't mention that, so I guess he did. For courtrooms, I've heard it varies; some areas have a religious oath as the default, and you have to ask for the affirmation, while others just have you raise your right hand and say "do you swear or affirm..." and you would need to ask if you wanted to use a bible. Plus the ocassional buddhist who wants to break a plate. I assume an atheist president would just affirm.

Well, in the above article, a married heterosexual woman asked, not the "gay community". And it was concerning a civil rights aspect - the current arrangement violates the Fair Practices Ordinance, which would be true if the BSA excluded blacks or Jews, or gays or atheists. If you still don't like it, just compare Jews to atheists.

An op-ed about the situation: http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/6846122.htm ENOUGH ALREADY. It's time for the local Boy Scouts chapter to take the lead in protesting what has been a hateful national policy of gay discrimination embraced by the Boy Scouts of America. The Cradle of Liberty Council did it once before - in June, when it adopted an anti-discrimination policy. That prompted the national council's threat to revoke the Cradle's charter and replace its board. How did the 84,000-member, ironically named Cradle of Liberty respond to the pressure? It caved and, for good measure, booted outspoken gay scout Greg Lattera from its ranks. It was a panicked, spineless thing to do. The way for the local council to right this wrong is to again reverse its stand - for real. What do they have left to lose? As a result of its actions, the council already has lost $900,000 in funding - almost a fifth of its annual budget - from foundations that won't support its discrimination policy. This money, executive director William Dwyer III told me, directly funds scouting programs in the city. Without it, he said, the programs will "eventually go away." ... Meantime, board chairman David Lipson thinks time is what his group needs most. "This board is totally committed to changing the discrimination policy," he said, sounding desperate. "But pulling our funding, pulling the lease - that's not going to help. If we reverse the policy, and the board gets fired, we might be replaced with a board not as committed to change as we are. What will that accomplish? What we need is time." How much? I ask. "One to two years," he said. "Hopefully less." So, I ask him, if the scouts had a discrimination policy against blacks, say, or Jews, would it be fair to ask them to wait one to two years? There is a very long silence, followed by a very heavy sigh. "Look, if I were a member of the gay community, I would not think a 24-month wait is fair," he said. "But we're working as fast as we can." The Cradle of Liberty's own Web site states, "Boys learn a great deal by watching how adults conduct themselves." I wonder what our Boy Scouts are learning these days?

Pierce and Hoover affirmed: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html ed mori still won't understand that swearing is required to be optional under US law; even state constitutions that require swearing are voided by Torcaso v. Watkins.

cjmiam writes: Merlyn, so if I spell out the theory of evolution letter for letter, but add that I believe God created man, does that mean that I dont understand the topic? I somehow just dont get it right? Or is it the fact that the teacher is upset that she failed to fully indoctrinate me into only her view? You haven't revealed what the questions were and what your answers were, so I can't possibly tell. But judging from how you describe government neutrality as somehow "promoting atheism", I probably wouldn't call it "indoctrination". And once again, I want to reiterate that the establishment clause was not added to remove religion from our lives in public places such as the classroom. It was meant to protect the people from a government ran or sponsored religion. Things like morning prayers in school, where the students would recite a prayer written by a bunch of bureacrats on the school board. Yes, the first admendment forbids such things. There is a big difference. Some liberals seem to think that the intent of the Congress was to remove religion from our lives. I don't know ANY liberal advocating that, but given your slanted view, you probably see government neutrality as "removing religion from your life". I see it as removing government interference from my life. Creating a level playing field is one thing, but silencing a group certainly abridges their freedom to speak and exercise thereof. ... The public square is indeed just that the public square. The public owns it. Each and every building is owned by the American taxpayers. We are a representative republic, which makes us the government. We just elect people to represent us. That means those buildings and schools are ours, not the mayors, not the teachers, not the judges, not the congresss. So, I assume you agree with me that judge Moore was wrong in erecting his ten commandments monument in the Alabama supreme court building and denying an atheist group from erecting their own monument? After all, only allowing Moore's monument and denying the atheists' monument isn't a level playing field, and it looks like one of those cases you complain about above where the building belongs to the citizens, not the judges.

Here's a more recent article about the land issue: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6836417.htm The city has told the Cradle of Liberty Boy Scout Council that it is ending the agreement under which the Boy Scouts had free use of city property at 22d and Winter Streets, a council executive said yesterday. William T. Dwyer III, executive director of the Cradle of Liberty Council, confirmed that he received a phone call in the second week of this month from Joyce Wilkerson, the mayor's chief of staff, advising him of the city's decision. ... Dwyer said moving from the city would destroy the city scouting program. "What it takes away is our urban presence totally," Dwyer said. "It takes us out of Philadelphia. We can't support it without the dollars and without the presence. We become, all of a sudden, a suburban program. But the kids who need it most are the ones in the city." Lipson said that council executives were going to ask the city representatives for time to work out the problems. "Give us some time and some good planning. I think we can bring about change, and everyone will be happy. We say give us time. We want to end discrimination in Philadelphia. It's painful because you wish it would happen for a lot of reasons. Discrimination is wrong," Lipson said. Barbara Grant, spokeswoman for the mayor, said any options would be considered at the meeting on Friday. "We know there's a problem," Grant said. "If there are alternatives that surface, we'll certainly consider it, but we have to obey the law." ...

cjmiam writes: Well, how about my Healthy American professor that ridiculed me and laughed off my spirituality and devotion to God in a lecture class of 250 students. When he told me to use some logic, what do you think he was driving at? Without some context, I can't tell. What did you say? When my high school science teacher wouldnt allow my short answers on tests to include my opinions about creation, what do you call it. Creationism isn't a science. And please remember, I did not leave out the answer she wanted. I simply embellished what was the correct answer with my beliefs and she still marked it wrong. If thats not closed mindedness and discrimination in an attempt to create a disbelieving (atheistic) populous I dont know what is. Well, you don't know what is, then. If you took a test on orbital mechanics and added that angels pushed the planets around in their orbits (an actual religious belief that used to be popular), I don't think you understand orbital mechanics. And further it should be noted that youd never see the establishment clause applied to different religions, just Christianity. Wrong; YOU may never see it, but it isn't hard to find if you actually look for it. Of course, in the US, it's usually Christians who violate it, since they're in the majority. It was not our founders intent that students in our schools be shielded from religion. Some kids have even been prohibited from wearing crosses or bringing the Bible to school. And the ACLU (and other organizations) have defended students in their right to do this. But how does this support your assertion that schools teach atheism? They have been required to take sexual education classes totally against Christian values. Some school districts even had the audacity to call The Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem offensive to some and ban it. If these arent direct attacks at a certain group of believers in an attempt to silence them I dont know what is. And yes, it does create the perfect atmosphere for atheistic views to be promoted. But that isn't what you said. You said atheism was being indoctrinated. Removing the religious references from the pledge simply makes it neutral, it doesn't promote atheism. You seem to consider not promoting theism to be promoting atheism, when it's just a level playing field for both.

Where are teachers in the US teaching "atheism"? Please keep in mind that teaching e.g. biology without mentioning gods is no more teaching atheism than teaching orbital mechanics without mentioning angels (who supposedly push the planets around).

How do you figure that? On my browser, page 1 and 3 are wide because they both have the long URL to the boston.com article, while page 2 is not wide because it doesn't have a long URL.

I think long URLs that get cut into two parts contain a character like "-" or "," that the software thinks is a safe point to wrap text. My URL didn't happen to have any characters that it looks for when doing linewrap, so the URL actually works, but the whole thing is on one line and forces the text table to be wider than normal. But since hyphens and commas are legal to have in URLs, cutting long URLs that contain them makes the link fail, since it doesn't get the whole URL. No gods involved, it just takes some logic to figure out.

And you should know I didn't compare the BSA to the KKK or NAMBLA, that was littlebillie and ed mori. I'm also surprised people haven't figured out that the "wideness" of this thread is merely due to the long URL I posted.

Here is what you had said earlier: The way I resolve this, at least for myself, is that I suspect that if the BSA had made the "gay thing" a non-issue by dropping the ban or permitting local option, then many government entities might have "looked the other way" when it came to the "atheism thing." What the federal courts would have done, I can't say. And I imagine that my "solution" won't sit well with many on either side of these issues. The only way I can interpret your paragraph in the context of your original message, is that, if the BSA did not exclude gays but excluded atheists, and some governments continued to give the BSA special breaks like free use of public property by deliberately turning a blind eye to the BSA's religious discrimination, that would seem to be OK with you. The reason I say that seems to be OK with you, is due to the way you say "The way I resolve this, at least for myself..." and that you describe the above as your "solution". You weren't merely speculating on what would happen to such government deals if the BSA admitted gays and excluded atheists, you also indicated that you would find such an arrangement acceptable. Now, I actually agree with what you apparently speculate; if the BSA admitted gays and excluded atheists, I'm sure many government bureaucrats WOULD continue to give the BSA special deals. But I don't say it's a way to resolve the situation, or call it a solution, because that would suggest some degree of approval.

njscouter writes: Merlyn, at this point I'm not sure I even want to respond to you. You peronslly attack me, make up what you think I am advocating, and make up what you think I think. I suspect that some of the people that I usually debate with on here are having a good chuckle over this. (Including your use of your usual example, "Jews," which in my particular case would mean that I would be part of the excluded group.) Exactly. You indicated that if local governments ignored the rights of atheists in various cities around the country, that would be OK with you, and you consider yourself "moderate". You aren't. You are just as "moderate" as someone who would consider it OK if various local cities ignored the rights of Jews (which presumably would NOT be OK with you). You're just saying that it's OK when the government violates the rights of some people based on their religion, but not if it affects YOUR particular group. That's not how it works; you need to defend ALL groups to expect your own rights to be respected. I cannot change the fact that the basic principles of the BSA include belief in God, nor is it reasonable for me to ask the BSA to change that fact. I have agreed with your constitutional analysis that the result of this probably is that the BSA no longer gets special financial favors from governments and governmental entities. But you went on to opine that it would be OK with you if various local governments discriminated against atheists, anyway. If that is the case, so be it. I would like to see some sort of middle ground so that does not become the case, because I don't like seeing boys deprived of a program for no good reason. Your "middle ground" consists of ignoring the rights of atheist kids, just as government support of a "no Jews" youth group would be ignoring the rights of Jews; if you don't want cities to give financial support to "no Jews" youth groups, you can't arbitrarily decide that supporting "no atheists" youth groups is some kind of reasonable "compromise". In order to avoid this, I'd like to see the BSA change the policy that I believe is contrary to the true principles of Scouting, but I can't see Scouting changing its long-standing, clear, published principles to admit avowed atheists who refuse to say the Scout Oath. You seem to think that, if the BSA changes its policies to agree with what you consider to be the "true principles of scouting", that such government support should be allowed, even if your "true principles" still result in atheists being excluded. Guess what? That's entirely irrelevant to the legal issues involved.