pfann

(although cloning isn't addressed in the Bible, who could have been omniscient enough to forsee that?) packsaddle, Smart money says God was omniscient enough to foresee it!

In many respects this sounds like it is boiling down to the nature or nurture arguement. But why can't it be nature AND nurture? For example my wife and sons are of Indian (Native American if you prefer) descent. We know through science that some Indians are genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism. But that is no guarantee. whether or not that pre-disposition comes to be fact will be dependent on the choices they make in life. Heart disease runs in my side of the family. That means I have a greater chance of having heart disease in my future but again it is not a guarantee. The number of big macs consumed will also play a role in this. Whether you take the bible literally or not, the point of the Adam and Eve Creation story is that sin is a matter of choice. And our choices, whether good or bad, positive or negative have a far reaching impact on not only our lives but the lives of many others, just as the choices of Adam and Eve had great consequences for all of mankind. I believe this is what Rooster7 is referring to when mentioning how children are raised that may "push" them in the direction of homosexuality. kwc57, I believe that choice may be a bigger factor than you may notice although the choice may be more subconscious and thus gets confused with inborn instinct. Why?-because inborn instinct does not explain bi-sexuality, where a person like to have sex with both genders. It also does not explain other types of sexual activity that I will not describe in detail here for obvious reasons. I have read of programs (one called Project Exodus) that have had some success in helping men "become" heterosexual again. This of course leads me to question this idea of inborn. Remember, we hear the hue and cry of inborn homosexuality form the gay community primarily. Why?-perhaps it is becasue if this concept were true then a gay person does not have to face the consequences of ones' choices.

I carry a TOOLLOGIC wallet card with me all the time. It has a small knife, tweezers,toothpick screwdriver/can opener, mag. glass and compass. It comes in handy all the time. When I was in grade school I had several different pocket knives. The biggest admonishment was "keep it in your pocket or it will get taken away!" It's kind of sad that students today will miss out on these learning experiences.

kwc, I agree there is already a system in place for judges to recuse themselves if a conflict of interest comes up. Then why do we need all the extra rules about if your in this group then you can't do this , etc. Where do these types of rules end? Pretty soon we will have rules saying only female judges can hear rape cases. Or maybe female judges can't hear rape cases because they would be biased toward the victim. The more rules you have the more muddy the water becomes. Let the system of recusals work. Allow both sides in court to request the judges recusal and it is grounds for appeal if he does not. Common sense can prevail instead of grinding the system to a halt with all of these "regulations" Happy new year everyone. -pfann

Rooster7, Check the original post. These restrictions on judges were proposed by the California Supreme Court as judicial branch rules and regulations. Whether they are implemented depends on whether or not the judges roll over and let it happen or do something to influnece their peers to stop this action. This is what I meant when I said these BSA involved judges will have some big decisions to make. They can sit on the bench in comfort and security and do nothing or they can stand up for what they believe in! The state legislature may have a role in this process. Remember, the legislative branch controls appropriations for the other two branches of government (one of the checks and balances). If they disagree, which they should, they can stop the flow or money or legislatively limit the number and role of judges, etc. But being California I am willing to bet the sate legislature does little in this case. Remember each state has different populations and different values. As an example, Oregon enacted assisted suicide legislation several years ago while voters in Michigan handily rejected the idea (just an example not that I want to open that can of worms!)

Look at it this way, if you were going to write a policy which would ensure that Scout leaders are of high moral character (or at least providing guidance to local units), wouldn't you include more in that policy than just a ban on homosexuals? twocubdad, I am no whizbang expert on this but it seems there are other rules regarding behavior/moral issues. For example, alcohol is not allowed at scout events. That seems to deal at least partially with the alcohol abuse factor. Adults may not be in the same tent or hotel room as kids. That seems to cover the child sexual abuse problem. Venture crews must have separate quarters for both genders. This seems to cover the issue of premarital sex. I am sure there are more examples that I can't think of. Now let's see if we can get back to the initial topic. A private organization has the right to set standards of behavior for membership participation. California may not agree with all of those standards and as a result may impose its own standards for its judges. When these two standards conflict, it seem the judges that are affected may have some big decisions to make in their lives, as we all do from time to time. How's that kwc57? -pfann

I am new to this forum so forgive me for butting in. Perhaps we could look at this issue not from a moral standpoint but from a standpoint of practicality when it comes youth protection. For the past 30-40 years the Catholic Church (for which I am a member) has had a lax attitude when it has come to admitting homosexual priests. Unfortunately the Church is now paying the price for that attitude in the form of a national crisis. If he had it to do over again, do you think Berbnard Cardinal Law might do things differently? I think so. I am relatively new as a scouter (2 years) but the BSA also has guidleines to prevent heterosexual problems as well, to the best of my knowledge. For example Venture crews are not allowed to have different genders sleep in the same tents, and no scouts are allowed to sleep in the same tent with an adult other than their parents. That is not to say that EVERY gay scouter would victimize children just as not EVERY gay priest victimized young children, but there were enough incidents to make it a huge safety issue. It seems to me that in regards to youth protection, the BSA got it right. I just wish my Church had the same foresight to prevent the problems we have today. -pfannman