Scouting's Real Gay Policy

[packsaddle]

And now we have come to natural law. If we were to ask a number of persons (>1) to explain what that is, a huge mass of confusion would almost be inevitable. For the amusement of those who did not read this quite a while back, natural law has long been enforced.

"In 1386 a trial was held in which the accused had allegedly disfigured a child. The accused stood before the court in a waistcoat, breeches, and with white gloves. The accused was sentenced to first receive similar maiming, then to be garroted and hanged at the village scaffold. The accused was, literally, a pig." There are much more contemporary examples as well. Rooster, are you missing the good ol' days? Clearly pigs were (are?) held accountable (probably baboons too if they are similarly guilty).

 

One of the major limitations in behavioral science is that no-one, not even you Rooster, can really know what another organism thinks or feels. At some level of inquiry the same could be said of people. No-one, not even the omniscient Rooster, knows whether any animal does or does not have a sense of morality (although there is increasingly good evidence that some animals may feel envy or jealousy).

 

As for souls, those are not capable of being addressed by science (though some humorous attempts have been made). The concept of mind is one of those that rests beside 'heart' and soul. Difficult to define, much less measure or study. Some of us probably should get a little uncomfortable if it were any other way.

 

I must admit, male and female bodies are designed particularly well for reproduction (with just a few limitations) and I, for one, really appreciate (enjoy?) that fact. Rooster's embrace of this evolutionary outcome is downright refreshing.

 

However, I am sympathetic to the conservative view born of the marketplace (both commerce and ideas). Rooster's judgement that "homosexuals will not contribute to the subsistence of mankind" is patently wrong. Homosexuals have the opportunity to contribute materially to society and mankind as much as anyone, certainly in commerce and obviously in ideas. And such contributions are in abundant need in society while, for the time being at least, there nevertheless seems to be an abundant supply of reproduction. Now what was that quote from Ehrlich, "People can be produced in vast quantities by unskilled labor who enjoy their work."?

Homosexuals make crucial contributions to the welfare of all people. I suggest that if persons who are repulsed by this thought would merely reject all technology or medical procedures based on such contributions or performed by homosexuals, the situation would correct itself quickly and their worries would be shortened.

 

Lastly, I observe that although homosexuals are unlikely to reproduce (note that with cloning or in-vitro fertilization, lesbians are less limited than male homosexuals), their fitness in this population is by no means zero. Through their action in the marketplace and socially with all of us, their inclusive fitness is significant. Difficult to measure - as is fitness of any human subject group, but undeniable nevertheless.

[Rooster7]

packsaddle,

 

I did not state that homosexuals have no worth. Nor did I say that they could not contribute to society. My reference was in regard to the propogation of mankind. Which brings this conversation full circle - their sexual behavior is perverse. You can make all sorts of statements defending homosexuality, and other sexual perversities for that matter - We don't have to agree - But don't twist my words and use them as pretence.

 

As for 12th century juries sentencing pigs to hanging - that's an interesting story, but it's not relevent to my contention. Once again, I find myself arguing with folks who want to use analogies that have no correlation to the topic at hand. God - packsaddle - God! He is the one who will judge man and not pigs. He is the one that will hold us accountable. First littlebillie wants to compare the behavior of animals to that of men in a strained attempt to justify homosexuality. And now - now you want to compare the judgment of men (a 12th century jury) to the judgment of God. These comparisons are just as obscene as homosexuality itself.

 

Are you guys really having that difficult of a time seeing these points? Or are you merely trying to yank my chain?

 

 

[packsaddle]

1386, ahem, is in the 14th century, not the 12th. Rooster, after fussing with you all these times, I have to tell you that I do like you, perhaps more now than before. We do disagree on a lot of things but I know that we agree on other, really important ones.

 

I don't really want anyone to be in chains if they do not pose a risk of harm to other persons. Nor would I yank such a chain just to be mean. To subject your statements to a critical view does not mean that you, personally, are being attacked but if your statements can't stand such scrutiny then don't complain about it. You must realize that other persons probably have similar reactions to statements you make. It is possible that I have not interpreted your statements correctly. You must admit that you have not been clear.

 

You write of biological sense, moral judgements, nature (not God) as a designer, God as a creator, obscenity, heart, mind, soul, perversity, accountability, repentance, salvation, conscience, the natural, the supernatural, the spiritual, and then (curiously) logic. You throw these terms and concepts around as if you have the last word on their comprehension, but your carelessness in their use just compounds misinterpretation on top of error.

 

You condemn homosexuality in the florid terms that you seem to have cultivated for just such venues and then admit your ignorance in that you cannot comprehend why a man "would allow himself to succcumb to the perverse calling of homosexuality." That, at least, is an honest admission. If I see an incomprehensible morass of conflicting terms and usage, I submit that there is good reason.

 

Rooster, I and others in this forum have some understanding of your feelings on this subject. But your view, like the views of the rest of us, is just that - your own personal view. And an attempt to convince rational persons on faith-based arguments will only please those who already agree.

CubScouterFather is a person you don't know. Not really. You don't know me. You don't know many others in this forum. Not really. Yet you seem so quick to judge - harshly. That's the part I would really like to understand. Peace

[Rooster7]

1386, ahem, is in the 14th century, not the 12th.

 

Ooops. Right you are.

 

Rooster, after fussing with you all these times, I have to tell you that I do like you, perhaps more now than before. We do disagree on a lot of things but I know that we agree on other, really important ones.

 

ThanksI realize that we have come to agreement on some issues.

 

I don't really want anyone to be in chains if they do not pose a risk of harm to other persons. Nor would I yank such a chain just to be mean. To subject your statements to a critical view does not mean that you, personally, are being attacked but if your statements can't stand such scrutiny then don't complain about it. You must realize that other persons probably have similar reactions to statements you make. It is possible that I have not interpreted your statements correctly. You must admit that you have not been clear.

 

Despite my tone, I am not taking your words personally. My frustration lies in this It seems as if you (but mostly others) purposely misinterpret my statements to build straw man arguments or to refocus the argument on red herrings. But perhaps this is where I am in error. Perhaps its an honest misinterpretation due to my poor communication skills. I usually spend a little extra time composing my arguments to avoid that possibility. But then again, as youve already noted, I was two centuries behind the times in one of my references. So, I apologize if it this is the root cause of our misunderstanding.

 

You write of biological sense, moral judgments, nature (not God) as a designer, God as a creator, obscenity, heart, mind, soul, perversity, accountability, repentance, salvation, conscience, the natural, the supernatural, the spiritual, and then (curiously) logic. You throw these terms and concepts around as if you have the last word on their comprehension, but your carelessness in their use just compounds misinterpretation on top of error.

 

I disagree that Ive been careless with my words. None of these concepts contradict the reality of any of the others. God, nature (whos to say what is the driving force behind nature you can call it natural selection I can give credit to God Is it really important?), biology, heart, mind, soul, etcThese concepts are not mutually exclusive, nor are they confusing to me. I am not really sure where I have lost you. So, if you think Ive misused one of these terms, please be specific.

 

You condemn homosexuality in the florid terms that you seem to have cultivated for just such venues and then admit your ignorance in that you cannot comprehend why a man "would allow himself to succumb to the perverse calling of homosexuality." That, at least, is an honest admission. If I see an incomprehensible morass of conflicting terms and usage, I submit that there is good reason. .

 

When I said, I cannot comprehend why, I did not mean it literally. My statement was juxtaposed against my other statements, which was nature clearly designed a man and a woman to be together as biological mates, and not for a man to be with a man, or a woman to be with a woman. And just as clearly, we have a conscience. We have the capacity to make moral decisions that other animals do not. Given both of these truths, I cannot comprehend why a man would allow himself to succumb to the perverse calling of homosexuality. I do comprehend that every person has temptations. I dont personally understand a homosexuals temptations. I dont personally understand a pedophiles temptations. I dont personally understand how one could be tempted into incest. These are other peoples sins. Do you believe others are entitled or justified to behave as they please, because you do not personally understand how that persons desires came into existence?

 

I do understand how a man might be tempted into adultery. I know that an attractive woman has the ability to influence many men and she can turn many heads. I know, personally, that I struggle with this temptation (although, I have not acted on it). For the sake of argument, lets say you cannot relate to my last two sentences. You love your wife (as do I), but you cannot understand how any man could possibly be tempted into adultery or by any other kind of sexual immorality. However, does that mean you have no right to judge my behavior? Of course, not! Adultery is wrong even if you cant personally relate to this temptation. Yet, you can probably relate to some kind of temptation if not within the sexual realm, then by money or power or something else. The reality is, we all have sins. I dont have to be able to relate to every sin, to judge the behavior as wrong. If personal understanding is required by every person involved, before any moral judgment can be passed, we should abolish all laws.

 

Rooster, I and others in this forum have some understanding of your feelings on this subject. But your view, like the views of the rest of us, is just that - your own personal view. And an attempt to convince rational persons on faith-based arguments will only please those who already agree.

 

I contend, while I have mentioned God, all of my arguments have validity even if you are godless. We all have a conscience. We know homosexuality does not make biological sense. Which of the previous two sentences do you disagree with and why?

 

CubScouterFather is a person you don't know. Not really. You don't know me. You don't know many others in this forum. Not really. Yet you seem so quick to judge - harshly. That's the part I would really like to understand. Peace

 

CubScouterFather came on to this forum to make a grand statement about his homosexuality and how hes been cheated out of an experience with his son. His agenda was obvious. Intermingled within his tale were statements about this forum and how some folks can be judgmental. He set himself up to be a victim before I even made my first post. All of my statements have been viewed with his version of reality tainting my words and casting a false image of me and everyone else that views homosexuality as a perversion. He, like many homosexual activists, is smart. He knows that if hes ever going to gain acceptance by society, he not only has to convince people that he is acting morally, but also cast those that view him as immoral as being bigoted, hateful, or just plain ignorant. I have never made pointed statements concerning CubScouterFathers sexual behavior or his personal life. As youve noted, I dont know him. I have made pointed statements about homosexuality. I dont need to know CubScouterFather personally to judge homosexuality. And as others and I have stated on numerous occasions, we are judging the sin not the sinner. You are free to disregard that statement, but it is the truth. So, I do not view myself as being harsh. I am passionately opposed to the idea of calling immoral behavior a preference, or an alternate lifestyle, or an orientation. Actually, maybe I shouldnt voice my objection to the orientation label because we all have had or still have - an orientation to sin. The difference is, up until recently, few people had the nerve to call their sin a lifestyle. The only moral difference between homosexuality and other sexual perversities is the willingness of the participants. In our evolved state as a society, it seems that many believe that if theres no victim, then theres no crime no sin - no act of immorality. This same logic compels the ACUL to argue for the distribution of child pornography as a protected right. They seem to believe that since the actual crime was the picture taking, the distributor should not have his rights (i.e., free speech) violated for wanting to make money from that act of exploitation. Of course, they phrase their arguments in sterile legal terms, making the debate palatable for liberal fools to swallow.

 

No, I dont feel that Ive been harsh, just truthful.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[MarkNoel]

Rooster7 writes:

> CubScouterFather came on to this forum to make a grand statement about his homosexuality and how

> hes been cheated out of an experience with his son. His agenda was obvious.

 

His "agenda?" You mean, beyond engaging in the sort of discussion that this forum was created for?

 

Speaking of agendas, Rooster, do you recognize the following from one of your earlier posts?

 

> Until then, I intend to fight that proposed policy change with

> all my might. Should I see the day when the policy is changed, I intend

> to leave Scouting. BSA would simply become another organization crushed

> by political correctness and moral relativism.

 

It seems more than a bit disingenuous on your part to try and dismiss the statements of a newcomer because he showed up to the discussion with some sort of "agenda."

 

 

> Intermingled within his tale were statements about this forum and how some folks can be judgmental.

> He set himself up to be a victim before I even made my first post.

 

Are you suggesting that new posters never lurk or read the earlier threads?

 

I don't think it would be very difficult to find earlier posts of yours that could easily be construed as "judgmental." Something like the following, perhaps?

 

> It doesn't take a degree to understand that homosexuality is wrong.

> With or without religion, the coupling of two men or two women does not

> make biological sense. Nature did not design men to share sexual

> intimacy with one another. Nature did not design women to share sexual

> intimacy with one another. God create a man to be with a woman and a

> woman to be with a man. The idea of men pressing their flesh against

> one another is repulsive and obscene. If you consider these statements

> to be an attack, I'm sorry. I believe they represent common sense and

> the truth. I will not apologize for either.

 

 

And now back to your most recent post...

 

> All of my statements have been viewed with his version of reality tainting my words and casting a false

> image of me and everyone else that views homosexuality as a perversion. He, like many homosexual

> activists, is smart. He knows that if hes ever going to gain acceptance by society, he not only has to

> convince people that he is acting morally, but also cast those that view him as immoral as being bigoted,

> hateful, or just plain ignorant.

 

Rooster, you're not setting YOURSELF up as a victim here, are you? ;-)

 

 

> I have never made pointed statements concerning CubScouterFathers sexual behavior or his personal

> life. As youve noted, I dont know him. I have made pointed statements about homosexuality. I dont

> need to know CubScouterFather personally to judge homosexuality.

 

But that's the whole point. You don't know the man -- you just know one attribute (like religion or skin color) and then feel justified in making sweeping generalizations based on that. That's not a fair way to treat someone, and doesn't show much respect.

 

 

> I am

> passionately opposed to the idea of calling immoral behavior a preference, or an alternate lifestyle, or an > orientation. Actually, maybe I shouldnt voice my objection to the orientation label because we all

> have had or still have - an orientation to sin.

 

Interesting that we should be in pretty good agreement on this last point... I'm also passionately opposed to the "preference" or "alternate lifestyle" labels, but almost certainly not for the same reasons as you. "Preference" implies a choice, which is not consistent with the experience of any gay person I've ever met (myself included, of course). And "alternate lifestyle" not only implies a choice, but offers a sweeping generalization that trivializes sexual orientation and reinforces stereotypes that all gay people share some significant set of other attributes -- a stereotype that is neither supported by the research, or by my own personal experience (for whatever that's worth).

 

I think "orientation" is the proper way to describe someone's sexuality. I think we just differ strongly on what moral and ethical obligations an individual has when dealing with and living with his/her (non-heterosexual) sexual orientation.

 

YiS,

-Mark

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

"Preference" implies a choice, which is not consistent with the experience of any gay person I've ever met (myself included, of course)."

 

Being gay is a lifestyle - a chosen lifestyle. There is no proof that one is born gay.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[mk9750]

Rooster:

 

You needn't worry about your ability to communicate. You do fine. Packsaddle and others don't understand you because they start from a position of disagreeing with you. They have the same problem. They don't communicate well enough to make you understand either, because your position is almost diametricly opposed to theirs.

 

Packsaddle made a comment exactly on this point. He said "Rooster, I and others in this forum have some understanding of your feelings on this subject. But your view, like the views of the rest of us, is just that - your own personal view. And an attempt to convince rational persons on faith-based arguments will only please those who already agree." He's right. You're not going to convince them they are wrong, any more than they will convince you that you are wrong. And I think the reason for this is obvious: For people like you and me (and many others), Homosexuality was, is, and always will be wrong. For Packsaddle (and many others), homosexuality is not wrong. Only our appointment with death will allow any of us to know for sure who was right. Assuming God exists, assuming he judges homosexuality to be wrong, we will know that trying to uphold morality was the proper thing to do. If, on the other hand, we have been wrong, then our intolerance might be held against us. You and I know what we believe to be true. The only difference between us is that I sense you feel an obligation to help those people who don't see it our way to save their souls. I figure that if they have been given the chance to repent, and don't, their eternity will be of their own doing.

 

You do very well making your arguements (well, except for the 12th century thing!). don't let the fact that someone who is disinclined to accept what you say doesn't accept what you say.

 

Mark

 

[cjmiam]

Rooster,

 

You are extremely clear with your message and your thoughts are very well thought out. It may be that some do not like your message so they somehow want it to appear that you are unclear or contradictory. I re-read your posts several times and see nothing contradictory. The exact term that I thought of was they are not mutually exclusive. And then you posted those very words. Its apparent that you hit a nerve through faith and logic both. How dare you

 

cjmiam

 

[packsaddle]

Ed, .........did you just say that you're gay?

 

MK9750, I agree with the essence of your post. I am, however, just a little confused over the very last line.

 

General comment to all: Believe it or not, I once felt almost exactly as Rooster and others do. I changed my mind because I came to understand that I was wrong (I'm only human) and I accepted that. My native skepticism leads me to question everything. But I remain open to rational, objective arguments. Use this to your advantage. Pretend that I'm from Missouri. Persuade me with measurements, experimental evidence, objective observations that I can repeat independently with identical results.

[cjmiam]

Okay, you want a scientific experiment eh? Take one hundred professing gay guys and put them on an island. Make sure that they have all the essentials to sustain life such as food, water, and lodging. You can even provide them with extras such as cable, phones, Internet, etc. Leave them there for 50 years and then return. Now tell me what you think your experiment will show. Since I personally have not conducted such an experiment, I must admit that my hypothesis is only speculation. However, my theory is that the population will show grave signs of dieing off. While some individuals may still be alive, they will not have propagated their species. This experiment will show that the species is incapable of interbreeding to produce offspring and thus incapable of sustaining life or its society.

 

Heterosexuals do not require homosexuals to reproduce or sustain themselves, however, homosexuals do require heterosexuals or homosexuals from the opposite sex. If this sex were to be truly legitimate, should it not be able to multiply? The only way this species can multiply is by pretending to be something that it supposedly is not. Nature surely could not have purposely made a species incapable of regeneration. And if it did, should it not have died off thousands of years ago?

 

cjmiam

[Rooster7]

Persuade me with measurements, experimental evidence, objective observations that I can repeat independently with identical results.

 

I doubt if that's possible. Whether we are talking about homosexuality or pedophilia, morality cannot be measured or touched - it is an intangible, and to a large degree its spiritualbut very real nonetheless. If every child yearned for a sexual experience with an adult, and every physician, physiologist, and psychiatrist claimed that pedophilia was healthy for both child and adult, Id still scream out against it! How narrow minded of me! I know in my heart of hearts that it is evil. Unfortunately, it appears that much of society needs an expert to tell them what their heart, mind, and spirit should already know to be true. Just like love, hate, good and evil - while I cannot quantify morality (sin and righteousness) - I, and all other thinking beings, know that they exist.

 

Packsaddle,

 

I challenge you, just as I challenged CrewGirl, have that debate with God and see if you have the same opinion. I cant believe you could - unless you did more talking then listening.

 

CJ and Mark thanks for the support or at least, thats how Im taking it.

 

[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.

[packsaddle]

Merlyn beat me to the punch, thanks. I was going to add that an experiment also requires a control...not mentioned.

 

But it brought to mind a favorite poster of mine: An extraterrestrial zoo - with worm-like organisms observing cages, each cage with a single human in it. One worm says to the other, "They're an interesting species but they're difficult to propagate. When you cut them in half they just die."

It doesn't have much to do with the topic but I liked it.

[CubScouterFather]

Rooster,

 

Honestly, I never set out to do anything other than share my frustration of wanting to have my son participate in Scouting and finding out that the BSA actively prohibits my involvement. When I first pulled the flyer out of my sons backpack, a red flag went up to check current BSA policy so I didnt set myself up for confrontation by quickly volunteering my time which is such a weird oxymoron. From reading the BSAs policies, it didnt sound like a problem but, when I started reading the current buzz from BSAs members online, I realized that was not the case. I also noticed that some members were still basing their fear of homosexuals on incomplete and consequently misleading information. I can leave someone to their own beliefs but when that belief turns into God-granted permission to slander, oppress or harm anyone thats where they cross the line.

 

This is a Forum, a forum under the subtitles of Issues & Politics and Scoutings Real Gay Policy. I came here for insight. I wasnt getting the whole story from the BSA (which is very disappointing) so yes, I read the whole thread. I am very trusting but I am also very curious to know both sides of any issue especially if I dont agree. I thought this would be the right place to vent my opinion instead of venting to my sons den leader, if they find one.

 

Victim is it my illusion, or am I forbidden to enlist my services in the BSA based solely on the fact that Im Gay? If you or your child were excluded for no other reason other than something neither of you could change wouldnt you fight to stop such senseless discrimination?

 

I am well aware of Biblical condemnation of homosexuality I accept full responsibility for my decision to stop lying. I am okay with that. I know that I have never had a hetero thought in my life so I can only presume that God made me this way. Ive only been this way so I have no idea what it would be like to be hetero. I am very happy with being me I was not happy pretending to be heterosexual, nor was my wife. I grew up in a very hetero family and found it very frustrating when I didnt relate and didnt dare say a word for fear of loosing their love. I suffered the same repulsion toward heterosexual intimacy as you have expressed toward homosexual intimacy. I had to LEARN the mechanics of sex with a woman there was nothing natural about it! I had to cover up the repulsion to protect my wifes heart. She deserved to be held passionately to be wanted I couldnt fake that. After my divorce, I met my partner and my soul sang! I could just be me - and, we've never had problems with biology not working. The thought of him makes my heart smile and when I am with him, God's love and blessing is evident all around us. God has shown me true love - and the ancient text you quote falls impotently mute in His presence.

 

It's no longer what I've read or what I've been told - it's now what I've witnessed and what I know in my heart to be true. How can you fault me for that?

[packsaddle]

Rooster, sorry, I missed your challenge. How is it that you know that I have not already done this? How is it that you know me that well? How is it that you know the answer I arrived at is so inferior to yours? If I have done this already and gotten a different answer from yours, would you be satisfied?