Now that we disagree, can we agree?

[Weekender]

DD,

 

Keep up the good fight. Many (I think Most) of us are behind you. The BSA is a place of moral fortitude not depravity.

[tjhammer]

The whole point of this thread when I started it was because the first thread had already reached a point that I knew was inevitable: disagreement on the immorality of homosexuality. The point of this thread was not to debate all over again using the exact same arguments; it was to start a new debate on a possible resolution.

 

However, since you insist, DedDad, prove homosexuality is immoral. And do so without: (1) stating your opinion; (2) linking it to some other act; (3) invoking your religion or (4) speaking for others.

 

You have demanded that your opponents prove that homosexuality is moral. I concede, I cannot. I cannot prove to you that it is moral. I believe it is not immoral, you believe it is. That's been my point from the beginning, that morality is subjective (you strongly disagree with this, but I again challenge you to prove otherwise within the parameters listed above).

 

The very fact that (I believe) you can not prove the immorality of homosexuality (no more than I can prove that it's not immoral without using one or more of the techniques listed above) is the essence of why I suggested that the exclusion of gays should be a standard lowered to the local unit level.

 

So, DedDad (or others), in addition to proving the immorality of homosexuality, I would also ask that you return to the original debate of this thread, and provide specific reasons why the standard should not be lowered to the chartering partner and parents at the local unit level. (Please give specific reasons why this is a bad idea.)

 

(This post has been edited by tjhammer.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dedicated Dad]

The point of this thread was not to debate all over again using the exact same arguments; it was to start a new debate on a possible resolution. And yet you did! However, since you insist, DedDad, prove homosexuality is immoral. And do so without: (1) stating your opinion; (2) linking it to some other act; (3) invoking your religion or (4) speaking for others. Heheheany other capriccios conditions, stand on my head, tie one arm behind my back?

 

Homosexuality, by definition, is perversion. Youre welcome to write your own dictionary if you want to however I dont think that many would consider it very factual. Homosexuality or same-sex sodomy, is an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus. The condition of being perverted is to cause to turn aside or away from what is good, right and true and this intrinsically conflicts with the definition of moral. In math, theorems are proven by using definitions, but Im going to guess you dont put much stock in math, too many absolutes,right?

[Rooster7]

The point of this thread was not to debate all over again using the exact same arguments; it was to start a new debate on a possible resolution.

 

tjhammer,

 

You're not going to find common ground. For most of us (those who strongly oppose homosexuality on moral grounds), to compromise on this issue, is to surrender. As DD has tried to explain on numerous occasions, you might as well propose a resolution that includes bestiality, incest, and prostitution. Does that sound insane? Well, now you know how we feel about your proposed resolution. The fact is, you've never come to grips with the idea that we find the behavior to be repulsive and unacceptable, so much so, that we refuse to have our children join an organization (at any level) that would accept that behavior as being moral. We are not going to expose our children to unrepentant practitioners of perversion, at least not knowingly. These are strong words. Nevertheless, they are merely words of someone who believes in God, country, and family. Something BSA taught me not so long ago. They reflect the same values that this country embraced for more than 200 years. Why should we change one iota? I like the organization just as it is, and I intend to fight to keep it that way.

 

[Dedicated Dad]

 

 

The very fact that (I believe) you can not prove the immorality of homosexuality (no more than I can prove that it's not immoral without using one or more of the techniques listed above) is the essence of why I suggested that the exclusion of gays should be a standard lowered to the local unit level. Im going to assume by the time I write this you will have summarily rejected proof by definition, I guess definitions can be relative too if morality is relative. So lets add definitions to your list of capricious conditions. Now we have (1) opinion (2) parallel (3) religion (4) testimonial and now (5) definition. However, I would propose that you are close minded to any legitimate way to demonstrate the truth as it pertains to the practice of perversion being immoral But, regardless of your arbitrary conditions for proof, the fact remains, verification by congruence IS a legitimate way to demonstrate proof IFF and only IFF the integrity of the congruence is true for each and every example. So let me start you off, homosexuality is more moral than incest because ____. I would also ask that you return to the original debate The original debate as you have framed it assumes moral relativity as legitimate means to resolve the issue and that feign premise has only one resolution, total rejection. provide specific reasons why the standard should not be lowered to the chartering partner and parents at the local unit level. Specifically, Lowering Standards is bad because the BSA is an elite organization with High Standards and debasing its principles dishonors its integrity.

 

[Rooster7]

Specifically, Lowering Standards is bad because the BSA is an elite organization with High Standards and debasing its principles dishonors its integrity.

 

There it is...In a nutshell (no offense intended DD ). Well said!

[berkshirescouter]

Let me add one thing. The BSA standards also consider it not moral to discuss ones sexuality. Ergo any person who makes his sexual activity known in a public forum is not moral. That is the definition of avowed.

[dan]

I have been following these threads in the Issue forum.

There has been something bothering me about these and I could not figure it out until last night, it seems that some of the people I see debating only post in this forum. I never see them in any of the other forums on this board. It makes me wondering if they are really scouters! or just someone trying to stir things up.

Also waiting to see the comeback for the dictonary!

[NJCubScouter]

dan says:

 

There has been something bothering me about these and I could not figure it out until last night, it seems that some of the people I see debating only post in this forum. I never see them in any of the other forums on this board. It makes me wondering if they are really scouters! or just someone trying to stir things up.

 

You can't be talking about me, I have been on here less than a week and my third post was in the Uniforms area, about the new Webelos hat. (My son's verdict: More comfortable, but why is it so ugly?) As for really being a Scouter, I just got back from district roundtable? Or maybe you can help me with my recharter forms, our former Cubmaster seems to have made a mess of things...

[slontwovvy]

Again, everyone, stand up and applaud DD.

 

The BSA does not attempt to discover the sexual orientation of its leaders. It is only if they are trying to spread their propaganda that they are denied membership. I think that we agree that Scouts should not learn in-depth details about their leaders' sex lives. Where, then, is your case?

[Pioneer DC]

Morality, by its very nature, implies a standard for right and wrong. Like it or not, our Country's laws are founded on Judeo-Christian principles and those are the principles that should define morality as far as BSA is concerned. The real issue and why we will never agree here. We have two sides here: one that believes in absolute moral standards and the other that believes in moral relativism - meaning no standards at all except for what each person defines for himself. These two positions are mutually exclusive, plain and simple, and that is why we will never agree here.

Maybe we should discuss the merits of a relativistic approach to morals and debate the pros and cons of that.

[Pioneer DC]

By the way, DD - I'm 100% behind you. Your position makes absolute sense to me and I fully agree. I'm proud to be a Scouter and donate all the time I do because of BSA's stand on principle.

[tjhammer]

Wow, sorry for the long post. I stepped away from the debate for almost a full day and now have lots to respond to.

 

Before I begin, I'd like to state that my family and coworkers are starting to get grumpy about the amount of time I'm spending on this issue. I agree (in fact I champion the thought) that arguing over gays in Scouting is such an insignificant thing when compared to the awesome value of the real important aspects of Scouting. Most people are nott affected by the policy in any real way, but there are many that are deeply affected. Many good and decent boys and leaders. On principle (and even if I'm a lonely voice on this board), I will continue to try and stand by the principles that caused me to initiate the discussion.

 

I have raised only two distinct issues on this forum: (1) defining the real BSA policy and debating the statement that gays are immoral, and (2) contending that any such debate is a quagmire that boils down to unwavering conflicting opinions, and proposing that local discretion is the only resolution out of the quagmire.

 

I stand by each of the ten points I made to open this post, and would love to move away from the quagmire of whether gays are immoral (for no reason other that it is a quagmire and everyones opinions are already well known on that issue) and focus the debate to the merits of those original ten points. Nonetheless, I will respond to questions that have been presented to me:

 

I said: However, since you insist [that I prove homosexuality is moral], DedDad, prove homosexuality is immoral. And do so without: (1) stating your opinion; (2) linking it to some other act; (3) invoking your religion or (4) speaking for others.

 

DedDad said: Hehehe... any other capriccios conditions, stand on my head, tie one arm behind my back? These were the same conditions that you have continually placed on others and me; you summarily disregard my opinion or the fact that my religion might not agree with yours. There's no double standard in asking you to follow those rules in proving the immorality of gays.DedDad said: Homosexuality, by definition, is perversion.You then go on to regurgitate the definition of perversion (not the definition of homosexuality). You make the link that "by definition homosexuality is perversion". By whose definition? Yours? Some churches, but not others?

 

Why cant we just say, "by definition homosexuality is different than heterosexuality"? Why is the word "perverted" a better choice than the word "different"? If one were to read your post only causally, it would seem that you had done some research and were citing empirical evidence, but in fact, you can't support your argument without making a non-sequitur (linking gay life as a perversion, and attaching the negative stigma to that word).DedDad said:The original debate as you have framed it assumes moral relativity as legitimate means to resolve the issueYes, moral relativity is one of the strongest positions from which I have argued, and I stand by the fact that what is moral to you may be immoral to me. But it is more than just our relative perspectives on morality. I would have a much easier time arguing that murder, or bestiality, or prostitution, or drug use or even lying are immoral than I would arguing that gays are immoral. Someone is inherently hurt or taken advantage of in each of the first five behaviors; no one is inherently hurt when a loving gay couple forms a committed long-term relationship. No one.

 

I have no doubt that DedDad and many others with the zeal to post in this section of the forum (though I do challenge those that unsubstantially claim "nearly everyone" else) believe that gay life automatically equals perversion and perversion automatically equals immorality. Many others believe that this is not an automatic sequitur. You are certainly entitled to your opinion; I don't expect to influence it.DedDad said: However, I would propose that you are close minded to any legitimate way to demonstrate the truth as it pertains to the practice of perversion being immoralI do not accept that gay life is inherently perverted. And "the truth" is a very, very subjective thing to you, whether you admit it or not. You believe in one truth, and that is the one handed you by your religion and the influencing factors in your life. You are not interested in the fact that I consider something completely opposite to be the truth. We covered this in the previous thread, when I asked how it was possible that God could give me one truth and you another, and how you would answer a boy in your troop who might ask that very question of you. Is it just as simple as you are right and I am wrong?

 

DedDad, I have asked if you actually know any gay couples? Or gay people? I have assumed that you do not, given your very staunch opposition to gays and your stereotypical view of the lifestyle. Your tendency to cast gays as evil makes me suspect you may have at least one very serious and very unfortunate example in your past of an evil person who affected you or someone close to you; if that is the case, it was because the person was evil, not because they were gay.I said: provide specific reasons why the standard should not be lowered to the chartering partner and parents at the local unit level.

 

DedDad said: Specifically, "Lowering Standards" is bad because the BSA is an elite organization with "High Standards" and debasing its principles dishonors its integrity. Thank you, I appreciate at least an acknowledgement of the specific question of this thread. And your statement is very well said.

 

However, (knew there had to be a however, didn't you?), I do not concede that allowing gays to continue serving in Scouting leadership roles inherently debases the principles or dishonors the integrity of the organization. In fact, I am more inclined to believe the hypocrisy of this policy does more to compromise our organizational integrity.

 

And "lowering the standard" is a peculiar turn of words when used out of context.

 

I believe there is no difference between a normal, healthy and moral gay person and a normal, healthy and moral straight person. I am suggesting that the standard (in this case agreement or disagreement with my previous statement) must be interpreted and enforced at the local level by parents.Rooster7 said: You're not going to find common ground. For most of us (those who strongly oppose homosexuality on moral grounds), to compromise on this issue, is to surrender. Yes, I recognize that. And thats very unfortunate for us as an organization. Some people who disagree with you feel just as strongly. Many more who disagree with you might not share the passion that either you or I bring to the debate, but nonetheless feel the sting of being a part of a policy they believe to be foolish or wrong.

 

Rooster, I have no doubt that this policy won't stand the test of time. I believe that there are too many people that dont see the inherent immorality in gays for the policy to stand. I also recognize that there are significant generational pressures that will eventually come to bear. It may take a while to change, but it will change. Even some of the people who feel as strongly as you have acknowledged on this board that they believe the end of this policy to be a (paraphrasing) "sad, but true fact".

 

I just searched and read a Gallup Poll from May of last year: 52% of Americans said that they personally believe that gays live an acceptable alternative lifestyle. (Interestingly, 74% of that same group of people thought that they would be well into the minority with their opinion).

 

My concern is in how poorly we as an organization have handled this whole issue. The BSA traditionally has a terrible sense or public relations as it is, and I feel they really fumbled this issue more than any other. They have boxed themselves and a lot of people into a very tight corner, and now any change in the policy will be seen as surrender".

 

Many people on this forum have stated that they will "leave Scouting" if the policy is changed. Most who have claimed this will, in fact, not follow through. Some of those will be simply hypocrites, but most of those who stay will do so because they come to realize that the change in policy doesn't really affect them at all. They will notice no difference in their daily and weekly Scouting lives. No difference, that is, except the sharp pain of having waged a battle and "surrendered" their "principles". The BSA is quickly closing into a no win situation: if they maintain the policy or if they change it, both ways will now cause further harm to the organization. Thats not being an idealist, thats being a realist.Rooster7 said: The fact is, you've never come to grips with the idea that we find the behavior to be repulsive and unacceptableRooster, you are right. And you cannot come to grips with the idea that others members of this organization do not find the behavior to be repulsive or unacceptable. That's been my point throughout this entire thread. We both completely disagree on this issue. Now what are we going to do about it?Rooster7 said: ... strong words. Nevertheless, they are merely words of someone who believes in God, country, and family.I believe in God, country and family, and I believe in the Scouting movement that raised me. John Ashcroft was on TV making a speech last night (hes a good man for whom I have done campaign work in the past (shocked DedDad?); he and I agree on much more than we disagree on, though Im sure we share different views on the morality of gays). He was questioned on whether, as a Pentecostal minister he allowed his strong religious convictions to influence how he performs his job. His response was fantastic, when he said simply my religion does not teach me to force my religion onto others. I believe that judgement of others according to your religion is at the heart of your arguments.Dan said: it seems that some of the people I see debating only post in this forum. I never see them in any of the other forums on this board. It makes me wondering if they are really scouters! or just someone trying to stir things up. I'll assume you mean me. I am a frequent visitor to this site, and have been for years. I read the forums here, and have participated outside of the Politics section, though not enough.

 

I was drawn into this debate for one simple reason: a month ago an outside agitator was on this board and raised this debate... (I believe the preferred name assigned to him by some on this board was "troll"). I found many of his arguments to be detached from Scouting and incongruent, and it was not difficult for folks like DedDad to cast the "troll" as an irrelevant outsider (I use the word troll only as reference, I found it completely unScoutlike (and weak) to be calling each other names, and have avoided lowering myself to that level throughout the course of my participation in this current debate).

 

I chose to take up the debate because I was very much an insider to Scouting, and I very much disagreed with DedDad and some of the others. I wanted the people reading these posts that agree with my point of view to have a more credible voice in which to relate.

 

Of course, some of my opponents have attempted to label me as nothing but an agitator or discredit me. Anyone reading my posts should find casual comments of my Scouting credentials and experience... I assure you mine are no less than my opponents in this debate, and likely my Scouting credentials and experience are considerably more extensive (this is not a challenge to prove my dossier is bigger than yours, its simply a qualified response).

 

[slontwovvy]

"I believe there is no difference between a normal, healthy and moral gay person and a normal, healthy and moral straight person."

 

Except for the fact that one likes the same sex cannot procreate, and is not allowed in the BSA, while the other can procreate, likes the other sex, and is approved by multiple religious books. Hmm...those sound like differences to me....and that's just the start....

[Rooster7]

Rooster7 said: You're not going to find common ground. For most of us (those who strongly oppose homosexuality on moral grounds), to compromise on this issue, is to surrender. Yes, I recognize that. And that's very unfortunate for us as an organization. Some people who disagree with you feel just as strongly. Many more who disagree with you might not share the passion that either you or I bring to the debate, but nonetheless feel the sting of being a part of a policy they believe to be foolish or wrong.

 

That's interesting, but "your side" per BSA policy is the wrong side. This may be unfortunate for your "group" (whoever you feel you are representing), but I don't think it is unfortunate for the organization - BSA. In fact, I'm not convinced that a change in policy is inevitable, as you have suggested. I realize that your tactic, or at least the tactic of homosexual activists, is to wear the other side down. However, more and more good people are realizing this fact as well. It may be a matter of time when folks like me don't have to argue so hard because we'll be preaching to the choir. If I'm wrongwell, time and God will reveal the truth for all to see.