Now that we disagree, can we agree?

[tjhammer]

DedDad said:I didnt say it is MY truth and I didnt say it was GIVEN at creationTalk about picking and choosing your words. An intrinsic truth that existed since creation cant be interpreted by any reasonable and reverent person to mean anything but God given. Are you suggesting that "creation" was not by God's hand?

 

I realize there are many supporters on this board of your point of view on the issue of gays in Scouting. You have been the most vocal defender of that point of view on these threads. With all due respect to those people who agree with your point of view, I believe you have done them a disservice by contorting words, calling names, and leveling false accusations. I recognize you will accuse me of the same, but I'm comfortable with every word I've written and being judged by the same standard.

 

I ask you again: retract or defend your statement that I am a liar, and explain how you used a dictionary to define homosexuality as immoral (when neither word appears in that source in the definition of "perverted"). Until you do so, please forgive me if I crassly suggest you lack the credibility to continue to debate.

 

I cannot see the automatic sequitur that homosexual inherently means perverted and that perverted inherently means immoral.

 

Maybe a better way to focus the debate right to the core is to ask you to please again explain the definitive source of the basic premise that homosexuality equals perversion and perversion equals immorality and that immorality should be ban from Scouting. I do not believe it is possible to do without stating opinion, to which there is significnat counter opinion.

 

Without intending to "put words in your mouth", I believe you have rejected or failed to prove all of these sources that we have previously discussed: God, religion, Baden-Powell, public opinion, dictionary.

 

It seems to me that until we identify the source for deeming gays immoral, we'll never get beyond the current quagmire of debate.

 

 

Rooster, I will respond to your challenge too, but please give me some time to read through all my previous posts on the other thread. I'm certain that I have already directly answered, in context, the question you pose. And I would rather just cut and paste, where appropriate.

 

[cjmiam]

Tjhammer:

 

You stated, I disagree. I believe the only way the policy will change is if the 900,000 adult leaders and 3.2 million parents of the organization realize exactly what the policy is and that they have an opportunity to affect change if they so desire.

 

We do know what the policy is and we like it that way. Thats why we support our program. Thats why we continue to enroll our kids in the program. Thats why our communities and other organizations overwhelmingly continue to support us. Dont you get it? We choose to stand by the BSA as it currently is. We dont want it changed!

 

You stated, We can't. The BSA corporation has a monopoly protected by the US Congress to operate the program of the worldwide Scouting Movement within the USA.

 

Come on! So start something else, rename it something else. I was trying to help you all come up with a name, but all I could come up with was Gay Guys that Like to Camp with Boys Organization of America or something like that

 

Here, maybe if I sing some more it will help you think

 

My native country, thee,

land of the noble free,

thy name I love;

I love thy rocks and rills,

thy woods and templed hills;

my heart with rapture thrills

like that above.

 

Now, go do the right thing.

Dr. Laura

 

Animatedly, cjmiam

 

[Dedicated Dad]

Since youve had so much trouble understanding this definition I thought you may want some help. Homosexuality, by definition, is perversion. This is the theorem part. Homosexuality or same-sex sodomy, These are the same thing, the quality or state of being homosexual is of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex. So if youre with me, Homosexuality=Same-sex sodomy. Good so far? is an aberrant sexual practiceThis is the same-sex sodomy part. especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus. This is pretty self-explanatory. I think we can agree on this, right?

The condition of being pervertedThis comes directly from the definition of perversion. is to cause to turn aside or away from what is good, right and true And this is the definition to pervert. and this intrinsically conflicts with the definition of moral. Conflict here means in contradiction to, or the opposite of moral and therefore immoral. But, for you, all this depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

But this definition is not really necessary because Ive additionally proven the practice of perversion is congruent with incest and bestiality. Remember geometry, two triangles are congruous if each and ever attribute is in agreement?

 

[tjhammer]

cjmiam says: We do know what the policy is and we like it that way. Thats why we support our program. Thats why we continue to enroll our kids in the program. Thats why our communities and other organizations overwhelmingly continue to support us. Dont you get it? We choose to stand by the BSA as it currently is. We dont want it changed! cjmiam, haven't we already covered this? You are essentially suggesting that the only real reason people join Scouting is because Scouting bans gays. That's silly.

 

[tjhammer]

Homosexuality, by definition, is perversion.

 

This is the theorem part.No, that's the "theory" part. Your Webster dictionary defining perversion doesn't even make that statement. You do.

 

And then you make another leap that all perversion is immoral, again without a source.because Ive additionally proven the practice of perversion is congruent with incest and bestialityAre we back to that again? How is there moral equivalency between gays and incest and bestiality? I have already discredited bestiality as immoral because, unlike homosexuality, man must by definition take advantage of beast (beast is not capable of sentient moral consent). And I have conceded to you that I cannot demonstrate the immorality of incest (regardless of my opinion that it is). You're trying to prove the immorality of gays through a "guilt by false association" technique that I find very difficult to follow.

 

Once again, to regain your credibility in this debate, please retract or defend that I am a liar, and explain your definitive source that supports both of the "leaps" in the logic of your theorems.

 

[Dedicated Dad]

Talk about picking and choosing your words. Yes carefully An intrinsic truth that existed since creation cant be interpreted by any reasonable and reverent person to mean anything but God given. Yes, my implied that it is a personal moral system and I reject any such existence there of and given is a reference to divine action and not the period of time between creation and any establishment of RELIGION which was my intent. Are you suggesting that "creation" was not by God's hand? Of course not. Further, I will retract nothing because you know very well your intent was to deceive and was to qualify my statement as being religiously grounded. You are disingenuous in your interpretation of events.

 

 

 

[tjhammer]

Rooster, here is an excerpt from the other post that I would refer to answer the question you have posed again here about my thoughts on absolute morality:Rooster7 said: So if a nation, like somewhere in the Middle East wanted to treat their women like second-class citizens. That would be morally acceptable if 51% of nation agreed.

 

No, you unfairly equate my statement to mean "simple majority" rules. Its no more appropriate for that country to treat its women as second-class citizens than it is for the BSA to treat homosexuals that way. And not just because 51% of the rest of the world believes it to be wrong. As I have already argued with you in a separate thread, I believe morality is relative. Some morals come closer to absolute morality than others (like basic human rights).

 

As I have said in the other thread, some mores are almost universal, while others are so relative as to not resemble mores but rather choices. Murder is almost so universally shunned that you might be tempted to argue the case for absolute morality. But homosexuality? Thats so controversial you wont get a consensus, thus showing the utter relativity of the question. Most people hold some things to be absolute. But you cant use that fact to argue all morality is always absolute, or that no morality is relative.

 

And so ultimately we look to our common cause, our common purpose in Scouting. It is certainly not to teach the immorality of gays. In fact, it isnt even to teach a particular sectarian view.

 

Im willing to bet youve never been to a world jamboree, and sat in an outdoor arena with 50,000 Scouts from every corner of the globe. Its an awesome feeling of brotherhood that rises above nations, politics and religion. I can think of no better example of the real purpose of Scouting than the feeling that comes across you in that situation. I would only add to that statement by referring again to Baden-Powells quote from near the time of his death:"[scouting's] aim is to produce healthy, happy, helpful citizens, of both sexes, to eradicate the prevailing narrow self interest, personal, political sectarian and national, and to substitute for it a broader spirit of self-sacrifice and service in the cause of humanity," Baden-Powell wrote in one of his last communications.

 

[tjhammer]

I said: "You have said 'homosexuality is wrong because it is an intrinsic truth given at the time of creation'

 

DedDad then said: You are a liar! (etc, etc, etc).

 

I then referred to where I quoted you:

 

I said: Who or what is the "standard bearer" for your statement that homosexuality is immoral and should not be allowed in Scouting?

 

DedDad said: Its not a who or a what, it is an intrinsic truth that existed before religion and from the time of our creation. Didn't you bother to read anything Ive written?It seems there was never a debate over me inserting an extra word "my". I have, however, in separate posts suggested that what you know to be the "truth" is inconsistent with something I know to the "truth", perhaps thats where you are making the connection.

 

It appears your only basis for attacking me as a liar (and shaming me, etc etc) was that I inserted the words "given at" before your word "creation". I believe any person who believes God created man would have to accept that the word "given" is implied, and does not change the meaning of your statement one bit.

 

I will not continue restating my question of your credibility to debate beyond this post. Doing so is petty and focuses the debate on an individual instead of the issue. However, for one last time, to regain your credibility in this debate, please retract or defend that I am a liar, and explain your definitive source that supports both of the "leaps" in the logic of your theorems.

[NJCubScouter]

Bob Russell, who I take it is a fellow attorney, says:

 

The application that I signed a long time ago contained no policy regarding homosexuals that I recall.

 

Nor did the one I signed less than 2 years ago (after the Dale decision.) Nor does the one that I had our new committee chairman sign last week. It's just not there.

 

So to determine the exact rules and policies that we are to follow, I went to the BSA website and searched it for BSA's policy regarding homosexuals. I confess I could not find one. Imagine that, the most important policy in the public eye and it's not clearly set out on the website for all to see. I would think that this important policy would be easier to find. Maybe I'm just missing it.

 

Having gone to the BSA web site several times over the last year or so, I can tell you that there have probably been two postings (prior to the one this month) that have stated the BSA's position. (I wouldn't exactly call it a policy, although that's the word everyone uses.) There was a piece on "60 minutes" at some point, and the BSA web site included a bunch of documents to refute what they apparently felt was the "slant" of the story. These documents stated the same litany of gays not being a good role model for the traditional values expressed in the Oath and Law. NOWHERE do they explain which exact words in the oath and law support their position. The explanation has at times been so convoluted and vague that I wondered if they were doing it on purpose to throw people off. The writing was so bad, it was "good," in the sense that some lawyers use and abuse the language to attain their ends. It's too bad you didn't get to see these documents, you might have "enjoyed" them. Maybe they are still there, I haven't looked.

 

And I will confess, I've never seen it in writing anywhere.

 

The only place I have seen it is on the website as I mentioned; in reading the Dale decisions by the S.Ct. and N.J. S.Ct., as well as a few other cases I have gotten off the Internet; and that's really it. There was a letter from my council executive and president in one of our council newsletters, but I think it mainly referred to the policy without really stating what it was. There have been a few oblique references in Scouting magazine.

 

But much more interesting is where the policy isn't stated. It is not in the Cub Scout Leader Book, 2001 edition, which is the official guide for me as a Cub leader. That book has page after page of policies and rules, on youth protection, safe scouting, smoking and drinking, camping, fundraising, handling of money and a myriad of other topics. Not a word on what, as you suggest, is the subject that most often defines what people outside Scouting think of the organization today.

 

Not only that, it was never mentioned in my training, which as I said, occurred after Dale. There have been a few offhand references at roundtables, mostly in an attempt to explain why the United Way has de-funded my council and so we need a big push for Friends of Scouting.

 

Perhaps most interesting to me is the fact that I, as a leader, have never received a single word from the BSA stating what I am supposed to do if an avowedly gay person applies for a leadership position. Nor has anyone else in my unit, including the institution head, c.r., c.c. or unit leader. (That actually is sort of an assumption; we are a very small leadership group and I have to think that if such a directive had been received, I would know about it.) In other words, the B.S.A. has never informed my unit of this policy, or how it is to be carried out. I really only know about it from the media (of which the Internet is a part.) It is conceivable that there are some leaders somewhere who actually don't know about it. And as far as I am concerned, I don't officially know about it either. (Not that the subject has come up, and if it did, I don't think I could ignore what I actually know. What I would actually do, I'm not sure.)

 

It would therefore appear that unless a person declares assuredly or declares openly, bluntly and without shame that he/she is homosexual, the policy expressed in the press release is not violated. Would everyone here agree?

 

I absolutely agree. And I think it undercuts the logic of the whole policy, especially when you consider some of the comments we see on this forum. Apparently the BSA thinks "perversion" is ok if you keep it a secret. Frankly, as a parent, if I had a choice between an openly gay person or someone who kept their orientation repressed and had to constantly lie when asked why they weren't married or whatever, I would choose the former. It seems more healthy. But the BSA policy does not excluded closeted gays from being leaders, only those who are openly gay.

 

And could anyone help me out here and point me to a clear official written statement of the BSA policy.

 

Please let me know, too, but having been involved in many discussions of this topic on AOL and the Internet, I have to think someone would have pointed it out to me long ago. Since I have looked in the likely places (mentioned above) and it is not there, I have to conclude that it does not exist. What's on the web site, including documents that may be difficult to find (because the BSA's web site design leaves something to be desired) is the closest you are going to get. And I wouldn't call it a "clear official written statement" of the policy.

 

[ScouterPaul]

Dedicated Dad

You have indirectly implied that I am an immoral person. You have relied on definitions, provided by the Merriam Websters Dictionary, of several words. I must make a confession I am an avowed married (20 years) hetrosexual with absolutely no homosexual tendacies. However bason on your logic and reliance upon definitions I am immoral.

 

You stated ""Homosexuality"=same-sex sodomy" based on definition I agree. You also stated "is an aberrant sexual practice" again based on definition I agree. You then stated "especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus."

 

Based on your strict reliance on definitions many of the current BSA leadership would be expelled for being immoral.

 

According to the Tenth Edition ot The Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary the definiton of sodomy is 1: copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2: non coital and esp. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposit sex

 

Aberrant 1: straying from the right or normal way 2: deviating from the usual or natural type

 

Coitus - physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usu. leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproduction tract

 

Allow me to apologize for the following:

My wife and I practice oral copulation, coitus interruptus and utilize the use of condoms. I believe that based on definitions this would make me guilty of sodomy and a habitual practitioner of other than normal coitus.

 

I believe that once again based on definiton this would make me perverted. I am offended that you would accuse me of being in agreement with incest and bestiality.

[Bob White]

Lawyers? Lawyers?!! Ther are lawyers in this string?!! No wonder this has drawn on so long.

 

:-)

 

 

This is my final post in this string. I think I've made my point without the meandering that others have fallen into.

 

For years now the paragraph just above the signature line says that the undersigned agrees to the rules and policies of the BSA if you recent application did not have that paragraph it is possible that your unit is using old applications.

 

Tj I hope if you are an adult that you completed a membership application after you turned 18. If not, save yourself some time and don't. You would violate the character of scouting that you seem so determined to defend.

 

[cjmiam]

Tjhammer:

 

You state, cjmiam, haven't we already covered this? You are essentially suggesting that the only real reason people join Scouting is because Scouting bans gays. That's silly.

 

I believe we discussed it, but I dont think you understand.

 

The BSA is not your local shopping club.

The BSA is a values based program.

The BSA has membership standards.

The BSA is a private organization.

The reason the BSA is successful is because it is the most complete character education program available in the world.

People apply for membership in the BSA, because of everything it represents which includes traditional family values.

Its because of people like you that we have the so many government regulations and red tape. Everything has to be spelled out letter for letter. Again, back to what the meaning of the word is is. If you cant accept the fact that the BSA doesn't allow gays, maybe it is because a Scout is kind and not in your face. If the BSA never drew attention to the fact that they didnt allow gays, maybe it was because we state what we do believe instead of condemning and attacking others. For instance we believe in traditional family values. I've noticed that you have trouble with definitions, so let me know if I need to explain what that means.

 

We simply state what we believe and you and others wont accept that. Well, Im sorry, but we have the right to believe what we want. We are living in America after all. And if you havent heard yet, we have the ability to freely associate with whomever we darn well choose. I choose the BSA the way it is, has been, and always will be.

 

Now, lets sing

 

Let music swell the breeze,

and ring from all the trees

sweet freedom's song;

let mortal tongues awake,

let all that breathe partake,

let rocks their silence break,

the sound prolong.

 

Animatedly, cjmiam

 

Now go do the right thing Dr. Laura

 

[Bob Russell]

NJCubScouter, yes, I am an attorney. You too. Well I guess there goes the Neighborhood.

 

Bob White, you asked about the application statement of obeying policies and rules. I haven't looked at the adult application recently, but I don't doubt it's there. It should be. But my question remains - what is the policy? NJ can't find a clear statement, nor can I. I am still waiting for assistance from all of you who vigorously defend the policy that I can't seem to find. Please help!

 

ScouterPaul, you have correctly pointed out that Dedicated Dad's definition has made most heterosexual couples deviants, whom I presume cannot have the proper moral foundation to be Scouters. DD, does your troop ask about this to each new adult considered for leadership? Even better, how do people respond?

[slontwovvy]

Amazing, freedom of association, which is just as much a constitutional right as our own beloved freedom of speech, seems to be counting less and less. The BSA has the right to exclude whomever they want, whenever they want, and for whatever reason they want. Checkmate. Enough said.

 

Just my two cents--the 60 Minutes was pretty slanted away from the BSA too.

[Dedicated Dad]

 

It appears your only basis for attacking me as a liar (and shaming me, etc etc) was that I inserted the words "given at" before your word "creation". More untruths, how sad you would try to divert attention away from your own written words, they are so easily checked. This is what you quoted from me.Its not a who or a what, it is an intrinsic truth that existed before religion and from the time of our creation. This is how you quoted me, (notice the quotation marks, thats how you know) You have said "homosexuality is wrong because it is an intrinsic truth given at the time of creation" Now which parts underlined are your words and which are mine? Which parts are a reference to your need for some definitive source for morality (a who or what) and which parts misrepresent that premise? Which parts point to a period of time and which parts speciously cite some divine event? Your quote, I mean falsehood, means in total something quite different than what I said. It seems there was never a debate over me inserting an extra word "my". You are correct, sort of, I was responding to this statement of yours, You have said that your truth is intrinsic and given at creation. Not only is this yet another misquote and falsehood, your word your would relate to me as in my, sorry for your misunderstanding. Next time keep better track of what you say. It is obvious to a four-year old that you have deliberately misquoted me and then falsified to cover up your deceit. You have tried to the end to corner me into saying morality is based from religion, something which I purposely NEVER allude to in any statements. To this I will accurately quote you, please take note, on how you have attempted to misrepresent my position, over and over. BTW, these are all untruths in your own unembellished words.

I've read all of your other posts on this subject, and you are the first to link religion to the debate

Your assertion that gays didnt exist and were unheard of before 1960 is naive at best.

without projecting your definition of moral behavior

You plagerized a gay website I haven't "lifted" my arguments from anyone...

the real source of your definition is the "intrinsic truth" that existed before religion and was given at the time of creation. So now we're back to God.

You believe in one truth, and that is the one handed you by your religion

I can only interpret that one way, and that is that you have been taught (or learned) that your position is God given. That's why I continue to return to the argument that you are basing this on your religion. Once again, to regain your credibility in this debate, please retract or defend that I am a liar, I believe that I still have my credibility intact to the satisfaction of all, it is you who has lost yours, and though I regret calling you a liar, I know of no other term that better describes your conduct and it remains accurate. It is your credibility that needs some bolstering; perhaps you can apologize for and retract your blatant untruths. I stand behind everything Ive written, too bad you cant honestly do the same. and explain your definitive source that supports both of the "leaps" in the logic of your theorems. In good time, lets resolve your poor credibility situation first before we reexamine your illogical interpretations, shall we?