Now that we disagree, can we agree?

[Dedicated Dad]

ScouterPaul, you have correctly pointed out that Dedicated Dad's definition has made most heterosexual couples deviantsBob, how sad you as a lawyer could reasonably come to the conclusion that Paul is remotely accurate. You defend this. My wife and I practice oral copulation, coitus interrupts 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. First, how is coitus interrupts aberrant? How is the use of condoms habitual sodomy? How is man/woman fellatio aberrant? How are any of these practices habitual and preferred over coitus when coitus is involved? I wont respond to Paul because his interpretation is ridiculous. But for you as a lawyer to support his erroneous supposition borders on humor. I look forward to debating the fine points with you regardless of how off-topic we get.

[Dedicated Dad]

Just my two cents--the 60 Minutes was pretty slanted away from the BSA too. slont, pretty slanted? Leslie Stahl said that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles. If homosexuals commit 31+% of child molestations and they are only 2-3% of the population they are at least ten times more likely to commit pedophilia than heterosexuals. Further she went on to say that because some of these homosexual/pedophiles were married, they werent gay? Thats right out of GLAADs talking points. Pretty slanted? Total bias if you ask me! OK < /rant off >, thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

 

 

 

[sctmom]

Dedicated Dad,

You would be listened to more and respected more if you would quit playing word games and quit the name calling. Others on this board who agree with the current BSA policy have stated so with confiction and stated why they feel that way without putting others down, ridiculing others, calling them liars, or playing picky word games. I highly respect them for standing by their beliefs and values. I would be proud to have them lead my son is scouting. I have to really wonder what values you are teaching the young men around you -- that we call people liars, refuse to answer specific questions, play with semantics when answering questions, refuse to stick to the subject at hand, lump all others into some big pot of deveint, evil people.

 

To Rooster7, Eisley, Evmori, Cjm, and the others I do applaud you for your values and your discussions. It has made me think about many of my own values and what I want my son to learn. Your Scout behavior is exemplary.

 

[ScouterPaul]

Dedicated Dad

I'm disapointed that you find my "interuption" "ridiculus" and choose not to respond. Is this because you choose to use definitions only when they support your argument and choose to ignore them when they don't?

 

I'm not trying to get off topic I'm providing you an opportunity to show how you reached your position. As I believe TJ has asked on several occassions.

 

You asked "how is coitus interruptous aberrant?" Read the definition of Coitus, Coitus interuptus and explain to me how it isn't based on your statement "Homosexuality or same-sex sodomy, is an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus." I didn't say that coitus interruptous was sodomy I said that based on the literal definition of coitus is was aberrant.

 

You asked "How is the use of condoms habitual sodomy?" Once again I did not say that it was. I said that it made me a practitioner of other than normal coitus. I did state that based on definition oral copulation is sodomy.

 

You also asked "How are any of these practices habitual and preferred over coitus when coitus is involved?. According to the Meriam Webster's Dictionary the definition of habitual is 3:resorted to on a regular basis. So unless there is a flaw in my logic you have implied that I'm immoral and not eligible to be a Scouter.

 

I believe your argument is as follows (I apologize if I get this wrong I trust that you will set me straight)

Sodomy = Perversion

Perversion = Immoral

 

[Dedicated Dad]

You would be listened to more and respected more if you would quit playing word games and quit the name calling. Please cite your points so that I may respond in particular. Others on this board who agree with the current BSA policy have stated so with confiction and stated why they feel that way without putting others down, ridiculing others, calling them liars, or playing picky word games. Calling tj a liar was wrong. But after so many of his purposeful falsehoods intended to misrepresent my position it seemed to serve me well to stop him and make him correct his untruths. Id tried several times before without any success. I have to really wonder what values you are teaching the young men around you -- that we call people liars, The values of right and wrong, what specifically do you wonder about. refuse to answer specific questions, Id not realized I had missed any questions, it was rather busy yesterday, if you dont respond to anything else that Ive asked would you please point out what questions Ive overlooked? play with semantics when answering questions, refuse to stick to the subject at hand, lump all others into some big pot of deveint, evil people. mom, this I reject in total, try actually using quotes when you make misleading statements like this, really.

 

 

 

[sctmom]

A few other posts in this thread bring this up and no one has given an answer -- where is the policy? Is it an official policy?

 

When I filled out the volunteer application last fall, I specifically looked for any wording about being gay or supporting gay rights, could not find any. Just filled out my son's application to go to Boy Scouts, still no wording. When my son joined as Tiger Cub in 1997, no one said "We do not allow gays in our group. If you are gay you cannot be a member. If you believe gays should not be banned, you should leave now." No one has said these things as we shopped for a troop. Nothing in the Cub Leader Handbook, The Webelos Leader Handbook, The Scout handbook, The Scoutmaster handbook. I do read about defending the rights of others, changing laws within the system, respecting others AND their beliefs even if you do not agree. No one says "morally straight means sex only within the confines of a heterosexual marriage and no tolerance for homosexuals."

 

 

I have a hard time understanding the statements of "we don't want the BSA to change" when it has changed, and it will continue to change. There was no policy or statement or issue about gays in BSA until a few years ago. Look at the men who have stepped forward and said they had been BSA members for years and are gay.

 

 

[Dedicated Dad]

No one says "morally straight means sex only within the confines of a heterosexual marriage and no tolerance for homosexuals." No one says "morally straight means sex only within the confines of a heterosexual marriage and no tolerance for incestuals." Go figure?

[NJCubScouter]

DedicatedDad, I have a question for you. Don't worry, it is not about whether you know any gays or whether you had any disturbing childhood experiences. My question gets back to the original theme that tjhammer started this thread with, and that I joined in on, which is local option.

 

You have repeatedly attempted to equate homosexuality with bestiality and with adult incest, and you argue that the BSA policies on these orientations/behaviors should be the same. Without debating that point, let's say for purposes of this discussion that I agree. Let's treat homosexuality like we treat adult incest and bestiality. But how does the BSA treat those things? Has anybody ever received a termination letter from national or a council, banning them from all units (as James Dale received) for being too friendly with animals or adult relatives? Is there, anywhere, any suggestion that these behaviors will automatically result in exclusion from BSA leadership? Unless the answers to either of these questions is yes, I have to conclude that the policy (I guess it's more a "practice" than a "policy") toward these things is local option. Can you prove otherwise?

 

While we're at it, let's add in unmarried heterosexual cohabitation to this discussion. I raised that as an issue at one point, but I have not seen you add that to your list of things you morally equate with homosexuality. I assume that you believe it is immoral for unmarried persons to live together in a sexual relationship, regardless of whether they are of the same or different genders. But again, where is the proof that an unmarried heterosexual cohabitant will automatically receive a termination letter from national or council? Isn't that also a matter of local option?

 

So unless you can prove that the BSA has an automatic nationwide policy excluding bestial or incestuous leaders, or unmarried persons of opposite sex sharing living quarters, as it does for gays, then logically you have no valid argument against local option on the issue of gay leadership. Nor does the BSA have any valid argument against it, for that matter.

[Rooster7]

TJ,

 

No, you unfairly equate my statement to mean "simple majority" rules. It's 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).

 

AND YET, you still continue to avoid the question. How are these morals established? What person or persons can declare a moral to be universal? If it's not 51% of some population, who is empowered to declare what is moral or immoral? Based on what criteria? If it's purely relative, then why do you pretend to be on high moral ground in regard to your stance on homosexuality? You give me no objective way to determine if something is moral or immoral. I have to assume you are not equipped to do so. So, I repeatI implore youplease answer this question with a simple, one or two sentence response (take three or four if it helps), that make senses. And please don't point me to another thread. I've read them. They pretty much dance around the real question.

 

Who has final say over what is right and wrong? How would you implement it in BSA? If you pull out "plurality" again, then please explain how it could be practically implemented in an organizationany organization (if simple majority is not your foundation)?

 

[Dedicated Dad]

Quickly Ive got to go, this is from the BSA v Dale transcripts, Ill comment later.

Bye/ regards

 

 

MR. DAVIDSON: Well, there's certainly adulterers or other people that have engaged in heterosexual behavior which Boy Scouts has not regarded as morally straight who have been excluded.

QUESTION: I don't mean -- just, the incidence of living together before marriage is not so uncommon these days. I didn't refer to an adulterer.

MR. DAVIDSON: Right.

QUESTION: Two people who live together but they're not married.

MR. DAVIDSON: I know of no particular instances of application of the policy in that connection. I was just trying to give a more general answer that heterosexual conduct which is not regarded as morally straight has resulted in the termination of leadership positions, or not welcoming someone into leadership in the first place.

 

 

[Rooster7]

By the way, I think it is pretty arrogant to assume someone is less experienced than you, simply because that person disagrees with you. For the record, I do know some homosexuals. Some I love and pray for. I also know some adulterers, liars, porn addicts, alcoholics, etc. Many of these folks are very likeable, some might even be family. In fact, I have my own set of flaws. Here's the difference. I am not suggesting that these flaws be accepted as normal and/or moral. I am not pretending that I have God on my side (or some moral code) endorsing my bad behavior.

[tjhammer]

Roster says: How are these morals established? Based on what criteria? If it's purely relative, then why do you pretend to be on high moral ground in regard to your stance on homosexuality? You give me no objective way to determine if something is moral or immoral. I have to assume you are not equipped to do so.Rooster, I could restate those exact words back to you and prove the point of my debate. I have implored DedDad and others to answer the very questions you're asking me. What is the source for your statement that homosexuality is immoral? Why should everyone in the BSA agree with you and twenty members of the National Relationships Committee? (Granted, you Rooster are one on this board that has embraced that you define morality by Judeo-Christian views of God, but I can't accept that as a source because Scouting is not solely a Judeo-Christian organization.)Who has final say over what is right and wrong?Parents. Charter Partners.How would you implement it in BSA?By placing the decision as close to the parents and charter partners as possible.

 

 

(This message has been edited by tjhammer.)

[Bob Russell]

DD, you earlier posted the following: "Homosexuality, by definition, is perversion. You're welcome to write your own dictionary if you want to however I don't 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 I'm going to guess you don't put much stock in math, too many absolutes,right?"

 

I quoted you fully, so that I won't be accused of taking your statement out of context, etc. In your post, you linked "perversion" to Merriam-Webster Online, which defines it as "2 : a perverted form; especially : an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus."

I then went to your source, Merriam-Webster Online, to seek the definition of "coitus" which is defined as "physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract." This is your definitive source, and reading the definitions together leads me to conclude that the examples given by ScouterPaul do not involve "physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract," and therefore, by your definitive definition, must be perverse. ScouterPaul obviously read the same definition, and I suspect that is the basis for his response. Do I agree that the acts described by ScouterPaul are perverse, no, but then I am not citing this definition to support my views.

 

Regardless of how any may twist and turn these definitions, maybe you can explain to us by what policy BSA has turned over to Merriam-Webster Online the setting of scout policy. I will say that at least I can find Merriam-Webster Online, which is more than I can say for the BSA policy regarding homosexuality. Still waiting for some guidance there.

 

Oh, and I am glad you find my positions humorous, after all, a scout is cheerful.

[Rooster7]

TJ,

 

You said, I could restate those exact words back to you and prove the point of my debate.

 

I realize, when I bring God into the conversation, I open a whole new can of worms. As you have pointed out, BSA has invited many faiths to join its ranks. So, who is to say which "morals" are to be used as guideposts? Still, I feel I can make a cogent argument to justify the Judeo-Christian values. Nevertheless, for the moment, for the sake of argument, lets say my position is weak. Show me how your position is any stronger.

 

You keep avoiding this fact - Your proposal is to define morality at the local level by majority vote.

 

If this is acceptable, then you are willing to accept many things. Slavery was acceptable to the majority in America not so long ago. At one time, Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews was pretty popular among its citizens. If this was not bad enough, the "voters" will not be the parents (as you have suggested) but a group of people selected by the charter organization (committee members). In other words, even if the majority of the parents in the neighborhood didn't like the policy, they could not change it. The charter organization itself could the Man Love Boy Association or so other depraved group.

 

You have failed to explain how this can be a reasonable approach. Also, you have failed to explain how you can call "murder" a near "absolute moral wrong" and still believe in such a system. After all, today's minority opinion may become tomorrow's majority opinion. In other words, there are no absolutes. Your system for determining morality does not allow for it, in fact, it prohibits absolutes. This goes back to some of DD's statements. Your system in affect gives tacit endorsement to all behavior. Once you remove God from the equation, no one can claim anything is morally wrong. It ALL becomes relative. You won't admit this. You keep denying this. You know its wrong. YET, you continue run this conversation in circles because you cannot defend your system of morality. I see it. DD sees it. Weekender sees it. Cjmiam sees it. I could go on and on

 

The point is, once again, morality cannot be determined by popular opinion (i.e., majority vote). BSA obviously feels this way too. Even if many of its so-called members, may feel differently. If some charters (it matters not to me if there are many) wish to ignore BSA's position, they should do the honorable thing - resign and start their own organization. While I'm standing on my soapbox, I will submit this one more time (although I'm sure you feel I am only giving you more ammo)

 

BSA is not a Christian organization. However, it is an organization that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (just like this country). While BSA has invited all of the world's major faiths to join, I stand convinced that they never intended to give up the moral principles on which they were founded in order to accommodate these faiths. The invitation was an effort to include as many boys as possible, but not at any price. My feelings on this subject appear to have some validity. You are the one fighting to have BSA change, not me.

 

[Dedicated Dad]

I have a question for you. Don't worry, it is not about whether you know any gays or whether you had any disturbing childhood experiences. Oh, is this the question mom was worried that Id not addressed. I actually have in other posts and since tj had claimed to have read all my posts I didnt see the need. I have three family members who are practicing homosexuals, not all in the immediate family, and I love them regardless of their perversion. My uncle broke up his family with four children after 16 years of marriage, my wifes father broke up her family of two after 8 years of marriage***hes now dead from AIDS and one of the very first to die from that totally preventable disease, and a sister in law. Additionally two close friends growing up, several associates at my former work and one who is repaired from his perversion. All Ive treated with respect and compassion, including prayer, though never respecting their evil choice of behavior. Has anybody ever received a termination letter from national or a council, banning them from all units (as James Dale received) for being too friendly with animals or adult relatives? I do not know. Is there, anywhere, any suggestion that these behaviors will automatically result in exclusion from BSA leadership? No, nor is there any written policy for each and every act legal/illegal or immoral. Unless the answers to either of these questions is yes, I have to conclude that the policy (I guess it's more a "practice" than a "policy") toward these things is local option. Can you prove otherwise? I disagree, the oath and law are our policy. If someone avowed not to be cheerful I guess there would be recourse from national if it was brought to their attention. While we're at it, let's add in unmarried heterosexual cohabitation to this discussion. I raised that as an issue at one point, but I have not seen you add that to your list of things you morally equate with homosexuality. Man/woman relationships are not repugnant as is homosexual relationships, but living together is, IMHO. But again, where is the proof that an unmarried heterosexual cohabitant will automatically receive a termination letter from national or council? Isn't that also a matter of local option? I have none other than if said cohabitant made it clear to national or someone complained to national I see no reason it wouldnt be interpreted as immoral just as adultery would be in similar circumstances. I suppose if the local option didnt act on that knowledge and it wasnt brought to the attention of national it would go under the radar. So unless you can prove that the BSA has an automatic nationwide policy excluding bestial or incestuous leaders, or unmarried persons of opposite sex sharing living quarters, as it does for gays, then logically you have no valid argument against local option on the issue of gay leadership. Nor does the BSA have any valid argument against it, for that matter. No because the policy is in the oath and law, its pretty simple. Just because there may not have been a case where said acts werent found doesnt mean an automatic policy is absent.