A better question

[Rooster7]

littlebillie,

 

1. Apes are not monkeys. Monkeys are not apes. And the green vervet had probably not indicated that it wished to be hunted as a food source by and for humans!

 

Congratulationsyou know your primates well.

 

2. The bonobo is indeed threatened - mostly by human encroachment. To hold this against it seems a little too self-servingly pat and regardless, it's lasted THIS long as a species, right up to right NOW, so whatever it's style is seems to have worked until humans decided to take over their habitat!

 

Those horrible humansfirst they have the nerve to have a growing population, and now they won't accept our orientation.

 

3. Odd, isn't it, how folks challenge you to look to nature for models, but when you do so, other folks say that nature isn't valid.

 

Odder still is how folks refuse to look at a challenge in context. I believe the subject was "human procreation" and perversity. Why do you insist on bringing monkeys into the bedroom?

 

4. Not sure what the question about Africa per se is supposed to be, but I hope its not about any human population? Could you clarify?

 

Not sure what you mean by "hope its not about any human population". The question stands by itself.

 

5. EVOLUTIONISTS say that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from chimps. Anti-evolutionists, tho', say that evolutionists say other things.

 

Either way, there's no reason why we should be studying the behavior of chimpanzees to determine what is normal and/or moral for human beings. The concept is ridiculous. Unless of course, you think chimps and human beings are on the same level.

 

Hope this helps clear up a few things!!!

 

Hope this helps clear up a few things!!!

 

[tjhammer]

When you can show me the moral difference (in terms of perversity) between a homosexual and a man that "enjoys his food", I'll continue this debate.Ummm, hmmm. Well, while it seems that someone who has sex with food would qualify as strange and perverse (in my opinion), I have no idea how you would deem it a moral or immoral activity. It seems that you have a very liberal umbrella of what you deem to be a matter of morality. I've been consistent with my interpretation... I think I once simplified my description of moral behavior as "do unto others as you would have done unto you". Further explained, is it possible for man, in the absence of any interaction with other beings, to behave morally or immorally? I would say no.

 

You on the other hand, deem any and all behavior as either moral or immoral, with nothing in between. Your question about the man and his food is about as relevant of a moral quandary as, say, a person who picks his nose. I don't see any correlation to moral/immoral behavior (unless you're claiming that masturbation is immoral because the Bible tells us so).

[tjhammer]

Rooster says: I believe the subject was "human procreation" and perversity.OK, for the record, just so we can simplify the debate and avoid going in circle after circle... Rooster, are you making the argument (this is the same question I used to ask DedDad over and again)...homosexuality equals perversion and perversion equals immoral so therefore homosexuality equals immoral?And for the record, are you stating that any sex or intimacy without the goal of procreation is perverse?

 

And for the record, are you stating that anything perverse is always immoral?

 

And for the record, are you equating all perversion (and thus in your mind immorality) as equal?

[fboisseau]

littlebillie

When mentioning the bonobo chimps, you forgot to mention that they engage in pedophilia. If you are going to used this as support for homosexuality, please be honest and mention all the facts that can be brought froth from your examples.

 

 

[littlebillie]

R7

"Odder still is how folks refuse to look at a challenge in context. I believe the subject was "human procreation" and perversity. Why

do you insist on bringing monkeys into the bedroom?"

 

Again, it was apes. Not monkeys. :-)

 

And I did so because someone (!) wrote:

"How about basic biology? Try making a simple examination of the world around you." This is part of that world - unless the invitation excluded all non-human aspects thereof. If so,

I invite clarification thereof in the future, because I kinda take biology and the world at large.

 

 

It's hard to know what someone means if it ain't what they say.

 

The rest of your comments are mostly smug-shots, I think - no real argumentative value. I take it you are not sympathetic with endangered animals - not every one is, it's a different kind of morality.

 

But you make a point about normal and/or moral - let me know how you use these, and how you define them, BEFORE I make any unhappy assumptions...

 

 

[littlebillie]

fboisseau - someone seemed to have thought that asking for a model of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom would find nothing. I was responding to that. Try using the word 'complete' instead of 'honest'. That itself is dishonest!

 

 

[fboisseau]

littlebillie

If you want to take issue with me on a use of a single word, I will grant you that complete may have been a better word for me to use. This did not change the fact that you provided an example to support your position without, suppling a fact which was also important to this discussion that would have hurt your position. When someone in a debate, which this is, does that, I consider it to be at the minimum misleading.

 

[Rooster7]

littlebillie,

 

Yes...they were smug comments, but yet they seemed appropriate. Sorry, I grow tired of people justifying immorality. Point to all the apes, monkeys, and chimpanzees you want, I'm not going to change my mind. I guess I don't see them as relevant.

 

TJ,

 

For the record, I don't have the energy to engage you in a never-ending debate. DD was more, well let's just say dedicated than I. I stand convinced that we both know that the behavior is immoral. Why you want to justify it is beyond me. On the other hand, if you don't recognize there is a God, then I guess its entirely possible that one can find nothing immoral about having sex with another man, or even one's food.

 

OKAYBreak timeLet's see how long I resist the urge to respond to you guys.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[NJCubScouter]

Wow, this discussion did get heated up again. In no way do I have time to respond to it all, so let me just say the following in response to this and all the other threads, just so you don't think I went away:

 

First, I agree with tjhammer on the issue of whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, and on how the dispute should be resolved.

 

Second, I disagree with everything Rooster says about the subject of homosexuality, except that I agree that the issue of what primates do or don't do is irrelevant. It is, however, worth noting that primates, unlike humans, do not pass their days judging and condemning the behavior of their species-mates, with the probable exception of that very important commandment, "thou shalt not steal my food."

 

Third, my religion, one of the major Western religions (Reform Judaism), does not teach that God condemns homosexuals or that homosexuality is immoral. It instead teaches that exclusion of gays is wrong. It has permitted the ordination of gay clergy. The passages in my religion's bible that have been interpreted by some to condemn homosexuality, can be explained by differences in translation and by the fact that ancient social mores do not necessarily command our obediance today. That is not me talking, that is what my religion teaches. When the BSA says homosexuality is immoral and that gays cannot be leaders, and that this is a "faith-based value," it is saying that my religion is a second-class religion and that my religion's beliefs will be ignored. That is a violation of the Declaration of Religious Principles.

 

Fourth, Rooster, you still never answered my point in response to your comments that gay behavior is perverse because of "biology." I see now that tjammer has picked up that banner as well. If what you mean by "biology" is that sexual activity is "perverse" if it cannot lead to procreation, then a whole range of activity engaged in by many heterosexual couples, including married couples, is "perverse" in your view. I suppose it is also "perverse" if a married couple engages in even "traditional" sexual behavior if one of them is unable to reproduce, whether because of disease, elective surgery, non-elective surgery, or whatever. And even if these married folks are able to procreate, I guess in your view they are also "perverse" if they are using any sort of birth control. The point is, ask not for whom the perversion tolls, it apparently tolls for many straight people as well as gay, perhaps including thee.

 

Fifth, all of this is besides the point anyway. Being "gay" is a status that, in and of itself, will get you barred from leadership in the BSA. It has nothing to do with behavior, except what the BSA (and folks like Rooster) assume based on someone saying they are gay. James Dale never disclosed what type of behavior he engages in behind closed doors, and I suspect this is true for virtually all of the people who have been booted out based on the "gay policy." Let me be clear on this: I do not want someone in a leadership position who reveals to all he meets, what he does in the bedroom, whether it be a man talking about how many women he has slept with, or a man talking about how many men he has slept with, or a man talking about what he puts where and with who. It goes without saying that such talk may not take place while on Scouting activities, but I don't even want to hear about it anywhere. This is not what the policy addresses -- it addresses status, not behavior.

[littlebillie]

"Point to all the apes, monkeys, and chimpanzees you want, I'm not going to change my mind. I guess I don't see them as relevant."

 

I will then assume for future reference that invitations to look at the world around us and to study biology are either insincere or ignorant. Once this has been done, apparently folks wanna say it doesn't matter.

 

"This did not change the fact that you provided an example to support your position without, suppling a fact which was also important to this discussion that would have hurt your position. When someone in a debate, which this is, does that, I consider it to be at the minimum misleading."

 

When 'challenged' to provide natural examples of homosexual behaviour, I did so. When the use of the word paedophilia is used sans contexta to describe bonobo behaviour, that in and of itself is misleading. You can provide the full description if you wish - it is certainly nothing like the human version, of which you are of course aware. Indeed, it is so far different, it never occurred to me to bring it up. No model here of pederastic priestly abuses, etc. And certainly no rape, like humans. I see it as an entirely different issue. The definition of paedophilia among humans includes the word abnormal - among the bonobo, there is a huge difference.

 

-*-

Help me understand this whole thing. People say "it just ain't natural" AND THEN refuse to look at or accept any information to the contrary. See, I didn't know this part - I figured when someone thought there was no animal model of this behaviour, they would be INTERESTED in learning otherwise.

 

mea culpa, and duly noted.

 

 

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

It is, however, worth noting that primates, unlike humans, do not pass their days judging and condemning the behavior of their species-mates, with the probable exception of that very important commandment, "thou shalt not steal my food."

 

Yes, this is an admirable traitI believe the Ostrich actually buries his head in the ground. Are you suggesting that society should have no standards by which individuals should be judged? Should we do away with our justice system? I suppose if you saw a man and woman making love on the sidewalk, you wouldn't judge their behavior as indecent or condemnable. How open-minded of you You do see how ridiculous your implication is, don't you?

 

Reform Judaism.

 

Interesting. I believe the key word here is "reform"or is revised more accurate. Does that mean that Orthodox Judaism is a second-class religion? After all, your version of Judaism is ignoring its original teachings (to meet the demands of contemporary life). As for your "interpretation and mores of the day theory"pleasewe all know what changes were made. In short, your faith was altered to give yourselves freedom from God's law.

 

If BSA used your standard for acceptable principles, then they would have none. The fact that BSA allows so many faiths to join, gives testimony of their desire, to include as many boys as possible. However, they cannot be expected to give up their moral principles simply because one or more of these faiths chooses not to subscribe to them. You joined BSA of own your free will. No one held a gun to your head. If BSA's principles do not agree with your particular faith, then you can refuse to join or resign. Nevertheless, they have a right to pick the principles that they believe in.

 

If what you mean by "biology" is that sexual activity is "perverse" if it cannot lead to procreation, then a whole range of activity engaged in by many heterosexual couples, including married couples, is "perverse" in your view.

 

Yeah, right barren women and impotent men are perverse (I don't think so). Either you really believe that's what I'm saying, in which case; it's understandable why you don't get it. Or, you don't really believe that's what I'm saying, in which case; you're so desperate you'll say anything to discredit the truth. Let's try this - I believe any sexual behavior, which demeans your partner (wittingly or unwittingly) and rebels against God's plan for sexual intimacy within a marriage is perverse and immoral.

 

littlebillie,

 

You just won't admit that you misunderstood my original statement. Try to stay with meconsult a book on human biology. Study it. Tell me how homosexuality plays a role in the procreation of the human race. I am suggesting, even without the book, that common sense will tell you that homosexuality does not play a role. It is a perversion of God's plan. I'm sorry you took my original comment (make an examination of the world around you) so literally. Yes, if you examine the world, you can find perversity in the animal kingdom. So what does that prove? Since you apparently want to go down that road (using the animal kingdom to justify a behavior), why are you pointing out an exception (the bonobo) as if it's common. Better yet, why aren't you supporting everything else that animals' do? Some animals will mate other species. By your logic (animals do it), this would be justification for bestiality. Why don't you defend it as well? Perhaps, it's because you and others would realize just how inane it is to look at animals and talk as if its okay to model their behavior. Finding an example of a behavior in nature is not proof that it is natural (especially for humans).

 

Wowmy break didn't last longSorry, I have a real hard time not responding to obvious distortions of truth. On the other hand, this will grow old eventuallyeven for me.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Mike Long]

Whoa now Rooster!

Think about what you are posting a little harder.

 

I'll have to ask you to reconsider your statements regarding Reform Judaism. You could use that same logic to make identical statements about almost all denominations of almost all faiths.

 

Reverent also means repecting the faiths of others that you don't agree with.

[littlebillie]

Rooster- sorry if I didn't understand what you didn't say! :-) Another way to say it is, you won't admit that you didn't way what you meant. Regardless - speak and write precisely, and you'll avoid those issues.

 

Speaking of which -

 

"Yes, if you examine the world, you can find

perversity in the animal kingdom."

 

So - did God design the animals to be perverse? But then, it wouldn't be perverse... or are the animals sinning? But that would mean... Could you explain that comment, because frankly, that WAY baffles me!

 

 

When you say there is perversity in nature, isn't that saying that nature is unnatural?

 

Serious question - looking for a reasoned, serious answer.

[Rooster7]

I respect a person's right and freedom to worship whoever and whatever they want.

 

I believe that a person should be able do so without harassment or fear.

 

However, my respect does not mean I must respect what that person believes. Very often, another person's faith is counterintuitive to my faith. How can I respect a faith that contradicts mine? That does not make sense. I do respect a person's right to disagree with me and to believe in something different. Nevertheless, in an open forum such as this, I will speak the truth as I see it. I don't believe any of the statements I have made were false.

 

By "respect", are you saying that I should allow every statement made about one's faith to stand as is, unchallenged? If so, then I stand guilty. I hope that is not how most people define respect. Otherwise, we might as well stop this exchange of ideas.

 

Reverent also means respecting the faiths of others that you don't agree with.

 

I disagree. How would I be reverent, as a Christian, if I respected Paganism? Your statement sounds good on paper, but upon further review, it really doesn't make sense. I am reverent towards my God, and my God only. My God, as I understand Him, would be upset with me if I did any differently.

 

If a person of another faith were to conduct a prayer, I would listen quietly and without interruption. However, my silence and respectful manner should not be interrupted as respect for what the person believes or says. My respect would be for this principle - a person should be allowed to believe and worship as he sees fit, without harassment or fear.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Rooster7]

Animals can perform perverse acts, but they will not be judged as moral beings because they do not have free will. To the point, animals act out of instinct and as a result of stimulus found in their environment. They do not ponder the moral significance of their actions. Why or how an animal might come to commit a perverse act is an interesting question. It probably has many answers. First and foremost, there are other influences on this planet aside from God. Man alone has a great capacity to find creative ways to spread perversity unto others (including the animal kingdom). Satan, while dismissed by many (even self-proclaimed believers of Christianity), does exist and has influence on this world.

 

When you say there is perversity in nature, isn't that saying that nature is unnatural?

 

Not at all. Man is a part of nature too. Are you saying, by definition, nothing can be considered perverse or unnatural because we all belong to the natural world? This is probably what some folks would like to hear. However, I am saying - God created the world, but Man and Satan have found ways to corrupt it to their pleasing. I'm not going to be able to explain every specific example that you might be able to find. I can say fairly confidently that the examples you site are rare. While I cannot explain every mystery in the world (such as: why are some baby's born to die, or why some are born with a horrible disease, or why some strange little monkey in Africa was observed to display "homosexual behavior"), I do know this - there is good and evil in this world. God has given us the ability to recognize this fact and to respond to him. If you want to pretend this is not true, that's your prerogative. I intend to go through life with my eyes open and on my knees in prayer.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)