Calif. Judges Possibly Banned from Scouting Activity

[packsaddle]

Rooster, you obviously have a much stronger understanding of all this than I do. As a scientist I am bound to try for simplicity first and this is getting very complex. But I'll keep trying. And yes, I forgot about crabs. I like them too, shrimp as well, but (at the risk of offending NewEnglanders) I can take or leave lobsters. Something that requires melted butter for flavor is just not worth that price...just give me a platter of crayfish and I'll...oops, almost made a poor choice of words.

[ScoutParent]

"ScoutParent did not mention that for the associated study of dizygotic (fraternal) twins, where one was known to be homosexual, approximately 22% of the brothers were also homosexual. Even the 22% frequency was significantly greater than the background rate of occurrence of homosexuality in the population. The 52% and 22% figures are generally accepted as evidence for a genetic role (though not the sole determinant)."

 

I also did not mention that the for most of the studies that have been completed, participants have come from the prisons, mental institutions, aids clinics, and homosexual communities. the idea that those figures are generally accepted as evidence for a genetic role is not actually the truth. Actually it is understood that without much higher concordance rates, the role of genetics is small.

 

"to infer that for EVERY genetic influence there is a corresponding environmental factor would be misguided. "

 

well there is a definite difference between heritable and inherited. The propensity towards homosexuality could possibly be heritable but is not inherited. conversely, height and eye color are inherited and follow very different principles.

 

"that aside, however - there are certainly genetically determined gays, just as there are gays by nurture, gays by choice, and gays by various combos of the foregoing."

 

 

I haven't read anywhere that there are studies proving genetically determined gays--could you tell me where you got this idea.

 

Rooster, that's the section of Romans that makes it clear where God stands on this issue--thank you for presenting it.

[slontwovvy]

I think once again we're getting off track and beating the dead horse. Maybe the folks at PETA want to complain about that.

 

On a more serious note, however, this is ludicrous. Free association, the same freedom of association to which the BSA is entitled, is necessary here. This is an attempt to infringe the constitutional rights of those judges, ironically the very people who have those rights to defend. Why are they so willing to accept this clear infringement on freedom?

[littlebillie]

evmori - please refer issues involving your objections to Caesar to me - please take them up with your pastor, priest, minister or other spiritual advisor. It's not MY quote after all. :-)

 

Rooster7 - I note that you didn't answer the apple query? was it literally an apple? I mean, that's what some texts say...? it's important because some authorities say the "man with man" passages in Lev should actually have been translated as "male temple prostitute", which takes things in a different direction, I'd say.

 

packsaddle - homophobic, see, I know it's a preferred term generally, but here I'm not sure. when it's based on one's interpretation of a religion, is it truly phobic? it's certainly anti-gay...? is hp still the proper usage is such a case?

 

Ok - for those who wonder about the adaptiveness of homosexual behavior. We refer to a sex drive; and indeed, it is a DRIVE. Without it, a species dies out. So into each individual is placed an urge, a desire - a NEED to perform certain behaviors, that culminates in reproduction and the survival of the species.

 

Now, when certain local populations get TOO large, or if a social structure is such that only a few top creatures can reproduce - then we see homosexual activity and this helps to "relieve" the individual animal WITHOUT overburdening an already stressed environment with further increases to "headcount." It's one of Nature's birth controls, one that nevertheless allows the individual to perform some physical bonding. Stressed populations - OVERpopulations - can show a marked increase in homosexual activity... food for thought, y'all.

 

As far as an important social function, I've NEVER heard anyone argue that so-called "unadoptable" kids are better off being institutionalized than being placed in a loving gay family.

[evmori]

littlebillie,

I'll assume there was a typo in your last post.

 

"Regardless of what ONE or 2 or 20 religions say about gays, others are accepting of gays. and if Caesar (as civil authority) says no big deal, then render let those others render unto Caesar..."

 

This seems to me as an endorsement not merely citing a reference!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Rooster7]

Rooster7 - I note that you didn't answer the apple query? was it literally an apple? I mean, that's what some texts say...? it's important because some authorities say the "man with man" passages in Lev should actually have been translated as "male temple prostitute", which takes things in a different direction, I'd say.

 

Well, whether or not it was a literal apple, I cannot say. I've always assumed it was an actual apple tree. Your doubts regarding Leviticus' significance seem to be more of a matter of trusting a particular translation's validity verses an argument of literal interpretation. I recommend that you investigate when and by whom your bible was translated. Did these folks have an agenda (either in general or specific to the question of homosexuality)? It may prove to be revealing.

 

Regardless, how do you explain Romans 1:18-32? Those verses are pretty specific.

 

Now, when certain local populations get TOO large, or if a social structure is such that only a few top creatures can reproduce - then we see homosexual activity and this helps to "relieve" the individual animal WITHOUT overburdening an already stressed environment with further increases to "headcount." It's one of Nature's birth controls, one that nevertheless allows the individual to perform some physical bonding. Stressed populations - OVERpopulations - can show a marked increase in homosexual activity... food for thought, y'all.

 

If you think junk food is good for you, then eat up. Homosexuality is one of Nature's birth controls!? Please. By that definition, one can claim the same about bestiality and pedophilia. This is a justifiable "biological function"? One could also make a case for murder - to "relieve" the "stressed over populations". It's really a ridiculous supposition.

 

As far as an important social function, I've NEVER heard anyone argue that so-called "unadoptable" kids are better off being institutionalized than being placed in a loving gay family.

 

It's not an either or proposition. You're just trying to make it into one. If my children were put into the above situation, I would not want them to go to a pair of homosexuals. I'd bet you more often that not the child is dragged into something dark and insidious, either directly or indirectly. While I'm no fan of the foster system, I'd rather have my children take their chances there, than be subjected to the alternative lifestyle served up by homosexual "parents" and their friends. Furthermore, homosexuals are not the only folks around interested in "un-adoptable" children.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[packsaddle]

Hello Littlebillie, Perhaps the choice of terms is just a matter of preference. I agree with you on children with adoptive gay parents. A loving and supportive family is always good.

A note to all, though, animal behavior is terribly difficult to study and our understanding of it is more questionable than our understanding in 'harder' sciences. Reaching behavioral conclusions about humans is the most difficult of all. I suppose it's fun to speculate and argue but, for now at least, the nature vs nurture questions being argued here have not been answered definitively. Might as well move on. The question of rights is a much clearer topic, perhaps more relevant. I think the judges should be allowed in. This is just an opinion without any legal sophistication.

 

ScoutParent, when a person asks for studies to provide proof of one thing or another it indicates a profound misunderstanding of science. However, (and trying to interpret your confusing statements) I think you should be careful comparing traits determined by a single gene versus those determined by multiple genes. I am not sure what your point was, though.

 

Rooster, I understand and respect that some feel the need to openly proclaim their faith. I believe, however, that this is not required of everyone. I repeat...I believe that a person's faith is deeply personal. I think it is good to discuss ideas but I consider personal faith to be 'off the table' for everyone. If a person believes during the discussion of an idea, that their faith is being questioned, that is unfortunate. I try not to ask for confessions of faith from others (sometimes I get it anyway) and I don't make such on my behalf whether requested by individuals or the BSA. It is simply none of their business. I hope you understand.

 

evmori, On the Caesar thing, I had to look at that carefully too. I think littlebillie is trying to point out that if our states specify rights for gays and lesbians, then religions (outside their own organizations) can't restrict those rights. Is this a fair rendition littlebillie? If so, then by a simple extension, the BSA policy indicates that the organization is largely under control of their dominant religious faction, the LDS church. Would this be a shock to anyone's intuition?

[OldGreyEagle]

Just to take this a little more off topic, what if Caesar (Government) is Hitler, Idi Amin, Papa Doc, etc.? What about the old USSR and modern China?

[Rooster7]

packsaddle,

 

I try not to ask for confessions of faith from others (sometimes I get it anyway) and I don't make such on my behalf whether requested by individuals or the BSA. It is simply none of their business. I hope you understand.

 

I understand. For the most part, I don't use biblical references and my faith to support my argument unless others bring religion into the conversation first. For example, I did not respond to you in kind until you made this statement:

 

Rooster, You must already know about the numerous denominations that accept homosexuals. Would you really have us adhere strictly to all the laws set forth in Leviticus (Vayikra)?

 

Consequently, I answered your questions using biblical references. Furthermore, since you were presenting the question as if you yourself were a believer, I made further arguments based on that presumption. Similarly, I did not respond to littlebillie in kind, until he made these comment:

 

if it ain't natural, why are there animals that exhibit the behavior?

 

I felt it was important that he recognize the fact that we are not merely animalswe are spiritual beings. He went on in his next post to say this:

 

Regardless of what ONE or 2 or 20 religions say about gays, others are accepting of gays. and if Caesar (as civil authority) says no big deal, then render let those others render unto Caesar...

 

He was implying that Christians should remain silent when civil authorities make decrees. Again, I felt compelled to explain to him that he was not presenting these verses properly (i.e., with respect to other biblical teachings).

 

In short, while I respect your right to abstain from religious teachings of which you don't agree, and most especially your right to remain silent on your faith, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you reference the bible to support your argument, you should expect a rebuttal, which does likewise. Furthermore, by virtue of those same bible references, you are tacitly implying that you are a Christian and/or at least someone with knowledge of the faith. Thus, you should not be surprised when others question you about your faith (i.e., ask exactly what you believe) as well.

[SR540Beaver]

OGE,

 

Just to play the devil's advocate.....what if it was Caesar and imperialist Rome? Oh wait, it was! Jesus said to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's and unto God what was God's. Rome took nations by conquest and ruled them as part of their empire against the wishes of the conquered people. Jesus recognized governments in power in general, not which one was good and which one was evil. He recognized that whether someone wanted to or not, the government in power had the ability to make you do what they wanted you to do or suffer the consequences. Was Jesus saying that both the government and God had power over you and if you didn't fulfill your obligations to them, you would face the consequences? Or was he saying that under the government you are forced to fulfill an obligation and under God you choose to fulfill an obligation? Either way, Jesus says we have obligations under laws...God's and the governments?

[evmori]

packsaddle,

Under the control of the LDS? How about living by a high moral standard accepted by many denominations as well as those of no denomination! Or better yet, living up to the Oath & Law.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[berkshirescouter]

Here is a link to a FOXNEWS comment "Lawsuit May Redefine Discrimination on Campus" that speaks to freedom of association. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,74757,00.html It talks about how BSA's suit is having an effect in a far wider way. This goes to the center of this topic. (The link may have to cut and pasted to work)

[Rooster7]

kwc57,

 

I think the real question is- what if Caesar demanded something that contradicted God's Word? What if Caesar demanded Christians to murder and rape? Or, in the case of NAZI Germany, what if Hitler asked Christians to turn in/expose Jews, which very often meant their eventual torture and/or murder (although it is debatable how much the average German knew). I am confident (and hope others subscribe to this as well) that God expects us to submit to His Word before any government authority. That being the case, when littlebillie suggests- if our government accepts gays as being morally acceptable, then we should submit ourselves to that belief because it is harmonious with the teaching, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" - it completely ignores the rest of God's Word.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

This is the direction I was hoping my thread of "God OR Country" would go last summer.

 

While life in a conquered Roman region may have not been great, it was not a total dictatoship either. The people of Jerusalem had King Herrod providing local governance on a limited jurisdicition and even Pilate deferred to local custom when he wanted to sprare the life of Jesus.

 

What if a government asks you to betray a religious principle, notably Thou Shalt Not Kill? Where does the duty to God and Country diverge? Did Jesus mean only obey a legitimate goverment and who determines legitimacy. Did the American Revolutionaries do right by not only not rendering to Caesar, but by throwing him out of their lives?

 

 

[packsaddle]

Rooster,

No, not surprised. I was just trying to learn a few things. I am still curious, though...If a Hindu quotes from the OT, do you consider this invalid? I just happen to have come from a background based on the Christian bible (King James version, I was taught that all others were less valid because they had special agendas). But if I had used instead, say, Buddhist religious texts, would I automatically be examined as a Buddhist or ignored because I am not a Buddhist? Why not examine the idea rather than the person? And incidentally, I have no aversion to the OT or the rest of the Christian bible, only to the hypocritical way some persons selectively employ these and selected other passages to justify their prejudices. Sorry for the digression.

I have no problems with questions but I can't answer them all. Rather, I am fascinated by those who feel they possess the truth. And I am ready to receive truth from them if they can explain it in terms I understand. Like I said, I keep trying.

 

evmori, Yes of course, the Oath and Law. I, for one, would also like to pay some attention to our Constitution.

 

ITD, interesting article. My read is that those organizations still exist, they just aren't recognized by the universities. BSA does the same thing, it must be OK.