Interesting Fox News Poll

[Rooster7]

Twocubdad,

 

Rather than repeating myself...Suffice it to say, you've ignore the points of argument rather well.

 

I take comfort in the knowledge that there many good men in this country that know the difference gender, race, and sexual perversity. Pound as you may, that square peg is not going to fit in that round hole.

[NJCubScouter]

I didn't necessarily mean to start a debate on gays in the military. I suppose it is fairly obvious that I agree with TwoCubDad's opinion and OGE's (apparent) opinion. I think it is really much more analagous to the racial integration of the military than it is to gender equality in the military (and by the way officially women are still excluded from "combat" by law, but the definition of "combat" has been modified so they really are in combat, as became clear in Op. Iraqi Freedom and in some earlier operations like the one where we got Noriega in Panama.)

 

Rooster, it is very nice for you to say that race is not an issue and obviously I agree, but that is NOT what a lot of people were saying in 1949 when the miliary was integrated. I do not need to go into the whole history of racial hatred and injustice in this country. Even the BSA was not immune (there were some segregated units until the 60s.) It was a very big deal to a lot of people, and many people did argue that integration would be disruptive. This was an era where people were being lynched, where churches were being bombed, where people (of all races and religions) were being murdered because they were fighting for racial justice. It was an era in which some states banned interracial marriages; as late as 1970 Virginia was fighting in the Supreme Court to be able to enforce that law.

 

My point is that what is obvious to us now was not obvious to many people a very short time ago. I do agree with the others that the attitude toward gays and their inclusion in the military is moving in the same direction, and in the future all but a few people will marvel that it was even an issue.

 

But even forgetting all that: Doesn't the fact that 60+ percent of our society (according to this poll) does not have a problem with gays in the military tell us something about our society? And where it is heading? Something good in my opinion. And just as Scouting is not immune from the bad in society, it will not be immune from the good, either.

 

I just wish it didn't take so much grief, dissension, litigation and damage to the organization and what it stands for, to get there.

[evmori]

OGE,

Yes. I think Rooster said it well. All morality comes from God.

 

We preceive these people as righteous whne in fact, they have their own agenda & not that of God in mind.

 

NJ,

There is a BIG difference between the BSA & Bob White. The BSA is flexible & Bob White isn't!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[berkshirescouter]

I want to put aside for a moment how some religions do not approve of the gay lifestyle. I think the biggest problem with it is the stereotypical promiscuity. This immoral behavior is what I do not want BSA to condone by allowing openly gay (avowed) leaders. However here is where it gets interesting. To combat promiscuity society needs to encourage Monogamy i.e. Civil Union or whatever you want to call it. What does the poll say about this? It is against it. Granted the question was poor as was pointed out. Then in poll 5 it is for gay youth leaders. The poll is interesting because the results are confusing maybe from poor questions or maybe Fox News they spin we decide?

[Rooster7]

NJ & Twocubdad,

 

Perhaps you could understand my frustration if I approached the analogy from the opposite end -

 

There is a huge difference between those hateful bigots of yesteryear who yearned for the day when a black man was just a piece of property, and the God fearing people of today who oppose the "normalization" of homosexuality. If it pleases you, make the comparison. But the truth is - you are insulting millions of morally grounded folks (by looks of the Fox News poll, at least half of this country). Of course, it is plain to see, from your prospective and that of others on this board, homosexuals are the ones who are being insulted. You know - the Bible foretells of a day when evil is called good. Perhaps I should just accept the possibility that such a day is very near and beyond my ability to delay.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[NJCubScouter]

ItsTrailDay says:

 

I want to put aside for a moment how some religions do not approve of the gay lifestyle. I think the biggest problem with it is the stereotypical promiscuity. This immoral behavior is what I do not want BSA to condone by allowing openly gay (avowed) leaders.

 

I do agree that "stereotypical promiscuity" justifies the policy. As you say, it is "stereotypical." I don't think policy should be based on stereotypes. It should be based on individuals and their individual merits or demerits, not on what "group" they are a member of -- unless it is a "group" whose members have committed harmful conduct, such as "criminals." But that is not a stereotype, it is an individually-based decision based on what a person has done. I would think that "open promiscuity" is a good reason for rejecting someone as a leader regardless of his/her orientation. There are promiscuous straight people and promiscuous gay people. If I had to guess it would be that there are more promiscuous straight people numerically, but that it's the other way around percentage wise, or maybe this WAS true in the past, which led to the stereotype. I have known a number of gay people who were in committed relationships and others who wanted to be... just like the straight people I have known (or been.) I have also known a percentage of each orientation -- a minority in each case -- who seemed disposed to "running around."

 

Personally I don't think the numbers really matter. What does matter is that we do NOT use the promiscuity of some straight people as an excuse for banning all of us -- if we did, this would be a pretty quiet forum -- and we should not do so for gays. So therefore, I do not think that permitting "well-behaved" gay people to be Scout leaders would "condone" the actions of those who are promiscuous.

 

However here is where it gets interesting. To combat promiscuity society needs to encourage Monogamy i.e. Civil Union or whatever you want to call it. What does the poll say about this? It is against it. Granted the question was poor as was pointed out. Then in poll 5 it is for gay youth leaders. The poll is interesting because the results are confusing maybe from poor questions...

 

I think you have answered your own question. The respondents to the poll were NOT "against" measures that in your words would "encourage Monogamy i.e. Civil Union or whatever you want to call it." What they were "against" was gays getting MARRIED. Period. No other terminology or options seem to have been presented. As I said earlier, I think the word "marriage" makes a big difference to a lot of people. I am not sure that polls have been done regarding "civil unions" or similar terminology. It would not be an easy poll do in a fair manner because you would really have to explain what "civil union" means in a neutral manner. Most of these polls seem to be designed to obtain a more "reflexive" reaction rather than one that is well-thought-out.

 

I also question the relevance of gay marriage, civil unions or whatever to the issue that currently divides Scouting. Last time I checked, there was no requirement that straight leaders be married. Why is it necessary to adopt a measure to "encourage monogamy" for one orientation but not the other? And of course this brings up the catch-22 that gay people face. They are told that what they do is immoral because intimate relations between unmarried people are immoral (and as a matter of fact, that is how the BSA web site justifies the anti-gay policy, or at least it did in one of its incarnations.) Then they say to society, ok, let us get married, and society says no, that is just for straight people. Can't we give these poor folks a break, already? Meet them halfway and let them have SOME "status" that is considered legitimate, preserving the word "marriage" for ourselves in observance of tradition? The fact that that may not satisfy some "gay activists" is frankly irrelevant to me. I really think that our society (of which Scouting is a part) needs to put this whole issue behind us and move on to more important things,and it is obviously going to take some compromising to do it.

 

... or maybe Fox News they spin we decide?

 

ITD, you have always struck me as a reasonable person even though we don't always agree, and I knew that if I read down to the very end, there would be a part of your post I agreed with.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Oh, man, I can't believe I did that again. My first line should say, I do NOT agree. NOT. I have not had a personality transplant.

 

One of these days I will get around to writing to the good folk who moderate this forum and try to get some help in figuring why everybody else can edit their posts except me. I noticed it the first time I tried to edit after the 3 or 4 month "break" that I took from this forum in the spring/early summer.

[MarkNoel]

Rooster7 writes:

> There is a huge difference between those hateful bigots of yesteryear who yearned for the day

> when a black man was just a piece of property, and the God fearing people of today who oppose

> the "normalization" of homosexuality. If it pleases you, make the comparison. But the truth is -

> you are insulting millions of morally grounded folks (by looks of the Fox News poll, at least half of

> this country). Of course, it is plain to see, from your prospective and that of others on this board,

> homosexuals are the ones who are being insulted.

 

and also writes:

 

> I take comfort in the knowledge that there many good men in this country that know the difference

> gender, race, and sexual perversity.

 

Umm... the prosecution rests, your honor.

 

Do you really think that referring to gay people with words like "sexual perversity" doesn't really count as an insult?

 

If that's your belief, fine. But not everyone shares your theology on the issue, and your strident denunciations implying that "morally grounded folks" have to agree with you on this point certainly cross the line into "insulting" by any objective criteria. You've just branded quite a few denominations (Episcopal, UU, UCC, Reform Judaism, etc.) as being morally ungrounded, and have turned this from a civil and philosophical debate into a theological one.

 

And were you one of the ones wondering why the court in San Diego decided that the BSA was, in fact, a religious organization?

 

YiS,

-Mark

 

[NJCubScouter]

I have said a number of times that this whole thing is really about religion (and religious politics) and as times goes on I see more and more confirmation that I am correct. Rooster and Ed Mori and others, in various threads, do not deny this? How could they? In light of the fact that old social consensus against homosexuality is slowly fading away, and at present is maybe half-here and half-gone, all that is left is religion as a basis for the BSA's policy. Now, if it were all religions that would be one thing, but it isn't. One group of religions and denominations still sticks to the old view that the orientation is "immoral" and the other group does not. They all have the right to do what they do, as their own believers determine. But the BSA does NOT have the right to violate its OWN principles, and those principles include the concept that the BSA is "absolutely non-sectarian" in matters of religion. In choosing sides on this issue, the BSA violates the Declaration of Religious Principles. Until society sorts this all out in 5 or 10 or 50 years, it seems to me that "local option" is the ONLY way the BSA can abide by its own Declaration of Religious Principles.

[Rooster7]

Do you really think that referring to gay people with words like "sexual perversity" doesn't really count as an insult?

 

Homosexuality IS a sexual perversity. Whether or not one wishes to view it as such is another issue. The fact is - sex is how we and other animals procreate. While the sexes (as in male and female) most often derive pleasure from the experience, biologically we are completing a natural process, which enables us to subsist from one generation to the next. Certainly, there are many who simply want to enjoy the experience. Regardless, it IS a natural process. Homosexuals have perverted the natural process to meet their own selfish and twisted desires. They, in fact, cannot procreate without the help of heterosexuals. So, while it may offend you, the fact is homosexuality is a perversity.

 

If that's your belief, fine. But not everyone shares your theology on the issue, and your strident denunciations implying that "morally grounded folks" have to agree with you on this point certainly cross the line into "insulting" by any objective criteria.

 

In this case, the objective criterion has always been self-evident morally and physically. But if youre still having problems, try picking up a biology book.

 

You've just branded ungrounded, and have turned this from a civil and philosophical debate into a theological one.

 

If I were changing this to a theological debate, Id quote the Bible. While I believe the Bible is wholly the Word of God and infallible, one merely needs to look at a man and woman to realize how things ought to be. When I think of two men togetherwell, lets just say Id rather not think about it.

 

People on this board vigorously complained when guys like Yaworski described homosexual relationships and their sexual activities so bluntly. And I understand, because the visuals are repulsive. Yet, why is one so repulsed by what is being purported by some as being natural? The answer is obvious. Its not just about modesty. They know. Just like the folks who support abortion, but scream bloody murder when a pro-life protestors display photographs of an aborted child. They know. If one truly believes an abortion is merely a medical procedure, then those photographs would have the impact of an infected gaud bladder. But no, that is not the reaction, is it? Likewise, if we seat in a movie theater and see a man and woman engaged in love making we may blush some might even be offended because it intrudes on their sense of modesty BUT, it is not the absolute repulsion that most of us feel when we see two men engaged in a similar act. Yes my friend, morality is self-evident. And someday soon we will meet a holy and righteous God, who will hold us accountable. But if it makes you feel better, cast aside these words as the ravings of just another idiot with an opinion. Youd be mostly right in that assumption. However, theres no amount of intellectualizing that you can produce that will convince me that you are blinded to the immorality and perversity of homosexuality.

 

And were you one of the ones wondering why the court in San Diego decided that the BSA was, in fact, a religious organization?

 

Frankly, it matters not to me what the SD court decided. Regardless of how others label the BSA, it is first and foremost a private organization. They are allowed to establish their own guidelines for membership. They are allowed to declare and promote their own values. They do not have to explain or justify the origins of those values, even if some feel that they are religious.

 

NJ,

 

Until society sorts this all out in 5 or 10 or 50 years, it seems to me that "local option" is the ONLY way the BSA can abide by its own Declaration of Religious Principles.

 

This assumes that the BSAs position is based on the beliefs of a particular religion. Perhaps, its rooted in their own self-centered sense of morality just as one is repulsed by incest, pedophilia, murder, and rape perhaps the powers-to-be in the BSA are repulsed by homosexuality. Who are you to say that the BSA position is rooted in a particular religion or even multiple religions? Why cant they, as a group of leaders, embrace the values that they feel compelled to embrace outside of religion? By implication, you seem to believe that only people that cast aside and abandon values associated with past generations can have a sense of morality that is independent from religion. Why cant people embrace values claim them as their own not because a particular religion has the same value, but because they have an innate sense that the value is good and proper? The answer is they can!

 

No matter, in 5 or 10 or 50, or 100 years, we will all know the answers.

 

[tjhammer]

Rooster -- your strictly utilitarian view of sex is no less surprising than your consistent rhetoric.

 

You suggest that sex is either for procreation or for selfish pleasure (the first practiced by you, and the latter practiced by me, in your not-so-humble opinion). The absurdity of your view is that it ignores the most common role of sex: Sex is an expression of love. Sex is one of the highest ways that we become intimate and close to one another. Sex is about respect. Sex is selfless, not selfish. Sex need not be utilitarian nor debasing... that's true in my relationship (and most)... perhaps not in yours. But in reality, I'd guess (though I can't be sure with you ) that you would agree with these simple and axiomatic statements.

 

But see, I understand that you can not relate to me, nor apply these statements to my relationship. Your pious view prohibits you from even understanding the love I have, or considering for one moment that it might parallel your own.

 

I don't begrudge you of your opinion or your demons. You're certainly correct that we'll all be judged soon enough, and the Truth will become clear to us both. Your view of how the scorecard will be tallied is so much more complex than mine.

 

[Rooster7]

Complex scorecard? I suppose, I could simplify my life by adopting the "if it feels good, do it" mantra. But, as simple as that sounds, it never rang true to me. We do have one thing in common though - I don't begrudge you. But we part ways shortly thereafter...I do begrudge your demons. In short, love the sinner - hate the sin.

 

Sex as an expression of love - Yes, but as it was meant to be, between a man and a woman. Biologically, they are a perfect fit. Other combinations are just wrong. How anyone can unashamedly argue otherwise, is beyond me. While I still maintain that procreation is a natural byproduct of a natural relationship between a man and a woman, I never stated that sex between a man and a woman was strictly utilitarian. That was your twist to my words.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[evmori]

If homosexuality is so natural as some seem to think, why can't men have babies? Without babies, our race is doomed to extinction!

 

I'm with Rooster 100% on this. Homosexuality is perverse and unnatural. It is also a lifestyle.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[KoreaScouter]

Twocubdad;

 

I fell into this thread a little late; please excuse my late weigh-in. You said that you don't think the average 19 year-old military recruit cares about the morals of the person working next to him (or words to that effect). I couldn't disagree more. While the typical 19-year old working at a fast food restaurant or hanging out at home may not care about the morals of the person next to him on the fry line or across the street, the typical 19-year old military recruit is different. He does care about the morals of the people he works with, and things foreign to many teenagers, like duty, honor, loyalty, and right/wrong, are tremendously important to him -- it's a main reason he joined in the first place. That's why acts such as adultery, which has lost most if not all its stigma in society, is a punishable offense in the military, as is faking sick to avoid work, disrespecting a superior, and other offenses that wouldn't raise an eyebrow in a civilian environment. Please don't assume the 19-year old who just made your sub sandwich is wired the same as the 19-year old who's NEO-ing Americans out of Liberia -- they ain't. BTW, the pilots do give a hoot who works on their planes, and not just whether or not they can turn a wrench...

 

KS

 

 

[Rooster7]

Thanks KoreaScouter for weighing in on this topic. Your reaction as a military man is typical from what I have encountered among my friends and associates. An army needs to be unified, just like any other team trying to accomplish a common goal - but the stakes are much higher. If they cannot support, trust, and relate to one another, the team quickly falls apart.