Gay parents influence on kids

[evmori]

So, the quesiton is, why cant sexual orientation be genetic, I can't prove it is, but what is the proof it is not?

 

Then it's a choice.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

So Ed, because I cant prove its genetics that means you are right?

 

TJ, I didnt mean to suggest that Gay was a defect, only that there are many things that are part of a person from birth. I used the genetic examples because people here, will say being Gay is a choice because if it was genetics then no Gays could be born. I was trying to use examples that some traits are not exhibited in every generation. Now that I think about it, I could have used the example of the boy with red hair in a family of all brunettes, except a distant cousins mothers uncle. I did not intend to say gays are defective, like I said before, or if I didnt in this thread, I will now, the main reason I try to stay out of these threads is because I find myself not adequately explaining myself. But I do join in when seemingly unsufferable oafs repeat non sensical arguments that have more a ring of rehearsed cacophony logic than actual thought.

 

When I see the gifts that some people are born with, intelligince, athletic prowess, etc, why cant sexual orientation be one of them?

[tjhammer]

OGE, I certainly did not expect that you personaly felt it was a "defect"... I've always had respect for your perspective on this (and other) issue(s).

 

I think you expressed yourself very well, and you've said nothing from which to back away. I'm pointing out a personal discomfort I have with the whole "genetic" debate (which is even more highlighted when the concept of "genetic defect" comes in to the discussion).

 

If we place all our emphasis on arguing that homosexuality is genetic, it's a slippery slope to then say it's a genetic defect, and then on to "treating" the defect. Once we head down that path, it seems we're ultimately play right back into the hands of prejudice.

[Trevorum]

tj, I'm certainly not an expert, but I respectfully disagree. I am convinced that homosexuality is "genetic" in the same sense that having red hair is genetic. Both are statistically unusual but neither are "defects". It's not a perfect analogy because homosexuality is clearly present in every human population and is not geographically restricted. Because any "gene" that affects reproduction will be tightly bound to overall species success, I am further convinced that a specified level of homosexuality in evolving human populations must have been adaptive and increased the overall survival rate ("fitness") of the band. In other words, the groups that survived tended to have some non-reproducing "gay" males. This is of course just a hypothesis, but it makes a lot of evolutionary sense.

[tjhammer]

Trevorum, we're not in disagreement. I've acknowledged that my own homosexuality is innate, much like being left-handed or having a specific personality trait, regardless of nurturing.

 

I also see the genetic argument that a society might adapt homosexuality as a percentage of the population.

 

But at the point we ONLY argue prejudice against gays is wrong "because they're born that way", we're entering a slippery slope. We have to be VERY vigilant that the "it's genetic" argument is not twisted by those who are prejudice to be "it's a genetic defect".

 

Those that currently prejudge gays do so based on stereotypes and presupposed morality. If a genetic "cause" is confirmed, many of the same people will continue to prejudge gays, this time pointing to the "genetic defect" that must be "treated".

 

My position is that society must ultimately drop prejudice against homosexuals regardless of the "cause" of homosexuality, and while that's an even more difficult proposition than "proving the genetics", ultimately it's achieved only through familiarity and breaking stereotypes and abandoning invalid views of morality.

[acco40]

Is being a redhead a genetic defect? No, if one was born in Scotland. Yes, if one was born in Saudi Arabia.

 

I firmly believe, even if I can't prove it, that many of our traits are due primarily to our genetic code. That does not make those traits right or wrong, sinful or free of sin but it does make them socially acceptable/unacceptable, for the good/bad of society as a whole, etc. The whole debate of nature vs. nurture, free-will vs. predestination, and on and on come into play.

 

I would like to know why the BSA decision makers believe avowed homosexuals would not be good role models. Until they explain that, I have very little ammunition to argue with.

[Trevorum]

tj, you are right. Regardless of what science discovers in this field, there will always be some people who will disagree for religious reasons. Witness the furor about evolution.

 

In the past, people have tried to "cure" the sinister "defect" of left-handedness. Red hair was seen as evidence of a defective fiery disposition and some people dyed their hair to mask this. People with kinky hair were told they were defective and some used hair straighteners. Dark skin ... wacko-jacko (need I say more?) Even today, some women who are genetically flat-chested are convinced they are defective. But we know that these conditions are genetic and are are present at birth and that these people DO NOT CHOOSE to have these "socially unpopular" characteristics.

 

Yes, some genotypes will always be more socially popular than others. BUT, we no longer seriously believe that red-heads are all innate sinners or that the kinky haired are fundamentally immoral (both of these prejudices were common in the 19th century).

 

 

[evmori]

I would like to know why the BSA decision makers believe avowed homosexuals would not be good role models. Until they explain that, I have very little ammunition to argue with.

 

I don't know about the BSA but I don't think homosexuals - avowed or not - make good role models. Why? I don't feel their lifestyle is one I would want my kids to emulate.

 

If homosexuality is normal, why aren't their more homosexuals? Why did God destroy two entire cities?

 

Why do you feel homosexuals are good role models?

 

ED Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[acco40]

On the surface, I don't think avowed homosexuals or avowed heterosexuals make good role models. Conversely, on the surface I don't think avowed homosexuals or avowed heterosexuals make bad role models. I believe both could or could not display characteristics that would make them or not make them good role models and the CO/COR should be the body that determines who would make good role models (i.e. leaders) for the specific units. I know heterosexuals that I believe have disgusting sexual behavior - the same for some homosexuals. The converse is also true.

 

I also feel you, Rooster and others don't use certain terms the way I do. "Normal" for example. I'm left-handed (i.e. sinister - look it up). That is not normal. That, in and of itself, is neither bad nor good. Good if I aspire to be a MLB player. Bad if I want to drive a car in the USA, cut with scissors, use a door knob, operate a telephone, wear a watch, use a butter knife, write the English language with a pen or pencil, and a myriad of other things in this 8&%$!`** right-handed world (but I digress).

 

The fact that homosexuality is or is not normal should be irrelevant to BSA membership.

[Kahuna]

I would like to know why the BSA decision makers believe avowed homosexuals would not be good role models. Until they explain that, I have very little ammunition to argue with.

The reason is simple and I mentioned it before: It is a profit vs loss calculation. The BSA reckons (probably correctly) that, at this moment, they would lose more membership and units by permitting homosexual members than otherwise. At some future time, if that changes, so will BSA policy. Personally, I think we are very close to that time. I believe the policy will change in my lifetime. Some will leave, some will join.

In reality, IMHO, role modeling has little to do with it. Statistics and personal experience show that kids do not emulate the sexual orientation of their leaders. The leaders of the BSA must know that as well.

[evmori]

Kahuna,

It might be all about $$$ & not about role modeling at a National level. But, as for me & my house, we will serve the Lord. In other words, for me, it is all about role modeling & ethics.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

What hetero ethics and role models do you demonstrate to Scouts? I would hope that you don't stand in front a Scout and demonstrate proper hetero techniques or ethics.

If you leave the mechanics of sex out of the discussion, what roles or ethics do homosexuals overtly demonstrate to others, that would be any different than heteros?

 

We are all to be asexual when working with Scouts. It isn't appropriate for either hetero or homosexual behaviour to be discussed or demonstrated.

[Rooster7]

At one point in this country, it was perfectly acceptable for adult males, in and out of Scouts, to teach and demonstrate to boys the proper way to treat a lady.

 

Even if we ignore this, today, it is not uncommon to see a man kiss his wife good-bye as he ventures off for the weekend with a troop. Also, in normal day-to-day interactions, husband and wives demonstrate a certain degree of intimacy to those around them. To pretend that heterosexuality is not on display in the Scouting community is inane. It may not be overtly taught, but it is plainly there for the Scouts to see. Are you suggesting, as a matter of political correctness, that troops should attempt to regulate those customary exchanges between husband and wife? Surely, any attempt to do so will fail. My point is heterosexuality is taught to our children. Its not a formal education, but it is clearly and openly communicated to our children.

 

[evmori]

What hetero ethics and role models do you demonstrate to Scouts?

 

Hetero ethics? Interesting.

 

The ethics I model are housed in the Scout Law and Oath. As far as a role model, same thing. I feel

 

>Just because no one was hurt doesn't necessarily make it OK.

 

>We are responsible for our actions.

 

>There are consequences for our actions.

 

There are many more but all fall in the same vein.

 

Nothing hetero about it. Just ethical.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Trevorum]

Rooster, you are confused. That is NOT heterosexual behavior. That is merely normal tenderness between two people who love each other. It is not the exclusive domain of straight folks.