The other thread (for those wanting to discuss homosexuality)

[Kahuna]

Prof writes: Bill Murry was at his best in that!

 

 

That's a fact, Jack!

[packsaddle]

Granted that it wasn't a lead, but I kind of liked his role in 'Little Shop of Horrors'.

 

Heck, I liked 'What About Bob?' and 'Groundhog Day' as well.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[vol_scouter]

Calicopenn writes:

 

"A married man who sneaks around and has sex with adult males is either a closeted homosexual or is bisexual. A married man who victimizes a male child but would never have sex with a male adult is not a closeted homosexual, is a criminal."

 

Certainly an adult male having sex with an underage youth is a criminal but that does not mean that he is not a homosexual. It is intellectually vapid to say that every time an adult male has sex with an underage male that it cannot be due to attraction. Homosexuals can lust after underage youth just as heterosexuals can lust after underage youth of the opposite sex. If either act upon it, it is a crime. Some same sex relationships between adults and youth is a crime of power while some are of sexual passion just as in heterosexuals.

[VigilEagle04]

"As a parent I do not want my children taught that being gay is natural and therefore an appropriate life style. As I don't believe that being gay is natural, in fact I believe it defies all of nature."

 

We have observed homosexuality in the animal kingdom though.

 

Anyway, regardless of how people view it, or how a CO views it, there is a moral standard that stands above all of that that is talked about in both the BSA and those COs. I am of course referring to the golden rule, the silver rule, one of the two greatest commandments, the Wiccan rede, however you want to look at it. Love your neighbor as yourself, treat others as you would like to be treated, etc. Every person in this country, and indeed the world, is an equal and should be treated as such, regardless of race, disabilities, or sexual orientation even.

[Mr. Boyce]

The problem with the public discussion about homosexuality comes from the fact that people ONLY tend to rely on legal concepts.

 

The "discipline" of psychology seems unable to come to a consensus about homosexuality. (Yes, I know of the great political pressure that caused the psychiatric manual to redefine homosexuality: does a public vote held under severe duress ever really make science?").

 

People have been trained for at least one generation now to discount their moral and religious views as (somehow) illegitimate bases for one's political views.

 

People also have been trained NOT to cause dissension with others around them: it's "inappropriate" or impolite or incorrect to disagree. . . especially when a political difference can merely be papered over with contrivances paid for by government. We can buy as many "rights" as we need, to avoid unpleasant disagreement.

 

I'm not a little disgruntled that our majestic universities, funded with millions of dollars, are unable to really shed light on homosexuality and pedophilia. Science hasn't provided much in the way of answers.

 

I ALSO question deeply the notion that people are unable to control their sexual behavior, even as extreme a behavior as homosexual actions. Human beings have rationality, and consciousness, and are quite different from animals when it comes to matters of moral concern. We can restrain ourselves.

[WAKWIB]

"People have been trained for at least one generation now to discount their moral and religious views as (somehow) illegitimate bases for one's political views."

 

For the most part Western culture has been shaped over several generations to accept a "scientific view" that:

1)There is no god

2)Humans are simply high-order primates

 

With this in mind, it would follow that any moral compass would be useless, or doesn't exist at all.

 

However, discussions like this tend to bespeak the lie of the two points of the scientific view described above. For apparently we have something our "brother apes" don't have; a conscience that is somehow imprinted with the capacity to discern and discuss right from wrong. If we didn't have such a thing wouldn't we still be fighting it out in the jungle?

[packsaddle]

"does a public vote held under severe duress ever really make science?"

Answer: NO

"People have been trained for at least one generation now to discount their moral and religious views as (somehow) illegitimate bases for one's political views."

Your reasoning? Has the 'Tea Party' heard this news?

 

"People also have been trained NOT to cause dissension with others around them: it's "inappropriate" or impolite or incorrect to disagree."

Which explains the lack of argument and dissension in these threads.

 

"I'm not a little disgruntled that our majestic universities, funded with millions of dollars, are unable to really shed light on homosexuality and pedophilia. Science hasn't provided much in the way of answers."

Does this mean you're only a teeny weeny bit disgruntled or a huge amount disgruntled? What 'light' is it that you want shed on homosexuality? Pedophilia?

How much funding do you know of that has gone into research on those questions? Who did the research? What fraction of all research at all 'our majestic universities' does that represent?

 

Edited to add:

"For the most part Western culture has been shaped over several generations to accept a "scientific view" that:

1)There is no god

2)Humans are simply high-order primates "

 

To describe the above as a scientific view is a display of profound scientific ignorance. In 1) science simply cannot address things that are supernatural. In 2) humans ARE primates. Their placement is somewhat a matter of opinion, depending on the context.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

WAKWIB writes:

1)There is no god

2)Humans are simply high-order primates

With this in mind, it would follow that any moral compass would be useless, or doesn't exist at all.

 

No, that doesn't "follow" at all; it's a complete non-sequitur.

You need to show your logic, not just assert your conclusion.

[CalicoPenn]

With apologies to Martin Niemoller (and with much sarcasm intended):

 

First they told me I couldn't hate women, and I lost that fight.

 

Then they told me I couldn't hate blacks, and I lost that fight.

 

Theny they told me I couldn't hate Jews, and I lost that fight.

 

Then they told me I couldn't hate the Italians, and I lost that fight.

 

Then they told me I couldn't hate the disabled, and I lost that fight.

 

Now they're telling me I can't hate gays, lesbians and Muslims. Is there nothing sacred anymore?

[WAKWIB]

I would first consider: Why do we even discuss "right from wrong?" If indeed we are simply primates, then are only concern would be food, shelter, and reproduction. There would be, in essence no need for a moral code.

The next question would be: "If we have a moral code or ideal, what informs it?"

I'm interested Merlyn (or others) in your answers to these questions.

 

 

[WAKWIB]

I would first consider: Why do we even discuss "right from wrong?" If indeed we are simply primates, then are only concern would be food, shelter, and reproduction. There would be, in essence no need for a moral code.

The next question would be: "If we have a moral code or ideal, what informs it?"

I'm interested Merlyn (or others) in your answers to these questions.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

WAKWIB writes:

If indeed we are simply primates, then are only concern would be food, shelter, and reproduction.

 

Again, you are just making assertions instead of showing how you reach your conclusions.

 

For just one example, food, shelter, and reproduction are much more successful in a society that has laws against murder & theft, so having rules against that would make that society more likely to thrive (and possibly outlive another society that didn't have such rules). Right there is an example of why moral codes exist.

 

"If we have a moral code or ideal, what informs it?"

 

I'd say it's plain old human emotions like empathy.

 

If we get our morality from gods, why don't gods agree on basic moral questions like polygamy? How are humans supposed to tell which god is right?

[packsaddle]

"Why do we even discuss "right from wrong?" If indeed we are simply primates, then are only concern would be food, shelter, and reproduction. There would be, in essence no need for a moral code."

 

I'm not sure why you modify the term with 'simply'. We are primates. That is a matter of definition. There is nothing particularly controversial or 'wrong' with being a primate. It just IS what we are.

 

Moreover I have no idea how your logic follows then, that we cannot thereby discuss right from wrong or that there is no need for a moral code. Are you advocating that there ISN'T a need for a moral code?

 

The next question you state, "If we have a moral code or ideal, what informs it?", has an easy answer. We do. That's why we discuss these things. We're not 'simply' primates. We have the ability to think about these things and decide for ourselves what is best. So we do.

 

[WAKWIB]

How did we get the the ability to think about these things and decide what is best?(This message has been edited by WAKWIB)

[ScoutLass]

Well, let's push science out of the equation. Throughout history and throughout the world there has been many, many times and cultures where homosexuality was not a "sin" in the moral compass of the day. Of course, right or wrong, in the US we are expected to mold ourselves to the prevailing Christian moral compass or we "step on toes."

 

Human beings are primates, and homosexual and bisexual behavior has been observed in various other primates. In some species it seems acceptable, in others it leads to ostracism or expulsion.

 

Many animals seem to have a basic moral code, particularly other primates. Completely different than our moral code and much more simplistic, but expulsion, ostracism, punishments, etc are doled out in packs and colonies of other animals. (Watch the penguins at the zoo, particularly when there are some adolescent penguins present. If one starts playing too rough, or does something else that is frowned upon, he gets hustled into a corner for a "timeout" by the older penguins).

 

Personally, I am sick and tired of being told that things are wrong from a religious stand point that I don't share, particularly in a country where that is not supposed to happen. If the only argument anyone has to offer against something is a religious reason, whether it be my religion or someone else's, then it holds no weight with me and should not be forced upon the general population.

 

If the primary fear is a homosexual scout leader will take advantage of a boy, then I wonder why people aren't more worried about female scout leaders? Especially with all the high profile cases lately of female teachers and middle school-aged boys.