A possible solution to the gay issue

[skeptic]

Camilam;

 

You will not get far with reason on this; you simply cannot really separate the emotion from the subject. But, you certainly have put some things out to consider.

[camilam42]

@ skeptic,

 

I know what you're saying, but in attempting to keep emotion out of it is important. My emotional view doesn't effect the BSA in any way shape or form. My role as a volunteer is to support the BSA. That is what I am doing, albeit through reason and not through emotion.

[Eagledad]

Interesting civil discussion.

 

I do want to add one point.

 

>>Now, I have a degree in anthropology. History shows that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality. It has been documented for thousands of years.

[BadenP]

Camilan,

You claim to use reason to support your argument and yet I find it sorely lacking in your long posts rambling through philosophy, religion, and history misquoting all three fields to give your argument support which in reality they do not. The religious domination of the BSA structure from National down to the unit level, the BSA DRP,oath, and law makes it virtually impossible to affect any change in the BSA on this issue. It is not a matter of what may seem like a reasonable argument philosophically it is a matter of dealing with the reality of the situation, and that is where your argument lacks substance.

[packsaddle]

Wow, there's a solution to the world's problems: famine. Stop supplying food handouts to starving people and things will turn out just fine. There's a Republican in SC who famously noted during his campaign, a quote from his grandmother with regard to stray cats and dogs that he applied to poor, hungry people: "Don't feed them...they breed."

 

 

I think this should be called the "Idle Hands" theory. Thank goodness we're at least not blaming it on junk food!

Yeah, what we need is a horrible, punishing depression to impoverish us and reduce us to living in pig sties in famine and slavish servitude at the feet of the Chinese to keep us busy. THEN we'll be a moral society again.

But above all else, don't let us have cheap or easy access to food! We might breed.

 

Edit: I wonder....what is 'perverse' to a monkey? That's OK, you don't have to answer. We all know that evolutionarily we're practically monkeys anyway so if WE think it's perverse for us, it must be so for our closest evolutionary relatives. One more confirmation of evolution and man's ancestry. Nice.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[ScoutLass]

Camlan, a natural mistake and no hard feelings. We have priests in Zen too, as well as monks and nuns. In fact in my sangha (church), we have a Catholic priest that is also a Zen monk which can lead to all sorts of terminology confusion, as well as interesting theological debate!

 

The reason I state your argument is invalid because it is as you say, the teachings of the Catholic church. The reasoned arguments in these teachings are only reasonable within the scope of the specific theology and history of the organization/faith from which they are drawn. Not everyone shares this theology. Not all parts of the world have Catholicism or Christianity playing a major historical role in their development. The theological argument you presented argues the "unnatural" side of homosexuality, but I could make an equally rational argument that life-long celibacy vows are unnatural. These are not based in fact, but upon theological arguments. It only proves that within the theological arguments based upon Catholic doctrine and Christian scripture that your position is correct for other Catholics. The bible is also open to interpretation, considering there are other Christian denominations that have "proved" through rational theological discourse that homosexuality is not immoral.

 

I could share rational arguments based upon my personal theology that are at direct opposition to yours. To what is the point though? I am not trying to win you over to my religion or my set of religious moral beliefs. A theological-based argument from me or anyone else holds no weight unless all parties are of the same belief system. The BSA's, across-the-board decree on this issue has the fundamental flaw of assumption that all COs and members should be on the same page in regard to this one issue of morality, thus disrespecting those organizations that have a differing moral take on this. As I said, I do not think anyone's morals should be forced to fit into this preordained box nor forced to accept another faith's morals as superior to their own, therefore local option eradicates that problem. I won't make you and you won't make me.

 

One last thing and then I'll drop Rome -- the date of the fall of Rome is not agreed upon by historians. Some do not consider the fall to have taken place until Constantinople fell in 1453. 700 years after Mohammad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>Edit: I wonder....what is 'perverse' to a monkey?

[ScoutLass]

Barry, I am familiar with the studies or some similar to that you refer to. Unfortunately, your teacher espoused only one theory culled from these studies. There are several theories in both the civilization and the monkey studies depending on who is espousing them. Another major theory is that homosexuality rises when the population begins to rise, in other words it is a natural form of population control that clicks in. Which then makes homosexuality completely natural when that theory is the one chosen. A large population is naturally more difficult to govern and manage, so it declines or falls. While homosexuality and a decline/fall both appear to be natural byproducts of the rise of a population, one does not necessarily relate to the other in terms of morality. The nature of theories is to base them upon facts, but they remain theories because the facts of them cannot be proven yet or at all.

Edited--You commented as I was that perversion was your take on it. So scratch that last paragraph!

 

I also wonder if the program you mention actually used the word perversion in the moral sense your post conveys or if that was your addition. Generally when studying animals researchers refrain from projecting human morality onto the subjects, as it is generally accepted that the same moral grounds do not apply. This is why it isn't called murder when a lion kills the old lion and takes over the pride.(This message has been edited by Scoutlass)

[camilam42]

@ ScoutLass,

 

You say, "The reason I state your argument is invalid because it is as you say, the teachings of the Catholic church. The reasoned arguments in these teachings are only reasonable within the scope of the specific theology and history of the organization/faith from which they are drawn. Not everyone shares this theology."

 

The ideal which I am speaking of isn't really something that is strictly Catholic. It is just stated most concisely in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is why I brought a correlation between the CCC and the BSA policy. Also, I assumed that you were Catholic, so I was speaking to you as another Catholic. That isn't the case and I apologized for that.

 

Notice, that this isn't simply a theological principle, but rather a philosophical one as well, which has no religious boundarym hence my statement, "This really isn't so much a religious argument, but rather a rational one. I simply used Catholic teaching to show how it is consistent with BSA ideals."

 

For another time and place, but to simply put your mind at ease, you say, "The theological argument you presented argues the "unnatural" side of homosexuality, but I could make an equally rational argument that life-long celibacy vows are unnatural."

 

One doesn't have anything to do with the other, that is a fallacy called poisoning the well. But to speak directly to it, yes, life-long celibacy is unnatural (strictly speaking), however, it is NOT irrational, if one understands the scope in which it is undertaken. I digress....

 

You state, "No, of course not, but both of our values deserve the respect of equal consideration by the organization that we have pledged our time and resources to forward.

 

I will never convince you of my side nor will you convince me of yours. This is why local option is the only option that will really work."

 

Fortunately or unfortunately that isn't the case. The BSA runs based upon principles which they have determined to be best for Scouts and Scouting. I don't have to convince you nor do I have to not convince you. The choice is clearly yours. Accept the BSA policy and abide by it, or not. You don't have to like it, but regardless of your personal view, it is what it is. We disagree on the idea that a local option is best, because when the direction is diluted to the local level the leadership invariably breaks down. You should know that from your studies.

 

Finally, my handle is camilam42, not camlan. Thank you.

[Eagledad]

>>The nature of theories is to base them upon facts, but they remain theories because the facts of them cannot be proven yet or at all.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Eagledad writes:

""History shows that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality"". Facts? If your statement were true, we wouldn't have these discussions.

 

What? That statement IS true. Homosexuality is natural because it is found in nature.

 

If you want to argue that homosexuality is undesirable for some reason, don't use words that mean something else entirely, like natural/unnatural.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

So thanks to cam for his quotes from da Catholic catechism.

 

Based on those quotes, cam, it would seem that you Catholic folks by your own sense of moral values would be required to to accept a gay Scoutmaster who was living a life of abstinence.

 

Is that correct?

 

Such an "avowed" homosexual would be living a morally straight life, eh? And any unjust discrimination based solely on his orientation, and not his actions, must be avoided.

 

So you Catholics are opposed to the current BSA policy. That's interestin'. Why aren't yeh working to change it?

 

B

 

[Eagledad]

//Homosexuality is natural because it is found in nature.//

 

I don't agree.

 

[packsaddle]

Eagledad, care to share your explanation for what you think 'natural' is? How must someone else understand it in order to apply the term in the same way you apply it?

[BadenP]

Camilam

 

You seem to be confused with the difference between Catholic theology and the institutional practices of the clergy and so once again your argument falls flat on its face. You present a lot of double talk nonsense in your posts that is taken out of context or just not accurate to start with. If you are trying to impress us with your philosophical background you are failing miserably, as Scout Lass has been trying to point out to you.