Which "lifestyles" are acceptable.

[Basementdweller]

Ya know

 

I like the female form

 

I like European Motorcycles

 

I like a nice bourbon

 

I like a smooth cigar

 

My nice chair on the patio is the perfect place to enjoy them....well maybe no the first one.

 

I like good company and a good discussion.

 

 

Does any of it conflict with the scout oath and law????? Only if each are consumed in excess.

 

Does any one in the Pack Troop or Crew know I enjoy such things. Nope. I am not leering at the moms as they come thru the door, nor am I drinking of smoking, all though I have ridden my bike to meetings on occasion. Good company and conversation, nothing better shared around a campfire on a fall eventing.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Vicki, where the heck are you anyway!!!???

Normally I would indulge in gratuitous "sexist claptrap", as Vicki calls it. But I guess I've missed her too much so I'm going to change my stripes for a moment and note that Basementdweller just committed a terrible transgression of equating women with motorcycles, whiskey, and cigars. Wow.

 

Stripes changed back again, I almost wish I'd said it myself. I've even named my cycle with a female name (Sheila). I like the sound she makes when we're together...the feeling...well, you know....

(except that cigar part...for plenty of reasons)

 

Interesting, if Leviticus DOESN'T prohibit something, I guess it's OK! EeeeHaaaaa! You GO, Old Testament!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Scoutfish]

Seattle,

Did you actually read my post?

 

The very first thing I said was:

 

"SEattle, I pretty much agree in that I am either not into, or do not believe in nor do I follow the ideas of homosexuality, Polygamous marrages, , Bisexuality, non monogamous marrages or relationships, or even orgies for those not in any type or relationship. "

 

So when you say : "There is really no end to the perversity that the sexual liberation movement has and will champion. There is no place to stop.

 

Perhaps that appeals to you, but not to me

 

I wonder what you mean. How could you say that something might appeal to me when I said it doesn't at the very beginning of my post. I said I was NOT into that, and you accuse me of championing it.

 

 

" But varying denominations are free and entitled to decide for themselves what they will teach as sexual morality. They are free to interpret the Bible according to their own lights.

 

It's not something YOU are entitled to do for them. "

 

 

I never once said I was deciding for anybody else.

I didn't even suggest that my views might be right because they were durable and had been around for two thousand years.

 

All I said was that I had to be fair and offer a counterpoint to the other side because their veiws are just as durable because they had been around for just as long. Technical thing, that's all.

 

I mean, just because a view has been around a long time doesn't make it the right view. Especialy if other veiws have been around just as long.

 

Not saying your view or opinion doiesn't count, juts that the time it's been around isn't a factor if all the other veiws have been around just as long.

 

And again, I DO NOT follow , sucribe to, or participate inpolygamy, homosexuality, orgies, non-monogomus marrages, etc....

 

But I am open minded enough to know that my opinions, my beliefs, my point of views are not the only ones or the best just because aloty opf people follow them or because they have ben aropund for a long time. Especially when I know that my personal beliefs have been around no olonger than others belifes or that amajority of the world population doesn't share them.

 

Matter of fact, it ought to be pretty obvious to anybody who reads my posts that ...while I have a certain set of beliefs, I do not look down on, discriminate against, or show contempt to those who have other beliefs.

 

I respect everybody else beliefs in the same way I want them to respect mine.

Basically, I am saying you can't call seniority of beliefs based on age of those beliefs when other beliefs are much older.

 

But I never said your beliefs were wrong or less worthy. I never questioned the validity of those beliefs. I only said that they cannot be considered the most correct - because they were 2000 years old - when other beliefs are older.

 

That would be like having my 10 year old son say he is superior in scouting to a 17 year old Eagle candidate because my son has been in scouting since he was 7.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Scoutfish, I'm not certain but it's possible his view is clouded by a certain photo of a certain person wearing a tutu.

 

Edit to add: Heh, heh, I wonder...doth he protest too much????(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Scoutfish,

 

 

Oh, I'm not saying that traditional Christian sexual morality is "right." Human beings have lived under hugely varying sexual mores.

 

 

My argument is pretty much utilitarian. Traditional Christian sexual morality tends to be functional for society, tending to lead to families that will care for and raise children.

 

That is NOT the goal or priority for the sexual liberation value system, and not surprisingly families and children have tended to be devalued as that value system has ascended in power and influence, such as by normalizing divorce.

 

The main emphasis of the sexual liberation movement is to gratify the sexual desires of the individual. Unfortunately, the more sexual desires are gratified the more jaded people become and the more extreme the sexual gratification must become.

 

That is true short term for a lot of individuals, and longer term for a society built on the values of sexual liberation. Because of that, I reject the sexual liberation line of argument.

 

Where is the sexual liberation movement leading us? Well of course, such things as homosexual marriage and teaching about gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered individuals as part of the public school curriculum. On the horizon, sex between adults and children and polygamy.

 

There is no logical place for the sexual liberation movement to stop.

[Scoutfish]

WEll, the tutu picture is just one of those horrible things in life. Worse than dropping your ice cream cone, but way better than divorce!

 

 

Yeah Seattle, I wasn't argueing the merits of either side's value, just looking at the math part of it only.

[Beavah]

MOsr wars are due to conflicts of relgions or religious views

 

HOGWASH. You're normally a bright fellow, Scoutfish, but this proposition is just nonsense. It's like da Big Lie. People start believin' it because it gets repeated often enough and they're lazy, but it doesn't stand even a moment's scrutiny.

 

Let's look at our nation's wars. Da Revolution? Nope. 1812? Nope. Frontier wars? Nope. Civil War? Maybe, to da extent to which the abolition of slavery was for da most part a religious issue. Mexican War? Nope. Spanish American War? Nope. World War One? Nope. World War Two? Nope. Vietnam War? Only obliquely, to da extent the communists were interested in exterminating religion along with other liberties. First Iraq War? Nope. Second Iraq War? Nope. Invasions of Grenada and Panama? Nope. Afghan War? At it's start, a bit. Maybe.

 

Only Islam really has had a deep, long-term history of religious warfare and violence. It is a sad legacy of that particular faith. Don't confuse that with all religion. Oh, others have had their moments, to be sure, like Catholics vs. Protestants in da 30 years War, but when yeh scratch da surface these were mostly about da usual things - political and economic power. Only Islam really has had and maintains da doctrinal notion of religious war.

 

Yeh can't honestly paint all da rest of faith and religion with that brush.

 

Beavah

[Eamonn]

Been thinking about the stuff that was said about judging.

I'm not wise enough or clever enough to quote from any good or religious books.

So please feel free to carry on that side of things without any input from me.

When it comes to judging. I'm very much guilty as charged.

I do judge the things that people do.

Sometimes, wrong as it might be I do judge the person because of the things that they have done.

I know that at times I'm not being very fair, as there are times when I know that I don't have all the details.

A drunk driver gets in his car while drunk and kills someone.

I know for a fact that he was drunk, he was driving and the person he hit with his car is dead.

I don't know the reason he was drinking?

I don't know if he made a habit of driving while drunk?

I've had talks with guys who have killed (Murdered) people.

They admit that they did shoot the people they killed. Many accept responsibility for their actions. They go on to talk about how they did this while a member of a gang and that coming from where they come from gang membership is a way of life.

The up side to me being a judge is that it allows me to forgive.

I'm not the worlds greatest when it comes to forgiveness.

I don't hold grudges, but there are some things I'm just able to get past or forgive.

Even still I do treat people with the respect I want to be given in return. -But there is a part of me that just doesn't allow me to be as open with them as I am with others.

 

If we never judge? Then how can we ever hope to forgive?

Or does forgiveness belong to some higher power?

Just asking.

Ea.

 

 

[JustaHuman]

BadenP says: "No one, especially Christians should take the rules in Leviticus literally, they were written by men, not ordained from God, for a different time and a different people. At best they supply a historical content of the ancient Hebrew culture. Exodus was the story of Gods covenant with the Jewish people which was replaced by Jesus Christs birth, teachings, and ultimate sacrifice for all humanity."

 

And then:

 

"I guess you missed the points I was trying to make to you about taking certain pieces of the Bible out of context and too literally. "

 

So it's ok to take some parts of the Bible (the parts that benefit you, or that YOU WANT TO FOLLOW) literal, and disregard the parts that you don't want to follow or don't benefit you?

 

You do realize the exact same "logic" you applied here for the book of Leviticus can be applied just as easily to the whole New Testament right?

 

"Christians shouldn't take the New Testament literally as they were written by men, not ordained from God, for a different time and a different people." You said it, I just substituted Leviticus for New Testament, and it's just as valid a statement as you just made for Leviticus.

 

If you really think Jesus (or people who actually knew him) wrote down, word for word what he said a few hundred years after he died, you should read this: http://www.pocm.info/pagan_ideas_dreams.html

 

 

[5scoutmom]

Baden P -

 

As a Jew, I disagree with your statement that the original Covenant was voided by the "new" covenant. MY covenant still exists, although I do agree that strict adherence to many of the tenets put forth in Leviticus is no longer necessary. I tell my children (whose father is Catholic) that those rules were designed to protect people of that time from things which were barely understood - pigs had trichinosis so it was safer not to eat them, shellfish spoiled easily in a desert climate, safer to avoid them, etc. I tell them that if the leaders said it was a health matter that people would just take their chances but if it was a commandment from G-d, they might adhere to it. There were a lot fewer Jews than those around them so they could not afford to lose them to trichinosis or sacrifice their reproductive capacity to homosexual relationships, which would not propagate the tribes.

 

Our area is a fairly liberal one, though we do seem to have an over-representation of Republicans in scouting (LOL!) and we do not ask - everyone is put through the background check but once they pass, we don't ask.

 

As for the original question, Obama has not done as well as I had hoped but I am going to give him a second chance. Bush had 8 years to destroy this country - Obama should have 8 to try to put it back together.

[Mr. Boyce]

My so-called lifestyle really LIKES having constitutional rights, so I will not be voting for the Big BO this time.

 

While I like the idea of national healthcare and it is needed, our nation should not be in the business of taxpayer funded abortions, or forcing religious organizations to violate their consciences.

 

Our Current Occupant forgets the importance of constitutional rights. And these are important to my lifestyle.

[Basementdweller]

I am under no illusion that a common man could ever grace the white house.

 

We are faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils.

 

McCain lost because of the idiot he chose for his running mate.....Her intro speak was priceless....but my favorite sound bite was with Barbra Walters, Which periodicals do you read? Her response was all of them? really? not sure I am comfortable with the vp reading maxim and backpacker magazine, I wonder if she finds Pedro as entertaining as I do????

 

Probably vote for big O this trip.....At least we don't have to endure the birth certificate thing again. I wonder how his daughter enjoyed mexico, I wonder how much that cost the country????

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

"At least we don't have to endure the birth certificate thing again"

 

Don't be so sure about that, I have it on good authority from my Brother-in-law who got it from an on-line first shooter game buddy that his sister said that her cousin in DC says that all it takes is the high sign from Newt and a thousand black helicopters will start to blanket the US with documentation that the president was born in Kenya...

 

Why else would Newt still be in the Campaign?

 

[Papadaddy]

"Obama should have 8 to try to put it back together." Oh, is THAT what he's trying to do??? I've missed that totally...

 

Sherriff Joe Arpaio supposedly has a blockbuster announcement coming...even if it's true that BO is not qualified to hold office, it's too late. The damage is done and the rioting in the streets would be catastrophic. Let's just vote him out and move on.

 

[moosetracker]

How did we move from discussing the BSA stamp of approval sexual Lifestyles, to the Presidential election?.. I missed something.

 

Well I am also wondering how last year I missed sticking my thoughts into a topic on BSA approved (or disapproved) lifestyles also.. Hmm.. Seems to be around the time I was working hard on WB staff last year, maybe that is what had me missing out on the topic..

 

Maybe we can get the boys in National to put out an itemized list of approved sexual lifestyles and sexual acts, like at what age level is it appropriate to try out different positions etc. Then something like Extra marrital flings after age 25, wife swapping is only after the age of 30.. Just like the new list they put out on powertools, paintbrushes and things with wheels.

 

Of course it would just be a guideline, mind you..