Questions of Sexuality

[packsaddle]

AZMike, assuming their church is also a CO, if that CO has a positive view toward them, I'm guessing they'll be BSA adult members. Like NJ says, I am not aware of anything in the policy that indicates otherwise.

So, are you ever going to answer any of my questions?

[Peregrinator]

In the set of "legal polygamy"; you limited the set by ONLY allowing polygyny

 

Polygyny is a counterexample. Here's the proof:

 

(1) Legal polygamy, to be consistent, requires legal same-sex marriage. Therefore:

(2) All forms of legal polygamy require legal same-sex marriage.

(3) Polygyny is a form of polygamy.

(4) Legal polygyny does not require same-sex marriage.

(5) Legal polygyny is not inconsistent in not requiring same-sex marriage. But this, with (4), contradicts (2); therefore

(5) There is a form of legal polygamy that does not require legal same-sex marriage.

(6) Therefore legal polygamy does not require same-sex marriage.

Q.E.D.

 

In the set of "legal polygamy"; you limited the set by ONLY allowing polygyny, which changes the situation (besides that, I don't agree with your assertions).

 

If you don't agree with my assertions, show how they are wrong. I "limited the set" to provide a counterexample. That is pretty common logical reasoning (called proof by contradiction or, sometimes, reductio ad absurdum)

 

You need to show it's inconsistent if ALL forms of polygamy are legal, because that's the situation I referred to.

 

No, actually I don't. To prove your statement is false I need only produce a single counterexample. If a statement is true it's true all the time. Your statement isn't.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Peregrinator gaffs:

In the set of "legal polygamy"; you limited the set by ONLY allowing polygyny

 

Polygyny is a counterexample. Here's the proof:

 

(1) Legal polygamy, to be consistent, requires legal same-sex marriage. Therefore:

(2) All forms of legal polygamy require legal same-sex marriage.

(3) Polygyny is a form of polygamy.

(4) Legal polygyny does not require same-sex marriage.

(5) Legal polygyny is not inconsistent in not requiring same-sex marriage. But this, with (4), contradicts (2); therefore

(5) There is a form of legal polygamy that does not require legal same-sex marriage.

(6) Therefore legal polygamy does not require same-sex marriage.

Q.E.D.

 

At (3), you are committing the fallacy of division

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

 

I say my car is heavy

You point out that the knob on my car radio is not heavy

You get a [golfclap] but no cookie

[AZMike]

NJ: "AZMike, I have a question for you about your hypothetical adult brother and sister (or brother and brother) openly living together in a sexual relationship:

 

Are you aware of any national BSA policy that prevents them from being adult leaders? I'm not. I don't think there is one. I don't think there needs to be one, because the local unit's authority to select it's leaders takes care of it. My guess is that 100 percent of local units would, and will continue to, choose not to have a leader in that situation. My guess also is that if given the option, somewhere less than 100 percent (I have no idea how much less, I would guess 20 to 40 percent less, though it's not really important) would choose not to have an openly gay leader (and not your two hypothetical brothers.)

 

So if the hypothetical and most-likely non-existent situation of which you speak does NOT require a national policy (other than the policy that units choose their leaders), why does the issue of gay people require a national policy? That's the real issue here. It's not about who should be a leader, it's about who decides who should be a leader. And that is almost never National. "

 

Interesting point but not relevant to the question. Would you be comfortable with this situation in Scouting as you might be with a gay (non-incestuous) couple?

[AZMike]

"AZMike, assuming their church is also a CO, if that CO has a positive view toward them, I'm guessing they'll be BSA adult members. Like NJ says, I am not aware of anything in the policy that indicates otherwise.

So, are you ever going to answer any of my questions?"

 

Re the incest queston, I wasn't asking about the BSA policy, I was asking if you would be comfortable with them in Scouting. Will you answer that question, or duck?

 

I did answer your question, as I said on another thread. My answer was, "I don't know." When is that not an acceptable response?

 

I don't have the knowledge about the welfare system to be able to give an explanation of how the welfare system should apportion governmental and personal contributions (although all governmental funds are ultimately personal) but if your mind jumps around from subject to unrelated subject like a hummingbird with ADD trapped in a tin can, I'll still try to oblige you by answering your questions as best I can. This doesn't relate at all to what we were discussing as we were discussing Eugenics before you decided to swerve the conversation towards American welfare policy. Nevertheless, I told you that I would oppose welfare policies that were Eugenic in nature, and as a general principle, would promote the goal of subsidiarity in government welfare programs. That was a very clear answer.

 

What part of THAT don't you understand?

 

As you edited your initial response to my question where you refused to engage with my question, let me state it in another fashion - do you consider yourself religious, and if not how do you reconcile the elements of the Scout Oath and Law that relate to God?

 

You stated (as best I can recall) that it was not an issue, so there was no need to respond, and spoke for Merlyn, who you said was not currently involved in Scouting. Merlyn did not speak up for himself. You then referred me to a bad link about Buddhism, for some reason, and suggested that I look up the name of another poster who was Buddhist and said that you could be a Buddhist and not believe in God, then deleted all that when you edited your post.

 

If you still don't want to answer in depth, or at all, or feel more comfortable simply saying you don't know the answer to a question, that's fine, too.

[Peregrinator]

At (3), you are committing the fallacy of division

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

 

I say my car is heavy

You point out that the knob on my car radio is not heavy

You get a [golfclap] but no cookie

 

Are you saying that you don't understand the distinction between something's being a part of something else and something's being a type or form of something else? A knob is not a type of car -- it is a part of a car. On the other hand, polygyny is a type of polygamy -- it is not a "part" of polygamy.

 

How about this?

 

You say that cars have two doors, therefore the doors on cars are required to be a certain width.

I respond that sedans have four doors, therefore the door width requirement does not apply to them.

 

The set of cars includes sedans, but sedans are not parts of cars. They are cars. Likewise, the set of polygamous marriages includes polygynous ones, but a polygynous marriage is not a part of a polygamous marriage -- it is a polygamous marriage.

[packsaddle]

Personally, I would not be comfortable with someone involved with incest in this unit, depending on the nature of the relationship. If it involved a child I would be strongly opposed. Adults...I don't know. I have never confronted anything like that though, so I don't know for sure how I'd react. Perhaps any unmarried adult male living with mom or sister or adult daughter is suspicious? It's not something that occupies my thoughts except when I read your posts.

 

I am religious. Therefore there is nothing to reconcile. What part of THAT do you not understand?

 

Merlyn has made it clear in the past that he is not a member of BSA.

 

I already gave you a working link to replace the broken link. Did you miss that?

 

I also explained to you how to do a search for the Buddhist forum member.

Here, I'll give you a link to the relevant thread - I had forgotten that Kahuna is also Buddhist in addition to studentscout, who I'm just now reminded included a quote from Buddha on page 4 which addresses your inquiry. I enjoyed reading it again:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=280863&p=1

 

I got the part of the answer you mentioned above. When you said you answered in the affirmative about providing care for certain groups, you didn't write anything about which groups or what kind of care by which governments. That is what I'd like to know.

 

But THIS thread is about sexuality and I answered your hypothetical question. Now how about mine?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Peregrinator, you are also trying to take a part of what I referred to. I referred to "polygamy", meaning ALL forms. No cookie.

[WasE61]

So, dropping the "legal" aspects of marriage for a moment (which is an affliction of government).

 

Let's try a Yes/No Quiz.

 

In your opinion, which of these relationships fall positively under Scout Law/Oath?

 

1) Plural marriage (one male/multiple females, or vice versa)?

 

2) Group marriage (multiple males/multiple females)?

 

3) Same sex marriage (monogamous)?

 

4) Same sex marriage (plural or group)?

 

5) Open marriage (traditional marriage but openly having other sex partners)?

 

6) Adulterous relationships?

 

7) Bisexual relationships?

[Beavah]

Yah, WasE61, yeh missed

 

8) Old gum-toothed Beavah married to a transgendered s/he packsaddle.

 

I'm sure I deserved that for sendin' da thread off into polygamy as an experiment.

 

But just to get back at him....

 

9) Packsaddle doin' the deed with many furry flat-tailed critters and other mammals.

 

Hey, if we're not worried about Y chromosomes, why worry about chromosomes at all?

 

Beavah

 

[skeptic]

None of the above if they are made to be a focus to the youth directly. These are private matters, and therefore should be kept that way as well as possible. Once it becomes a "disruption (there's that word again)", it needs to be addressed. And sometimes, addressing it will lead to upset people, accusations, and possibly even the destruction of the unit. So, if is better to try and keep these life decisions as private as possible.

 

At least that is how we try to work in our unit, and those others in our area with which I am familiar. In the many years I have been with the unit, we have had maybe a half dozen serious incidents that required various levels of committee and CO handling, IN PRIVATE. And only two had anything to do with sexuality; the others were related to abuse (verbal or physical, one being a parent), alcohol and drugs. We once also had to discuss with a mother the repercussions apparent to her son from a very nasty divorce; fortunately, she worked things out with the ex and made sure it was kept from the unit after that.

 

None of these things are ever easy. And we often second guess ourselves later. Ultimately, it seems to me we did the right thing in most cases. But it did have negative impacts in a couple on the youth who were NOT to blame in that they were jerked from scouts. It is interesting though how often these things that are adult issues in the youth environment bring surprisingly strong bonding by the boys around the one whose parent is an embarrassment or worse.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[Peregrinator]

Peregrinator, you are also trying to take a part of what I referred to. I referred to "polygamy", meaning ALL forms. No cookie.

 

That is precisely the problem. You made a generalization which does not apply in all circumstances. And you are still confusing part with type.

 

If you had written, "There exists a form of polygamy such that, if it were made legal, would also require same-sex marriage to be legal," then you might have a point. But that isn't what you wrote. You wrote that "legal polygamy" -- ALL FORMS!! -- " requires legal same-sex marriage."(This message has been edited by Peregrinator)

[BS-87]

WasE61, I think none of those deserve any qualification under the moral code of Scouting. I think moral people could survive in any, but the acts themselves deserve no condemnation or endorsement.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Peregrinator writes:

Peregrinator, you are also trying to take a part of what I referred to. I referred to "polygamy", meaning ALL forms. No cookie.

 

That is precisely the problem. You made a generalization which does not apply in all circumstances.

 

No, I was NOT making a generalization. I was referring to polygamy in ALL its forms, as in every possible combination of spouses.

 

If you had written, "There exists a form of polygamy such that, if it were made legal, would also require same-sex marriage to be legal," then you might have a point. But that isn't what you wrote. You wrote that "legal polygamy" -- ALL FORMS!! -- " requires legal same-sex marriage."

 

And you still don't understand.

[CalicoPenn]

I'll bite - with explanation at the end:

 

In your opinion, which of these relationships fall positively under Scout Law/Oath?

 

1) Plural marriage (one male/multiple females, or vice versa)? YES

 

2) Group marriage (multiple males/multiple females)? YES

 

3) Same sex marriage (monogamous)? YES

 

4) Same sex marriage (plural or group)? YES

 

5) Open marriage (traditional marriage but openly having other sex partners)? YES

 

6) Adulterous relationships? NO

 

7) Bisexual relationships? YES

 

And the explanation? It hinges on the concept of "Morally Straight". My PERSONAL opinion is that, with the exception of one in the list, none of those things mentioned are immoral. You're moral compass will probably be different - so arguing with me over whether something is moral or not is a useless exercise because I'm not going to change my view of what is and isn't moral to match your view, just as I wouldn't expect you to change your view of what is moral or not. I'll resepct that you have a different moral code than I do if you respect that I have a different moral code than you do. By all means say you disagree, but don't say I'm wrong. I'm right for me - you're right for you and if you say I'm wrong, I'll say you're wrong - and that doesn't lead us anywhere.

 

As for the one I said didn't positively meet the Scout Law/Oath? In all but Adultery, I assume an openness and consent with ones partner(s). Adultery involves lying to ones partner(s) and I believe that lying is not moral.

 

All that being said - I wouldn't want anyone discussing or modeling these in front of Scouts, just as I don't think heterosexuality should be discussed/modeled for the Scouts. The position of the BSA for many many years has been that sexuality is something for leaders to avoid, that the proper place for it is in the homes and in other institutions chosen by the family. It has no place in the BSA and that's how it should be.