About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:53:10 -0500, Big John
wrote:

I refuse to support United Way and any other organization who
discriminates against the BSA.

The feeling is mutual in places, apparantly. Here in Portland Oregon
the BSA Councils no longer receive UW funding.

Pity, too. The BSA was one of the founding organizations behind the
United Way.

Rob

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:36:34 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

Furthermore, the raison d'etre for the BSA is to
teach boys about leadership, civic duties, outdoorsmanship, and the like.

The raison d'etre of the BSA, at its very core, is to promote the
Scout Oath and Law. Everything they do is in service of *that*, *not*
the reverse.

Rob

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:33:52 -0400, Margy Natalie
wrote:

BSA does not discriminate against children.

Gay boys cannot be members of the BSA. There was a highly public case a
number of years ago (but I can't remember where) when a soon to be Eagle
scout came out and he was promptly thrown out.

Eagle Scout, as a title, confers leadership status on a Boy Scout for
life. That, too, was definitionally true before popular society
changed its folkways enough to require the Scouts to articulate its
position on gay leaders. Once an Eagle, always so, unless you've found
yourself at variance with the Oath and Law.

Rob

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...
Um, male pedophiles who prey on little boys, and are "straight"
otherwise, are "bisexuals", aren't they?

No, they are not. They are pedophiles. If you ask a male who is
attracted
to boys as well as adult women what his sexual orientation is, do you
really
think his answer is going to be "bisexual"?

Pete


He is probably going to say and claim he is normal.

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

It's both.


No, it's just the former.

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
news ....snip...
that I want to get everyone's attention:

WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WANT TO SEPARATE HIS
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS?!?!?!?!?

Good grief. Religious belief is fundamentally human! Separating
religious motivation from its expression in politics is the surest way
to get yourself manipulated out of a voice in the process!


Because they realize that in order to preserve the freedom of belief for
everyone, it is wrong to enact laws that force people who do not share some
particular set of beliefs to act as if they do. Back when meatless Fridays
were the norm in the Catholic faith, for predominantly Catholic Boston to
pass a law prohibiting the sale of hamburgers on Friday would be an example
of such a thing. Laws mandating businesses closing on the Sabbath would be
another.

The only way for the State to be fair to all religions and to protect the
individual's freedom to choose their own faith is to function as if religion
had never been invented. Any laws that are motivated by a particular
religious conviction are, by definition, an attempt to mandate that all
people, believers in the dominant faith or not, behave as if they shared
that conviction. If by chance the religious view and the secular
justification on an issue parallel each other well and good, but where the
justification for a law is based solely on religious arguments it must be
opposed. Legislators simply MUST leave their religious faith in the
cloakroom with their hats and coats less they oppress all other faiths
except their own.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsKW0b.213405$uu5.38488@sccrnsc04...
The conversation is about not about children and consent.

Unless I'm completely daft, the term "boy" (as in "Boy Scouts") refers to
children, of the male persuasion.

True enough, but the subject of debate is not whether a child is able to
consent to sexual activity but rather whether a child is endangered by
exposure to the mere presence homosexuals in their environment. The
assumption appears to be, in part, that if homosexuals are allowed to be
around them, whether as leaders or peers, they will be approached for sexual
activity.

....snip

You continually (and conveniently) avoid the fact that homosexuality is
not
"completely normal", any more than a host of other sexual fetishes are
"normal".

I am not "avoiding the fact" because it is simply not a fact at all. If you
like, I'll state it unambiguously in case there was some confusion.
Homosexuality and homosexual relationships are completely, totally, 100%
normal by any objective criterion you may choose except statistical
incidence - morally, medically, socially, and psychologically they are
fully equal to heterosexuality in every meaningful respect. It is no more
an abberation or quirk of nature than is a liking for rhubarb pie. The only
signifigant way homosexuals differ from heterosexuals is that there are
fewer of them. And therein lies the second part of the debate, the apparent
fear that if children become aware of this fact they will somehow defect
from the heterosexual camp in droves. I suggest that a young person should
be encouraged to develop their sexuality in their own way - some will be
heterosexual, some will be homosexual, some may be bisexual - having
positive role models of both sexual orientations in their lives. Their
sexuality will develop wherever their natural proclivities lead them,
leading in turn to happier, healthier, more fulfilled, and more stable
adults. Because it IS equally acceptable in every meaningful way to be
homosexual or heterosexual, not only should they not only not be shielded
from role models of differing orientations, such role models should be
actively encouraged by organizations such as schools, churches, Scouts, etc
who share the responsibility with the parents of molding children into
healthy, happy adults.

However, as with most of these peculiar aberrations,
homosexuality is mostly a harmless (if somewhat bizarre) quirk of nature,
and I certainly don't advocate persecution of homosexuals. In fact, quite
frankly I suspect most people don't care who you want to have sex with,
and
you're more than welcome to practice your lifestyle.

But this benign tolerance does not translate into allowing you chaperone
my
son on a camping trip, nor should you expect to be viewed as a "role
model"
for our youth.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsKW0b.213405$uu5.38488@sccrnsc04...
You continually (and conveniently) avoid the fact that homosexuality is
not
"completely normal", any more than a host of other sexual fetishes are
"normal". However, as with most of these peculiar aberrations,
homosexuality is mostly a harmless (if somewhat bizarre) quirk of nature,

Jay, in order for something to be a "fact", it must have a factual basis.
Your claims have none; they fly in the face of medical science.

To declare same-gender relationships "abnormal", "fetishistic", "bizarre",
etc. is just as arbitrary and factually false (and morally offensive) as
when segregationists declared inter-racial relationships to be abnormal,
unnatural, perverted, disgusting, etc. The thought of homosexuality
provokes in you the same visceral aversion and discomfort that the thought
of inter-racial sex provoked in the segregationists. Both of those visceral
reactions have been common for millennia (and are both reflected in the
Bible, for example). In both cases, though, the pathology actually resides
in the reaction itself, but is ignorantly presumed to reside in the things
that provoke the reaction.

In past discussions, you have emphasized that homosexuality does not promote
reproduction, which you think makes it "abnormal" from the standpoint of
evolution. This stance reflects several basic confusions about evolutionary
biology:
1) Although the mechanism of natural selection can metaphorically be said
to have a goal of survival, its "goal" is not the survival or reproduction
of individuals or of species, but rather of specific genes (e.g., possible
genes for homosexuality); specific genes have no (metaphorical) concern for
*other* genes except to be able to exploit them. The very fact that
homosexuality thrives as a minority inclination (in our species and others)
attests to its evolutionary success; evolution has no other concern, even
metaphorically. (*Universal* homosexuality would not enjoy evolutionary
success, which is why we don't find it.)
2) Even if (contrary to fact) homosexuality were somehow contrary to the
(metaphorical) goals of evolution, that would have no consequence whatsoever
as to its normality or desirability. Evolution is amoral. Caring for the
frail elderly, for example, when they can no longer contribute to
child-rearing, may be contrary to the "goals" of evolution, but that doesn't
make it "abnormal" in any reasonable sense. Evolution's (metaphorical)
goals are not necessarily *our* goals, nor should they be.
3) There are many heterosexuals who have voluntarily sterilized
themselves. You do not regard their subsequent sexual relationships as
abnormal, bizarre, fetishistic, etc. Your fallacy about the evolutionary
"normality" of non-reproductive sex is applied quite selectively.

In short, you are merely projecting your petty prejudices onto the supposed
"intent" of natural selection the way more-religious people project their
prejudices onto the supposed will of God. You naively convince yourself that
evolution is on your side the way some people convince themselves that God
is on their side.

nor should you expect to be viewed as a "role model" for our youth.

The feeling is mutual, Jay. Many gay people are excellent role models and
many are not, just as with straight people. I sadly conclude that your
insulting prejudices place you among those who are not.

--Gary

The feeling is mutual, Jay. Many gay people are excellent role models and
many are not, just as with straight people. I sadly conclude that your
insulting prejudices place you among those who are not.

Good luck in your quest, Gary. You've been given a hard row to hoe...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Steve House" wrote in message
...

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
news ...snip...
that I want to get everyone's attention:

WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WANT TO SEPARATE HIS
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS?!?!?!?!?

Good grief. Religious belief is fundamentally human! Separating
religious motivation from its expression in politics is the surest way
to get yourself manipulated out of a voice in the process!


Because they realize that in order to preserve the freedom of belief for
everyone, it is wrong to enact laws that force people who do not share
some
particular set of beliefs to act as if they do. Back when meatless
Fridays
were the norm in the Catholic faith, for predominantly Catholic Boston to
pass a law prohibiting the sale of hamburgers on Friday would be an
example
of such a thing. Laws mandating businesses closing on the Sabbath would
be
another.

The only way for the State to be fair to all religions and to protect the
individual's freedom to choose their own faith is to function as if
religion
had never been invented. Any laws that are motivated by a particular
religious conviction are, by definition, an attempt to mandate that all
people, believers in the dominant faith or not, behave as if they shared
that conviction. If by chance the religious view and the secular
justification on an issue parallel each other well and good, but where the
justification for a law is based solely on religious arguments it must be
opposed. Legislators simply MUST leave their religious faith in the
cloakroom with their hats and coats less they oppress all other faiths
except their own.


You have way more faith in our legislators than I do. Special interest is
the name of the game be it religion or any other group with big $$$$.