Morally Straight or Morally Gay?

[CopticChristian]

Exactly. So we do know something about what it means. We know the person is sexually attracted to the same sex (likely exclusively).

Furthermore, the poster in question explicitly demonstrated that the sexual attraction was the only component of his definition of gay, making your subsequent response totally irrelevant. It had already been answered.

I have never met a person in my real life who has meant “gay” as “someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex and is also having sex with the same sex.” There is thus no more reason for me to ask what is meant by “gay” than to ask what is meant by any other word in the sentence.

You have never met a person saying that they are “gay” that said it meaning that they are sexually attracted to the same sex and also having sex. So the only people that you have met that say that they are gay=SSA? Is this correct.

It stands to reason that you have not met all gay people have you and therefore you can only speak of a small portion of any group that does not equate to the majority or larger groups. Correct?

Furthermore, the poster in question explicitly demonstrated that the sexual attraction was the only component of his definition of gay, making your subsequent response totally irrelevant. It had already been answered

My response was to Slavonic. Where does Slavonic explicitly demonstrate that the sexual attraction was the only component of his definition of “gay” and since when does anyones definition dictate my thinking? Do you allow your thinking to be dictated by what someone else tells you something means if you disagree?

You routinely do battle over my definition that I choose and here you state that someone gave a definition I have to respect and you disrespect mine.

Male and Female he created them
Men and women are potentially sexual
Men and women may have SSA
Men and Women may have SSA and act on that attraction and act homosexually
Men and Women may have SSA and act homosexually and accept that this is their plight and believe that they are gay…

only component of his definition of gay,

I suggest you offer me the same respect you ask me to give to someone else in their definition of gay, as this is mine.

Please note that anything contrary will be considered irrelevant as you pointed out that my response was irrelevant. Save yourself the time in posting an irrelevant response to be true to yourself.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Okay, so let me go back to that post where you inadvertently missed the word “no” before the word “substance.”

No need to advise me what I know fully well (the option to ignore a poster’s submission) since being member of CAF 3 1/2 years ago. But I sense that you find it hard to practice what you offer as counsel.

About the vague being the enemy of the good – well that depends on the communication skill of the speaker or writer, no?

The Vague is the enemy of the Good. You are welcome to block me or to simply ignore my posts if they offer you substance.

Not at all. They still mean gay as “sexually attracted to someone of the same sex.”

No way you could possibly say that with certainty, given any random group of listeners. I will not repeat the definition of “gay.” There is no consensus that it only means sexual attraction to the same sex. Besides, you already conceded upthread that the definition can and does include behavior or sexual activity with another of the same sex.

Communication is a complex affair in which not only what words are used matters but also who is saying them, about whom and in what context.

The problems should be avoided.

The pressure should be resisted.

The BSA needs to revise its inconsistent policies anyway. It really should not single out homosexuality and gay sex as issues when there are any other number of moral issues.

I would advocate for a consistent policy against acted-upon homosexuality, but only if said policy also prohibited adulterers, fornicators, and so forth. As much as we may want to oppose the homosexualist agenda on every front, these fronts must be coherent. The BSA is not, which leaves an opening that is being (and, frankly, should be, if it is not corrected) exploited.

A consistent policy within and by BSA? Is this not what the OP and what we are discussing?

Just how do adultery and fornication factor in whether BSA is right in policy change as it refers to boys not to be denied admission on the basis of sexual orientation?

 

[Baelor]

You have never met a person saying that they are “gay” that said it meaning that they are sexually attracted to the same sex and also having sex. So the only people that you have met that say that they are gay=SSA? Is this correct.

Correct.

It stands to reason that you have not met all gay people have you and therefore you can only speak of a small portion of any group that does not equate to the majority or larger groups. Correct?

Correct. But I still have no reason to believe that there is any gay person out there who would say that someone who is celibate but exclusively attracted to men is not gay. I have no more reason to assume that the definition of “gay” is up in the air than the definition of “have,” “no,” “more,” “reason,” “to”, or “assume” is up in the air.

My response was to Slavonic. Where does Slavonic explicitly demonstrate that the sexual attraction was the only component of his definition of “gay” and since when does anyones definition dictate my thinking?

Slavonic’s response was to your response to a post that did explicitly define gay as being attracted to the same sex.

Do you allow your thinking to be dictated by what someone else tells you something means if you disagree?

That is not dictating thinking; that is agreeing upon terms. It is the substance of the argument that matters; not the language in which it is concealed.

You routinely do battle over my definition that I choose and here you state that someone gave a definition I have to respect and you disrespect mine.

Yes. Because you are unwilling to adhere to the majority, and definitions do not have intrinsic moral value. There is thus no reason to protest the common definition on every single thread.

I suggest you offer me the same respect you ask me to give to someone else in their definition of gay, as this is mine.

I have in prior threads used SSA for simplicity in responses to you. If you create a thread, define your terms. They will likely be followed. But if you post on another thread where the terms have already been defined, respect that and follow the given definitions.

 

[Baelor]

No need to advise me what I know fully well (the option to ignore a poster’s submission) since being member of CAF 3 1/2 years ago. But I sense that you find it hard to practice what you offer as counsel.

About the vague being the enemy of the good – well that depends on the communication skill of the speaker or writer, no?

In part. But someone espousing vagueness is different than someone striving for precision and failing.

No way you could possibly say that with certainty, given any random group of listeners.

Yes, I can. Because my sample outside of CAF involves exactly zero persons who have a different definition than I.

There is no consensus that it only means sexual attraction to the same sex.

Yes there is. Perhaps you have a different sample, but in mine, no one uses it to refer exclusively to sexually active persons. There is therefore absolutely no reason for me to believe that there is not a consensus, given that the dictionaries in their definitions and etymologies all support the idea that it refers to sexual attraction when applied to a person.

Besides, you already conceded upthread that the definition can and does include behavior or sexual activity with another of the same sex.

Yes, “gay sex” does indeed refer to sexual activity. That does not mean that “gay male” does.

A consistent policy within and by BSA? Is this not what the OP and what we are discussing?

Perhaps. But an isolated stance against homosexual Scouts is not consistent policy.

Just how do adultery and fornication factor in whether BSA is right in policy change as it refers to boys not to be denied admission on the basis of sexual orientation?

The BSA considers gay sex (etc.) immoral. That is the entire basis, as the BSA itself states, for prohibiting gay boys from joining. That immorality must be part of a consistent larger moral framework. It makes no sense for the BSA to randomly oppose one issue without establishing a larger framework in which that issue is condemned. If it were an anti-abortion campaign, that would be fine because the organization is targeted toward a particular cause anyway. The BSA is not a single-issue organization. On what basis does it consider homosexuality immoral? I like coherent policies, not isolated ones. If homosexuality is immoral according to the BSA, the justification should be presented and the rest of the policy should adhere to that justification.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Yes, I can. Because my sample outside of CAF involves exactly zero persons who have a different definition than I.

Perhaps zero from an LGBT agenda driven sample.

Yes there is. Perhaps you have a different sample, but in mine, no one uses it to refer exclusively to sexually active persons. There is therefore absolutely no reason for me to believe that there is not a consensus, given that the dictionaries in their definitions and etymologies all support the idea that it refers to sexual attraction when applied to a person.

Yes, “gay sex” does indeed refer to sexual activity. That does not mean that “gay male” does.

Read Post 22, 23 and 25. You may believe fielding repetitive arguments gives you an edge. It does not.

Perhaps. But an isolated stance against homosexual Scouts is not consistent policy.

The BSA considers gay sex (etc.) immoral. That is the entire basis, as the BSA itself states, for prohibiting gay boys from joining. That immorality must be part of a consistent larger moral framework. It makes no sense for the BSA to randomly oppose one issue without establishing a larger framework in which that issue is condemned. If it were an anti-abortion campaign, that would be fine because the organization is targeted toward a particular cause anyway. The BSA is not a single-issue organization. On what basis does it consider homosexuality immoral? I like coherent policies, not isolated ones. If homosexuality is immoral according to the BSA, the justification should be presented and the rest of the policy should adhere to that justification.

You are all over the place, not making a coherent argument. It would serve if you go back to the OP, Morally Straight or Morally Gay. Coptic opened the thread citing a Scout’s Oath and recent BSA policy change for membership to boys. He projects and many project do with good reason that the next hurdle that the LGBT agenda will tackle is to pressure the BSA to permit openly gay adult leaders.

Btw, I am sure Coptic is more than capable to deal with his opponent in discussion, but your last post to him is another display of the brow beating and bullying style you favor in engagement. It’s disrespectful.

Have the last say which I think you will do, but it is clear you don’t wish to make a persuasive argument. You want to be right.

Good day.
,

 

[CopticChristian]

Perhaps zero from an LGBT agenda driven sample.

Read Post 22, 23 and 25. You may believe fielding repetitive arguments gives you an edge. It does not.

You are all over the place, not making a coherent argument. It would serve if you go back to the OP, Morally Straight or Morally Gay. Coptic opened the thread citing a Scout’s Oath and recent BSA policy change for membership to boys. He projects and many project do with good reason that the next hurdle that the LGBT agenda will tackle is to pressure the BSA to permit openly gay adult leaders.

Btw, I am sure Coptic is more than capable to deal with his opponent in discussion, but your last post to him is another display of the brow beating and bullying style you favor in engagement. It’s disrespectful.

Good day.
,

Have the last say which I think you will do, but it is clear you don’t wish to make a persuasive argument. You want to be right.

Sadly, it is more about the belief that an opinion offered is the prevailing and accepted opinion rather than being right. If being right were the issue then the effort would have dwindled long ago.

 

[Baelor]

Perhaps zero from an LGBT agenda driven sample.

And I am obviously more qualified than you to judge whether my sample is LGBT-agenda-driven or not. Nice try though.

You are all over the place, not making a coherent argument. It would serve if you go back to the OP, Morally Straight or Morally Gay. Coptic opened the thread citing a Scout’s Oath and recent BSA policy change for membership to boys. He projects and many project do with good reason that the next hurdle that the LGBT agenda will tackle is to pressure the BSA to permit openly gay adult leaders.

Which the BSA should permit unless it develops a consistent moral framework in which to dismiss sexually active gays.

The BSA’s opposition to gay Scouts as it is currently articulated will not and should not last. It is not predicated on any other belief; the BSA does not have a moral theology that extends to any other issue. It thus makes no sense for the BSA to condemn gay sex (etc.) because nothing else in BSA policy would lead to this condemnation. The BSA even includes religious emblems of faiths that have not taken stances against homosexuality.

If the BSA wishes to condemn homosexual behavior, it must reconsider the fundamentals of its ideology and develop a framework that justifies this position. It must then extend that framework to other moral issues.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Morally Straight or Morally Gay is tongue in cheek play on words that is intended to cause a conversation about what the BSA stands for and what it means for an average young man to be in the BSA, knowing that some guy in his tent is not just SSA but has accepted the notion that “men are his thing”…something I never experienced or would want any of my children to experience, if that person is not just struggling but acting out.

Reducing what it means to be same-sex attracted to a simple binary of “struggling” or “acting out” belies the moral distinction between attraction and action that the catechism is attempting to make. We can struggle to express our attractions in ways that are both moral and appropriate, but understanding same-sex attraction as necessarily involving a struggle with being same-sex attracted or experiencing same-sex attraction is reductionist, misleading…and not a little bit curious. The assumption that whether or not one should struggle with one’s sexual orientation constitutes the most fundamental issue in being same-sex attracted is basically solipsistic. It’s tantamount to admitting that you are uninterested in considering same-sex attraction on its own terms–indeed, it’s an admission that you do not believe that same-sex attraction can be considered on any terms apart from your own. It is fundamentally an ideological–not a moral or theological–position.

When someone says “I am gay” it is difficult to know what that means and it is not a given what it means…the best response for me would be…

Ok, I understand you say you are gay…what do you mean by that…?

Well, I have SSA…and I would say…well in my opinion that does not mean you are gay…etc.

Well I have SSA and on occasion I act on it…Okkkkkkk, thank you for that information…may I get you some coffee…have you heard about the Catholic Church?

Well I have SSA, I act on it regularly and I live with my SSA partner…isn’t that lovely…the coffee is over that way…excuse me…while I get some fresh air…

There is no way to know what it means when someone says “I am gay”…“he is gay”…without asking "what do you mean by that’…this is reality.

I read something recently that made the following point: characteristics of a thing that are not present in all instances of that thing are not essential to that thing. In terms of “gay” as an identity marker, it’s clear that it means being same-sex attracted in all cases in which it’s used. It is not clear that it means “engaging in sexual activity” in all cases. Therefore, engaging in sexual activity is not fundamental to what it means to be gay. Simple. Believing that the term has no fundamental meaning in spite of a demonstration of its fundamental meaning reveals, once again, an ideological–not a moral or theological–preoccupation.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Reducing what it means to be same-sex attracted to a simple binary of “struggling” or “acting out” belies the moral distinction between attraction and action that the catechism is attempting to make. We can struggle to express our attractions in ways that are both moral and appropriate, but understanding same-sex attraction as necessarily involving a struggle with being same-sex attracted or experiencing same-sex attraction is reductionist, misleading…and not a little bit curious. The assumption that whether or not one should struggle with one’s sexual orientation constitutes the most fundamental issue in being same-sex attracted is basically solipsistic. It’s tantamount to admitting that you are uninterested in considering same-sex attraction on its own terms–indeed, it’s an admission that you do not believe that same-sex attraction can be considered on any terms apart from your own. It is fundamentally an ideological–not a moral or theological–position.

I read something recently that made the following point: characteristics of a thing that are not present in all instances of that thing are not essential to that thing. In terms of “gay” as an identity marker, it’s clear that it means being same-sex attracted in all cases in which it’s used. It is not clear that it means “engaging in sexual activity” in all cases. Therefore, engaging in sexual activity is not fundamental to what it means to be gay. Simple. Believing that the term has no fundamental meaning in spite of a demonstration of its fundamental meaning reveals, once again, an ideological–not a moral or theological–preoccupation.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Fewer words with interesting words and thoughts.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Fewer words with interesting words and thoughts.

If this comment means, “I find that this post has fewer words with interesting words and thoughts in it,” then my response is: “Um. Okay. Thanks.”

If this comment means, “I wish you would write a post with fewer words using fewer interesting words and thoughts,” then my response is: “Wishes are lovely things.”

If this comment means, “I wish you would write a post with fewer words using more interesting words and thoughts,” then my response is: “Maybe someday you’ll get your wish.”

If this comment means, “I like writing vaguely meaningful word salad when I cannot be bothered to read what someone has written,” then my response is: “That’s not surprising.”

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

If this comment means, “I find that this post has fewer words with interesting words and thoughts in it,” then my response is: “Um. Okay. Thanks.”

If this comment means, “I wish you would write a post with fewer words using fewer interesting words and thoughts,” then my response is: “Wishes are lovely things.”

If this comment means, “I wish you would write a post with fewer words using more interesting words and thoughts,” then my response is: “Maybe someday you’ll get your wish.”

If this comment means, “I like writing vaguely meaningful word salad when I cannot be bothered to read what someone has written,” then my response is: “That’s not surprising.”

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Exactly.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Sadly, it is more about the belief that an opinion offered is the prevailing and accepted opinion rather than being right. If being right were the issue then the effort would have dwindled long ago.

Some people have the need to be right instead of doing, weighing opposing thoughts and motivations before arriving at conclusions. There is an inadequate understanding of the homosexual agenda in the young and college age population. It is sad to see the lack of a long view perspective and the ability of reasonable projection for the future, given signs and symptoms of current societal ills. Ignorance or arrogance? Or simply success in grooming of society by the older sophisticated homosexual elite?
,

 

[Baelor]

Some people have the need to be right instead of doing, weighing opposing thoughts and motivations before arriving at conclusions. There is an inadequate understanding of the homosexual agenda in the young and college age population. It is sad to see the lack of a long view perspective and the ability of reasonable projection for the future, given signs and symptoms of current societal ills. Ignorance or arrogance? Or simply success in grooming of society by the older sophisticated homosexual elite?
,

I think it is indeed a generational issue. My generation is more willing to fight for what is right, whereas your generation is primarily concerned with expediency.

Take this situation. I do not dismiss the “long view perspective,” I simply think that it is a subordinate concern to what is right, which is a consistent policy within the BSA and the right for (at the very least) celibate gay Scouts to participate in the program. The fact that it is part of a larger effort is not unknown or ignored, but it is not my primary concern, while it is clearly yours.

Please do not be so dismissive.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think it is indeed a generational issue. My generation is more willing to fight for what is right, whereas your generation is primarily concerned with expediency.

Take this situation. I do not dismiss the “long view perspective,” I simply think that it is a subordinate concern to what is right, which is a consistent policy within the BSA and the right for (at the very least) celibate gay Scouts to participate in the program. The fact that it is part of a larger effort is not unknown or ignored, but it is not my primary concern, while it is clearly yours.

Please do not be so dismissive.

I was a Boy Scout, an Explorer and an Eagle Scout.

Were you in the BSA…?

I have a vested interest, do you?

 

[Baelor]

I was a Boy Scout, an Explorer and an Eagle Scout.

Were you in the BSA…?

I have a vested interest, do you?

I am an Eagle Scout. So yes. And even if I had no connection whatsoever, the validity of my statements would not change.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am an Eagle Scout. So yes. And even if I had no connection whatsoever, the validity of my statements would not change.

How many merit badges do you have?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I think it is indeed a generational issue. My generation is more willing to fight for what is right, whereas your generation is primarily concerned with expediency.

Take this situation. I do not dismiss the “long view perspective,” I simply think that it is a subordinate concern to what is right, which is a consistent policy within the BSA and the right for (at the very least) celibate gay Scouts to participate in the program. The fact that it is part of a larger effort is not unknown or ignored, but it is not my primary concern, while it is clearly yours.

Please do not be so dismissive.

Oh, please. Do you think the generation before you, parents of college age people, are concerned with expediency, that said generation is NOT wiling to fight for what is right?

Not every opponent of the changed BSA admission policy (which I believe is not necessary after reading through the pro and anti sides of the issue) is insensitive to the condition of homosexuals. Exactly what condemnation are you talking about? Although not relevant, you bring it up anyway, not every opponent to the BSA change, which we are discussing, makes exceptions to fornicators, adulterers, or those who do not honor their marriage enough.

It would seem that there are procedures on rules of conduct that the BSA can clarify or institute to prevent systematic discrimination of homosexuals, the chaste or simply effeminate, without the added controversial language on membership admission.

Celibate homosexuals are not the problem. Homosexual behavior is, in the context of scouting activities. Why would it be pertinent to make a disclosure of (homo)sexual orientation on admission or at any point in membership? What and whose purpose does it serve?

If anything is being dismissed here, it is the big picture, which you admit is not your concern. It is simplistic and naive to assert for the foreseeable future that

The problems should be avoided.

The pressure should be resisted.

 

[Baelor]

How many merit badges do you have?

Irrelevant. I am an Eagle Scout, and have a vested interest in the Scouts. That criterion alone has been met; the number of merit badges I earned in addition to the minimum number necessary for the Eagle Scout award does not matter at all.

 

[Baelor]

Oh, please. Do you think the generation before you, parents of college age people, are concerned with expediency, that said generation is NOT wiling to fight for what is right?

Clearly not in all cases, given the number of individuals who are protesting even the admission of celibate gay Scouts to the BSA. I am simply stating that the argument that this policy change is reflective of some larger campaign, is heading down a path with inevitable consequences, is merely preparation for a larger movement, etc. is indicative of a frame of mind focused on expediency and not ideology. This is indisputable.

Not every opponent of the changed BSA admission policy (which I believe is not necessary after reading through the pro and anti sides of the issue) is insensitive to the condition of homosexuals.

I never claimed that.

Exactly what condemnation are you talking about? Although not relevant, you bring it up anyway, not every opponent to the BSA change, which we are discussing, makes exceptions to fornicators, adulterers, or those who do not honor their marriage enough.

The BSA does make exceptions for all of those things.

It would seem that there are procedures on rules of conduct that the BSA can clarify or institute to prevent systematic discrimination of homosexuals, the chaste or simply effeminate, without the added controversial language on membership admission.

Celibate homosexuals are not the problem.

Previous threads have shown that celibate homosexuals are still a problem for some persons. I am not claiming this is your position, merely that it is held by a non-negligible number of individuals.

Homosexual behavior is, in the context of scouting activities.

Does the policy change permit boys to have sex with each other on campouts?

Why would it be pertinent to make a disclosure of (homo)sexual orientation on admission or at any point in membership? What and whose purpose does it serve?

It is not pertinent, which is why membership should not care about sexual orientation at all. Note that the current policy would bar a Scout who never once to his troop disclosed his homosexuality but was public about it in other spheres of his life.

If anything is being dismissed here, it is the big picture, which you admit is not your concern. It is simplistic and naive to assert for the foreseeable future that

There is no big picture. This is exactly what I was discussing. The idea that the BSA cannot control its future is already an admission of defeat. We have already lost if we are not able to admit celibate gay Scouts because of fear of future lobbies.

This is the difference in our perspective. I believe in an ideology and the power to uphold it. You, clearly, do not.

 

[CopticChristian]

Irrelevant. I am an Eagle Scout, and have a vested interest in the Scouts. That criterion alone has been met; the number of merit badges I earned in addition to the minimum number necessary for the Eagle Scout award does not matter at all.

Did you get World Brotherhood and Citizenship in the Nation?