The Obama Judiciary

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I support it. I thought that would be obvious too.

Cue next post: "Conflict of interest!"

No, it's not a conflict of interest unless you are gay. It just shows that you lack basic ethical reasoning skills.

How is that someone can be temple-worthy but should be kicked out of the BSA?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

No, it's not a conflict of interest unless you are gay. It just shows that you lack basic ethical reasoning skills.

My ethical reasoning skills are just fine. I'm simply a rabid, racist, Jew-hating, gay-bashing bigot. Just say it, Lewinksi. You know you want to.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

How is that someone can be temple-worthy but should be kicked out of the BSA?

I didn't realize the BSA checked temple recommends. Do they require scoutmasters to abstain from alcohol too?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

My ethical reasoning skills are just fine. I'm simply a rabid, racist, Jew-hating, gay-bashing bigot. Just say it, Lewinksi. You know you want to.

I didn't realize the BSA checked temple recommends. Do they require scoutmasters to abstain from alcohol too?

Bumping up against the wall of simple logic, Tex resorts to gibberish. Debate over.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Bumping up against the wall of simple logic, Tex resorts to gibberish. Debate over.

It's not gibberish. Maybe you lack basic ethical reasoning skills. I guess reading between the lines isn't your strong point, so I'll have to spell it out:

The standards are different. The BSA does not require scoutmasters to be worthy temple recommend holders.

Parenthetically, it's interesting you'd bring that up anyway, given that on CG temple recommend status is viewed as a false measure of righteousness.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's not gibberish. Maybe you lack basic ethical reasoning skills. I guess reading between the lines isn't your strong point, so I'll have to spell it out:

The standards are different. The BSA does not require scoutmasters to be worthy temple recommend holders.

Of course the BSA doesn't require people to be temple recommend holders. That's not the point. The point is, one policy at least separates orientation from behavior in that one can be a temple recommend holder and a homosexual at the same time. But the BSA policy has nothing to do with behavior, it is purely based on orientation. The BSA policy explicitly states that an openly gay person lacks moral character. At the same time, they provide almost no oversight or policing of the behavior of heterosexual scout leaders. I find it remarkable that any thoughtful person would support such a policy.

BTW (forgive me for repeating this story), I had a conversation with a high-level GA a few years ago and he told that the decision by the church to take a hard-line stance on this issue was far from unanimous. Quite a few thought it was a bad idea. In the end, they were out-voted.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Of course the BSA doesn't require people to be temple recommend holders. That's not the point. The point is, one policy at least separates orientation from behavior in that one can be a temple recommend holder and a homosexual at the same time. But the BSA policy has nothing to do with behavior, it is purely based on orientation. The BSA policy explicitly states that an openly gay person lacks moral character. At the same time, they provide almost no oversight or policing of the behavior of heterosexual scout leaders. I find it remarkable that any thoughtful person would support such a policy.

You seem quite fixated on this distinction between "orientation" and behavior. I don't know the "official" reason why the BSA adopted this approach, but I can take a stab at it.

The first and best reason I can think of is simple practicality. As you point out, the BSA does not want to spend its time policing its leaders' sexual habits. The obvious problem with a behavior-based policy is a situation where a gay man claims to be celibate but isn't, placing the burden of proof, if you will, on the BSA to demonstrate otherwise. More complex than that is the case where a perfectly honest and celibate gay man is accused of not being so--maybe by other leaders, maybe by parents--again placing the BSA in the awkward position of trying to sort it out. This is a perfectly legitimate (and most likely) reason for the policy, IMO.

Second, the holy grail of the gay community is legitimacy. More than anything, they want broad society-wide acceptance. They've engineered their language to this purpose: changing the traditional definition of marriage, insisting it's not a choice, etc. Tell me, can you explain the difference between a gay man, and a straight man who struggles with same-sex attraction? I submit the only difference is semantics. The former term implies an immutable trait; the latter, a personal temptation.

I have yet to meet a vocally homosexual person who adopts the latter stance. Maybe they exist and don't speak out, or maybe they don't exist. I don't know. In any case, it's understandable to me that the BSA does not wish to legitimize the behavior by putting people who adopt that belief in leadership positions, even if they aren't "practicing."

To employ an imperfect analogy: I wouldn't want a leader who personally believed that the desire to steal was normal and God-given, but who had just chosen not to do it.

The third and perhaps least compelling but still legitimate reason, is simply that their constituency doesn't want it. While I'm sure there are some involved in BSA who support having homosexual leaders, I sense the larger share of leaders and parents oppose it. I disagree with you that this is institutionalized bigotry, but either way, a private organization has a right to respond to the desires of its membership if it so chooses.

Sorry it's so long. I tried to be brief, but it's a complex issue.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

BTW (forgive me for repeating this story), I had a conversation with a high-level GA a few years ago and he told that the decision by the church to take a hard-line stance on this issue was far from unanimous. Quite a few thought it was a bad idea. In the end, they were out-voted.

I'm quite certain there are few issues on which the decisions are at first unanimous among the high quorums of the church. I'm also quite doubtful of any that "vote" was taken to determine the course of action, forgive my skepticism.

[Jeff Lebowski]

A noble apologetic attempt, but thoroughly unconvincing.

Originally Posted by Tex

You seem quite fixated on this distinction between "orientation" and behavior. I don't know the "official" reason why the BSA adopted this approach, but I can take a stab at it.

The first and best reason I can think of is simple practicality. As you point out, the BSA does not want to spend its time policing its leaders' sexual habits. The obvious problem with a behavior-based policy is a situation where a gay man claims to be celibate but isn't, placing the burden of proof, if you will, on the BSA to demonstrate otherwise.

I don't think they should spend their time policing. BSA troops are sponsored by a variety of churches and organizations. Each of those organizations has traditionally been given wide lattitude in defining what constitutes moral character. As I mentioned before, churches have difference beliefs/doctrine regarding sexuality as it relates to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. In this one instance, the BSA has stepped in and said, "if you are gay, you aren't morally straight by definition."

Originally Posted by Tex

More complex than that is the case where a perfectly honest and celibate gay man is accused of not being so--maybe by other leaders, maybe by parents--again placing the BSA in the awkward position of trying to sort it out. This is a perfectly legitimate (and most likely) reason for the policy, IMO.

So the solution is to kick them out entirely? Are you kidding me? Discrimination solves the problem? Wow.

Originally Posted by Tex

Second, the holy grail of the gay community is legitimacy. More than anything, they want broad society-wide acceptance. They've engineered their language to this purpose: changing the traditional definition of marriage, insisting it's not a choice, etc.

Standard fear-mongering. Maybe they just want to be treated as normal people. Is that so difficult to understand? The guy in New Jersey was booted from the BSA simply for publicly acknowledging that he was gay. Period. He was an Eagle Scout and a volunteer leader. He loved BSA.

Originally Posted by Tex

Tell me, can you explain the difference between a gay man, and a straight man who struggles with same-sex attraction? I submit the only difference is semantics. The former term implies an immutable trait; the latter, a personal temptation.

LOL. Someone who struggles with same-sex attraction is not straight. Please.

Originally Posted by Tex

I have yet to meet a vocally homosexual person who adopts the latter stance. Maybe they exist and don't speak out, or maybe they don't exist. I don't know. In any case, it's understandable to me that the BSA does not wish to legitimize the behavior by putting people who adopt that belief in leadership positions, even if they aren't "practicing."

To employ an imperfect analogy: I wouldn't want a leader who personally believed that the desire to steal was normal and God-given, but who had just chosen not to do it.

And yet you simultaneously support the LDS policy that allows a gay but celibate person to get a temple recommend? That's amazing.

Your last sentence implicitly states that being gay (SSA) is a personal choice. Even the LDS church has moved beyond that.

Originally Posted by Tex

The third and perhaps least compelling but still legitimate reason, is simply that their constituency doesn't want it. While I'm sure there are some involved in BSA who support having homosexual leaders, I sense the larger share of leaders and parents oppose it. I disagree with you that this is institutionalized bigotry, but either way, a private organization has a right to respond to the desires of its membership if it so chooses.

Nice. So we are trying to teach these boys honesty and integrity and build strong moral character. At the same time we adopt a policy of discrimination, not because it is the right thing to do, but because that is what the constituency wants. The hell with that.

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm quite certain there are few issues on which the decisions are at first unanimous among the high quorums of the church. I'm also quite doubtful of any that "vote" was taken to determine the course of action, forgive my skepticism.

Come on. "Out-voted" is a figure of speech. Go ahead and assume he lied to me.

Ironically, he is widely viewed as a conservative GA.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

A noble apologetic attempt, but thoroughly unconvincing.

I wasn't expecting you to be convinced.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I don't think they should spend their time policing. BSA troops are sponsored by a variety of churches and organizations. Each of those organizations has traditionally been given wide lattitude in defining what constitutes moral character. As I mentioned before, churches have difference beliefs/doctrine regarding sexuality as it relates to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. In this one instance, the BSA has stepped in and said, "if you are gay, you aren't morally straight by definition."

So the solution is to kick them out entirely? Are you kidding me? Discrimination solves the problem? Wow.

I'm guessing there's a common baseline in what constitutes morality on several issues, not just this one.

As for discrimination, you're just using that term to browbeat. Did you marry the first girl you went on a date with? Did you hire the first guy that applied for an open position? Do they let anyone who walks through the front door of the temple into an endowment room?

We discriminate all the time. Whether that's right or wrong depends on the why, and for what. If an organization feels that including people who espouse immoral beliefs would legitimize those beliefs, it's perfectly right for them to discriminate on that basis.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Standard fear-mongering. Maybe they just want to be treated as normal people. Is that so difficult to understand? The guy in New Jersey was booted from the BSA simply for publicly acknowledging that he was gay. Period. He was an Eagle Scout and a volunteer leader. He loved BSA.

LOL. Someone who struggles with same-sex attraction is not straight. Please.

And yet you simultaneously support the LDS policy that allows a gay but celibate person to get a temple recommend? That's amazing.

Your last sentence implicitly states that being gay (SSA) is a personal choice. Even the LDS church has moved beyond that.

"Fear-mongering"? Again with the lame name-calling. It's not fear-mongering, and maybe you should look up what those words mean.

Speaking strictly of terminology, I don't believe that being gay (in the sense the gay community intends it) and struggling with SSA are the same thing. As I said, one implies that it is an immutable personal trait, like the color of your eyes; the other, that it is a weakness that must be contended with. The latter is consistent with current church teachings.

I think the comparison of being a scoutmaster to being a temple recommend holder is a bad one, and I said that at the outset. When the BSA starts removing people because they don't sustain the Prophet and/or don't believe in Jesus Christ and/or don't attend all their church meetings faithfully, then we'll talk comparisons.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Nice. So we are trying to teach these boys honesty and integrity and build strong moral character. At the same time we adopt a policy of discrimination, not because it is the right thing to do, but because that is what the constituency wants. The hell with that.

See above comments on discrimination.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Come on. "Out-voted" is a figure of speech. Go ahead and assume he lied to me.

Ironically, he is widely viewed as a conservative GA.

I don't know that he lied; it's hearsay. How am I supposed to know what he said? I hear his words as interpreted by you.

All I know is, based on my own personal experience with church leadership, important issues are not decided democratically. People are invited to share their opinions and often they differ, sometimes sharply. In the end, the presiding authority makes a decision based on his best judgment and the influence of the spirit, and it is incumbent on those over whom he presides to sustain the decision. Even as a figure of speech the term "vote" is a poor one.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Speaking strictly of terminology, I don't believe that being gay (in the sense the gay community intends it) and struggling with SSA are the same thing. As I said, one implies that it is an immutable personal trait, like the color of your eyes; the other, that it is a weakness that must be contended with. The latter is consistent with current church teachings.

Gay != SSA? I have to admit, that's a pretty creative piece of bullshit. Well done.

I don't know if I have ever met another person so smart, yet so intellectually dishonest. I guess that's part of the reason that I find debating you so exasperating. I shouldn't let it bother me so much, but it does.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Gay != SSA? I have to admit, that's a pretty creative piece of bullshit. Well done.

I don't know if I have ever met another person so smart, yet so intellectually dishonest. I guess that's part of the reason that I find debating you so exasperating. I shouldn't let it bother me so much, but it does.

It's not intellectually dishonest. You simple disagree, and that's ok. Reasonable people can disagree.

I am curious, though: does "pretty creative piece of bullshit" count as gibberish? I wonder if that's what your GA friend told his fellow GAs after his side lost the "vote."

If you are incapable of having a conversation without getting so "exasperated" and "bothered" that you can't bear to read another's view, next time, please stay out of it.