selek

Welcome

To be perfectly blunt, I find the rapid turn-about of some of Hunt's supporters to be problematic and driven more by pragmatism than be principle. On the one hand, I give them credit for coming clean that things are not what they inititally thought. On the other, the uncaring opportunism and sheer callous political calculation are simply appalling. When Hunt was a potential asset to their cause, she was hailed as a hero. The moment she became a liability, the dropped her off a cliff and didn't hang around long enough to listen for the splash. This demonstrates clearly my earlier assertion that her would-be supporters are completely indifferent to her as a person; it is only her usefulness to their cause that they care about. I agree with this statement (from a noted homosexual activist, and with the vulgarity redacted): “The truth is this is not a case of homophobia; it’s a case of a family trying to protect their daughter by using the gay angle of this case to rally sympathy and support from the gay community,”T.J. Askren wrote Wednesday at her Red Treehouse blog. “Kaitlyn Hunt is not a lesbian hero. She is not a gay martyr. … Getting in trouble for ------- your underage girlfriend in the school bathroom is not a noble cause.” But the double standard is both blatant and shocking. Hunt is accused of (and has admitted to) homosexual intercourse. That doesn't suddenly become non-homosexual simply because it's inconvenient to the carefully-crafted media narrative. If they were going to support her "as a matter of principle", they should have been willing to do so despite the embarrassments and downturns that inevitably follow an in-depth examination of someone's sexual conduct. Hunt may (or may not) have been the aggressor and victimizer vis-a-vis the Smith girl: but she's been well and truly violated by those in the homosexual lobby who pretended to care about her.

Okay- I missed that statement.Thank you for the clarification. Actually, such manipulation is assumed; that's why the minor's inability to give informed consent is so crucial.In the obverse, I won't argue for a millisecond that the minor cannot be maipulative, in turn: the Amy Fisher/Joey Buttafuoco case being an excellent example.

Nope- exactly the opposite. It doesn't matter that the fourteen year old might have been an instigator in this instance, because the adult was legally and morally responsible to protect both herself and the minor involved. Legally, it is the adult's duty to say "no" because the child cannot legally consent (no matter how willing he or she may be). The child is presumed (with a startling amount of justification) to be incapable of making sound or considered judgement in such a matter- therefor the adult has to. This one did not- and is now attempting to win special treatment because her fetish is currently fashionable. In point of fact, this woman was warned repeatedly- both at school and in private, to stay away from the child in question.Having the child show up on your doorstep and telling them to go home is several orders of magnitude different than having that child show up on your doorstep and suddenly and inexplicably winding up naked and in bed with her.

No- but I've yet to see any evidence that that's even a possibility.This woman made an adult decision to commit a crime against a child. She did so after having been warned off repeatedly. She needs to pay the penalty for that, not get a free pass because her of her gender or because her particular fetish is currently celebrated by those who consider themselves "cosmopolitan".

Would you make the same argument if the adult in this case were a fifty-year-old man? Tempted or not, the 18 year-old chose to enage in sexual relations with a minor. And according to every account, she knew that what she was doing was wrong. What you have just offered us is a variation of the "she was asking for it" defense. It's bogus when a male rapist offers it. It's bogus when a female rapist offers it.

On the contrary: as with those harassing the BSA, this is being done deliberately to advance a political agenda: the complete decriminalization and societal endorsement of homosexuality. The actual welfare of the principals (and principles) involved, are expendable so long as the agenda is advanced.

Amen and amen.Predatory behavior is predatory behavior- even if the perversion is endorsed by the beautiful people. Since she and her enablers declined the plea deal, prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law- no matter how politically incorrect it may be.

Newbirth, Your response to the accusation that you presume to know better than those whom the Lord had annointed with the stewardship was an unsupported anecdote which allegedly proves that you did know better than those whom! the Lord has called. Color me unimpressed. Your complaints and your attitude- particularly the sneer about "following blindly"- ring hollow. A genuine LDS testimony is the antithesis of blind worship; for you to lambaste your "fellow Saints" in such a manner is both intellectually and morally deceitful. Given that, I have no reaaon to believe that you what you claim to be, nor to afford your opinion any more weight than that of any other "counter-cult" minister or ark steadier. Like William Law and his ilk, you are bound and determined to "save" the Church based on your own personal dogma and hubris- but cannot see past your own arrogance and pride. Alleging that the Church is wrong- because YOU say so isn't enough. Sneering at and belittling faithful Saints doesn't prove your point. So spare us the sanctimony and condescension at least until you've dealt with the log in your own eye.

Well, if we're going to get technical about it: Riker was Captain of the Enterprise in "Best of Both Worlds". (He was promoted after the second most mediocre captain of the Enterprise was assimilated by the Borg) . However, got get +2 PnP for Knowledge over Archer and Reed as I didn't know that about them.

Thank you. I agree.I believe the BSA has been very cautious and has struck a good balance between principle and inclusiveness. My concern is not with the BSA leadership, but those who will see this as a concession and as justification and opportunity to force further changes. All things considered, I just don't believe this fight is over; for far too many in the LGBT movement neutrality (as exemplified by the BSA stance) is not sufficient- only endorsement and blatant boosterism will suffice.

I agree. There are, however, those eager to change that fact in favor of their own predilections. I agree, as does being civil to one's fellow Latter-day Saints (such as Carlimac) who are trying to understand both the policy change and its potential implications.Telling them they're "overreacting" or "making a mountain out of a molehill" is to be dismissive of their concerns and questions- which is itself uncivil.

The problem with this smug dismissal is that false teachings, moral "fluidity" and the dismissal and even celebration of morally repugnant behavior IS related to our salvation- and more specifically to that of our sons and neighbors.If we do not stand for and teach correct principles, we are both in violation of our covenants and commision and "unprofitable" servants. Is it that you unfamiliar with D&C 101:39-40? Or do you simply consider it an incovenient truth to be ignored in return for the praise of Babylon? What about D&C 103:9-10? These Scriptures are both an explicit commandment and an intrinsic warning.

Careful, C. Such a lack of "nuance" will get you excluded from the company of "the beautiful people". (What with moral flexibility/fluidity and a thirst for "diversity" in all fields except thought and ideology being the highest virtue these days.)

In point of fact, they (and the Church) have said precisely the opposite. Those who abide by the Scout code and by-laws are welcome, regardless of the particular flavor of their personal predilections.Sexual immorality, when it comes to light, will not be tolerated. I agree. I do not agree with this, however.Given the practical and moral repurcussions and the impact on our sons and brothers, clarity and understanding of both the policy and its possible repercussions is of the highest priority.

In nearly all respects, C, it does. Where you're having a problem, I think, is that the BSA does not see itself as an enforcement mechanism for that standard. To quote a beloved apostle who is all too often sneered at by the usual suspects, "We teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves." They DO encourage it- they simply don't enforce it unless it's thrust in their faces; sort of a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Congratulations, and welcome home!

Horse pockey.The absolutism and cartoon-caricatures in this thread have resided wholly and entirely with the homophile side of the aisle (and then, largely for rhetorical and demogogic advantage). My, what a lovely strawman. I'm particularly impressed by the floppy hat and button eyes.As you well, know, the standards to which BSA charters are held is for the BSA to decide. Thus far, their reading of eternal law conforms awfully darn closely to my own (perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the BSA- and men of integrity- had a great effect on me during my formative years). If, or when, the BSA changes those standards, each of those contributing to that erosion will be called to account to a far higher tribunal than I can convene (and which, in fact, I will be answerable to for my own conduct). If they are not living their lives in conformity with the Scout precepts and guidelines, then they absolutely should be barred from membership.That's what "Freedom of Association" means, in addition to all those inconvenient clauses in the First and Fourth Admendments to the United States Constitution. The fact that your preferred deviancy is fashionable or faddish does not obviate my Constitutional right to tell you to bugger off.

To quote the most mediocre captain of the Enterprise, "When has justice ever been as simple as a rulebook?" Virtue- true virtue- is not simply following all the rules for fear or punishment or even because it's "what's expected of us". As came up in the Female Chastity thread of a few weeks back, true virtue and integrity are the adherence to what is right because it is right, rather than because we are told. Or to put it another way, my going on a diet means nothing if I'm doing it just to keep my doctor from nagging me. I will surely cheat as soon as he's out of earshot. It is far more "virtuous", "honorable", and "praiseworthy" for me to go on a diet because I am committed to losing weight and becoming healthier than I am. Michelle Obama's "Healthy Schools" program hasn't done anything to improve kid's nutrition because the kids won't eat the slop she insists on serving them. In both school lunches and the BSA, the kids have to be "onboard" with the program or the adults are just going through the motions.

I agree whole-heartedly. There are gay men who are, by definition, "more of a man" than many straight men. I never claimed that this standard was binary. That having been said, those who actively engage in homosexual sex (or indeed, any other form of fornication) are ignoring and violating eternal law in order to indulge their carnal appetites. That, by definition, is self-indulgent. As laid out above, they are "less" men than they could be if they chose the harder path of moral purity. Contrary to the strawman you and Soulsearcher have set up, this isn't a race or a game in which I adjudge myself better than you (or anyone else). As Skippy470 commented in the other BSA thread, this is about integrity, about being the best, most Christ-like man (or woman) you can be. By choosing a path of self-indulgence and self-justification, you are choosing to be less than you might have been- which I believe was Carlimac's point all along. To go back to the example you quoted above: Who is more of a man: the Soulsearcher who lies to his father to hide his orientation, who chooses a life of sin and fornication? Or the Soulsearcher who walks uprightly before the Lord, keeping the Law of Chastity in all respects despite the great personal sacrifice involved? In an eternal sense, the answer is clearly the latter. In your scoutmaster/adulterer formulation above, the answer is that this individual is LESS of a man than he might have been had he kept his covenants and lived honorably. What do you mean "we"? This absolutism is your contribution to the conversation, not mine or Anddenex's.Nor, for the record, have either Anddenex or I posited that one's status "as a man" is static or unchanging. That change is possible- that we can become more than we are- is precisely the reason the Atonement exists.

It is indeed a false dichotomy. The only problem is, you're the one who introduced it.But again, beating up on a strawman is easier than a substantive response.

Let it go Anddenex; he knows full well what was said and what was intended.It's just that mockery is easier than a substantive response. The Scriptural examples of people mocking eternal truths- and those who speak them- are legion, so why should this board be any different?

For both of us, I'm sure.To continue the thought in my previous post, however, the Boy Scouts of America is heavily inculcated in the world view I describe above. Their goal is to produce men; who are, by definition, self-reliant, capable, honorable, honest, and, above all, moral. Their program is designed specifically to foster and develop these traits in our youth. They define men as individuals who will do their duty to God and country, who are noble, trustworthy, gallant, and responsible. Anything less is (in their worldview) less of a man. I know that such concepts are passé in a world that idolizes hedonism, self-indulgence, and "you're not the boss of me" pedanticism, but those Scout values are (despite the contempt of Babylon) the heart, foundation, and soul not only of the American experiment, but of eternal law as well. We cannot live up to the fullness of our divine potential through self-indulgence. We cannot become true sons and daughters of God by making excuses to circumvent eternal law or by "congratulating" others in doing so. It is adherence to the law (after and through the Atonement) that will exalt us, not excuse making and persecution complexes. Inasmuch as the change in BSA policy seeks to teach young men integrity, honor, and morality to the widest possible audience, I support it whole-heartedly. Inasmuch as the change is a doorway to bringing the Scouts into complaince with the customs and mores of Babylon, I deplore it. I foresee a number of bad actors who, having won this victory, use it as a wedge to further attack the principles upon which the BSA is founded in the name of being "inclusive". How long do any of you think it will be before the shrill among us start lobbing accusations of harassment and intimidation and demand that the Scouts begin holding mandatory reeducation camps? Oops, I meant to say "sensitivity training", not that there's much difference.

Nut, the problem is that you're trying to apply a black-and-white, either/or to a comparison where such binary mindsets and absolutism are not appropriate.You are, in essence, arguing that is the comparison cannot be applied universally, then it should not be applied at all. This is both false, and a dangerous mindset which leads to antinomianism (an avowed heresy). Call it old-fashioned, if you like, but in my opinion, Carlimac's reasoning boils down to one simple word: integrity (or for those of us who grew up in the South, honor). A "true man" is someone who demonstrates (if not exemplifies) integrity, courage, self-sacrifice, and honor. Who is more of a man: the one who charges a machine gun nest and saves every other man in his platoon? Or the one who soils himself cowering at the bottom of his fox hole? Who is more of a man: the father who works eighty or ninety hours a week putting food on the table for his family? Or the welfare king who spends eighty hours a week on his X-Box while others provide for his children? Who is more of a man: the Priesthood holder who presides in his home with honor and respect for his wife, and who blesses his children? Or the MacDaddy with seventeen kids, three baby-mommas, and who can't keep it zipped for more than eight hours at a time? Who is more of a man: he who chooses the harder course, regardless of the personal sacrifice because its the right thing to do? Or the hedonist who declares "don't judge me, God made me this way" as an all-purpose excuse to indulge his baser appetites? Who is more of a man: small, frail, Gordon B. Hinckley? Or noted body builder (and hedonistic philanderer) Arnold Schwarzenegger? Who is the perfect man: who commanded us to be perfect even as he is? It goes without saying that we will all (even Presidents Hinckley and Monson) fall short. But someone who chooses to live his life in a way that makes him less like Christ, who chooses a path of indolence and indulgence is, by definition, "less" of a man than one who does what is right, simply because it is right.

Is he really?Seems to me he finds some comfort in his new relationship, but he's clearly unhappy about having to deceive his father. I won't fault you for empathy- but that's not what you said, above, and I don't believe that your clarification is how most people would interpret you. For that reason, your initial statement was far more morally problematic.