Shoulds gays allowed to be in the Boy Scouts?

[ebia]

Are you suggesting that I'm the only person in the entire world who believes that the word ORIENTATION is defined as "the act or process of being oriented" ?

No. I'm suggesting you'd be in a small minority in thinking it's the appropriate definition of orientation in the context of the phrase "homosexual orientation".

HEY I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I didn't define sexual orientation. I defined orientation.

The context we are considering the word in is sexual orientation. Giving a definition that applies to a different context and not to this one, and then using it in this one, is absurd.

So you think you defined homosexuality by defining Orientation as:

No.

Let's take a look at your definition:

Well, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary's to be accurate.

First, you've underlined "relative position".
Relative means: a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing.
So what this is saying is that the position of this orientation is dependent on something else.

Yes. Relative to other sexualities.

Hmm.... that seems an odd stance to take if you're attempting to prove that homosexuality is a sexual orientation that cannot be changed.

Not in the slightest. K2's position is approx 1300km NW relative to Everest. Neither of them can be moved.

Familiar with the phrase "everything is relative" ?
It suggests, that change is possible.

No it doesn't. It implies that how things are peceived or measured is dependent on what they are being measured against.
Not absolute does not equal changable.

Now on to your 2nd definition of "orientation"

Your words were:

Not my words. The OED's.

"a person's attitute* or adjustment in relation to circumstances, esp politically or psychologically"


I've got news for you. A person's attitude can be adjusted... changed... altered. Hence the phrase "adjustment". You used "especially politically or psychologically" as if it backed up your stance. All of these things are capable of being changed.

Political attitudes can change. That does not mean all attitudes can change.
"My cat is black" does not imply "All cats are black".
"Political attitudes can change" does not imply "all attitudes can change".
I do think the OED did a better job of the 2a than 2b though, at least in the Concise form.

So you know.... here you are attempting to prove that I am defining homosexuality as an alterable state, when in reality, you just did it for yourself.

So much for:

God bless you ebia. You have a cross up there by your name, as do I. If you wish to debate further, I will, but if you wish to throw insults back and forth, please do so privately. We should be more careful about this in front of non-Christians. For my part, I apologize for throwing the darts back in your direction. This is merely a debate, and it is not to be taken so personally ebia. I realize that you and I do not agree, but please, let us attempt be a better example of Christ's love, for those who don't believe, and also to one another.

I think this debate is over as far as you (ebia/outlaw) and I are concerned. You basically gave in to the idea that homosexuality is an orientation that can be changed, and all because of your own definition.

* You spelled attitude wrong, and I'm just pointing that out, lest anybody believe that I meant to spell it that way.

There is a convention that you put (sic) after the mispelling in the quote to indicate mistakes like this in the originating material.

This is all completely academic, however. Homosexual Orientation is a common phrase in general and professional usage. It doesn't matter one ioto if, from a linguistic point of view, it ought to mean a learned and changable behaviour. Whether or not the phenomenon known as "Homosexual Orientation" is a learned and/or changed behaviour or something intrinsic to the person is something only science can determine, not linguistics. If it is intrinsic, and the phrase continues to be used to refer to this unchangable state, then that's what the phrase means and it's the job of dictionaries to reflect this.

In other words, expert opinion refers to the phenomenon as "homosexual orientation", and the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that it is non-changeable. If the linguists don't like it, that's tough. They have to deal with how language is actually used, not how they would like it to be used, or how it "ought" to be used.

 

[""]

So much for:

Sorry, but that won't work.

You proved the opposite of what you hoped to do, and you cannot blame it on me, nor can you accuse me of being less of a Christian simply because I pointed it out to you during a debate.

There is a convention that you put (sic) after the mispelling (SIC.. like this one ebia?)in the quote to indicate mistakes like this in the originating material.

Really? wow... you clearly know much more about English than I. (that would be misspelling btw)

It doesn't matter one ioto (SIC)if,

Now what's an ioto?

In other words, expert opinion refers to the phenomenon as "homosexual orientation", and the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that it is non-changeable. If the linguists don't like it, that's tough. They have to deal with how language is actually used, not how they would like it to be used, or how it "ought" to be used.

So in other words, if you refer to a gay person as somebody of "homosexual orientation", and by that you mean that they are unchangeable in their sexual preference.... it is not your fault that the DEFINITION YOU CHOSE TO BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT, actually defined orientation as one who is capable of changing their mind?

Yes, I think I understand your stance.
It is as illogical as my claiming that Ice Cream is of a "frozen orientation" and by that I mean that it's unchangeable in it's state of existence (ie:it will always be frozen). Unfortunately, ice cream melts and becomes a liquid. People change their minds. Life goes on.

Remember, it was YOU who defined homosexual orientation as:
"a person's attitute(SIC) or adjustment in relation to circumstances, esp politically or psychologically"

In doing so, you have proved the point of your supposed opposition, because, as I stated before:

A person's attitude can be adjusted... changed... altered. Hence the phrase "adjustment". You used "especially politically or psychologically" as if it backed up your stance. All of these things are capable of being changed.

Ever heard of Ronald Reagan? He used to be a democrat. That's right. He was a democrat for the first 40 years of his life, and then he decided that he wanted to be a republican. Why? Because political attitudes can be adjusted and changed.
Now if you want to get into psychological attitudes and adjustments, I can bring up a slew of them for you. Why? Because attitudes with a basis in psychological make-up can change, or be altered based on circumstances.

It remains a fact that YOU proved that homosexual orientation is a changing condition. I didn't ask you to do it. I had no part in it. I simply watched you unravel your beliefs before my eyes, and pondered at the significance of them.

 

[Caylin]

What is wrong with you?

 

[ebia]

Sorry, but that won't work.

You proved the opposite of what you hoped to do, and you cannot blame it on me, nor can you accuse me of being less of a Christian simply because I pointed it out to you during a debate.

I couldn't care less, but one minute you ask for calm and the next you are deliberately inflamitory.

Really? wow... you clearly know much more about English than I.

No, I just enjoy being patronising sometimes.

(that would be misspelling btw)

Now what's an ioto?

Reduced to pointing out typo's? (Iota, in case you really hadn't guessed.)

So in other words, if you refer to a gay person as somebody of "homosexual orientation", and by that you mean that they are unchangeable in their sexual preference.... it is not you fault that the words "homosexual orientation" are actually defined as one who is capable of changing their mind?

Getting close. It's not me that invented the phrase though.

Yes, I think I understand your stance.
It is as illogical as my claiming that Ice Cream is of a "frozen orientation" and by that I mean that it's unchangeable in it's state of existence (ie:it will always be frozen). Unfortunately, ice cream melts and becomes a liquid. People change their minds. Life goes on.

I'm not using the language to prove that homosexuality is anything. But whether or not homosexuality is changeable is not dependent on the language used to describe it. You can play with the language all you like, but it cannot provide any evidence, let along proof, as to whether or not that which is called "homosexual orientation" is, or is not, changeable.

Remember, it was YOU who defined homosexual orientation as:
"a person's attitute(SIC) or adjustment in relation to circumstances, esp politically or psychologically"

In doing so, you have proved the point of your supposed opposition, because, as I stated before:

You stated it. But that doesn't make it so. You have not demonstrated that all attitudes are unchangeable. Neither have you demonstrated that we should be using 2b rather than 2a of that definition. Claiming victory prematurely does not make you victorious however often you do it.

It remains a fact that YOU proved that homosexual orientation is a changing condition.

No one has proved anything of the like, because you can't prove the nature of any phenomenon from the language underlying the phrase used to describe it.

 

[SimplyMe]

Sorry, but that won't work.

You proved the opposite of what you hoped to do, and you cannot blame it on me, nor can you accuse me of being less of a Christian simply because I pointed it out to you during a debate.



Really? wow... you clearly know much more about English than I. (that would be misspelling btw)



Now what's an ioto?




So in other words, if you refer to a gay person as somebody of "homosexual orientation", and by that you mean that they are unchangeable in their sexual preference.... it is not your fault that the DEFINITION YOU CHOSE TO BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT, actually defined orientation as one who is capable of changing their mind?

Yes, I think I understand your stance.
It is as illogical as my claiming that Ice Cream is of a "frozen orientation" and by that I mean that it's unchangeable in it's state of existence (ie:it will always be frozen). Unfortunately, ice cream melts and becomes a liquid. People change their minds. Life goes on.

Remember, it was YOU who defined homosexual orientation as:
"a person's attitute(SIC) or adjustment in relation to circumstances, esp politically or psychologically"

In doing so, you have proved the point of your supposed opposition, because, as I stated before:



It remains a fact that YOU proved that homosexual orientation is a changing condition. I didn't ask you to do it. I had no part in it. I simply watched you unravel your beliefs before my eyes, and pondered at the significance of them.

To claim that someone's sexual preference can be changed simply because one person, or even society in genereal, uses the term "orientation" is a flawed concept. Simply put, the words we use are not scientific proof.


Let's look at a similar example where language no longer reflects what science taught; hysteria, which is defined as:

1. Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.
2. A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause.

It was named this because of the former belief that this was a woman's problem and, more precisely, that it originated in the female sexual organs - in the womb. The root of the word is from the Latin hystericus, hysterical, from Greek husterikos, from husterā, womb. This is also why the words hysterical and hystorectomy are so similar and have the same root.

I don't know anyone who seriously feels that hysteria is simply a woman's problem or that it derives in the womb, yet those terms persist. Similarly, while people once thought homosexuality was a "sexual orientation" we are learning that it is not an "orientation" according to the meaning you are using. Instead, it is simply another case of using an outdated term rather than correcting the terms in our languages.

 

[Madcoil]

As if the boys in the scouts aren't humping each-other already... What? They aren't? 2 generations of boyscout jokes have lied to me!

 

[""]

To claim that someone's sexual preference can be changed simply because one person, or even society in genereal, uses the term "orientation" is a flawed concept. Simply put, the words we use are not scientific proof.

Don't direct your statements at me lady. I'm not claiming anything. I'm not claiming that a person's sexual preference can be changed. I have said nothing of the sort. It is Ebia who used a definition that suggests a person's sexual preference can be changed. I have merely pointed it out.

I don't know anyone who seriously feels that hysteria is simply a woman's problem or that it derives in the womb, yet those terms persist.

Actually there are some men on these forums who probably believe that. I wouldn't happen to agree with them.

Similarly, while people once thought homosexuality was a "sexual orientation" we are learning that it is not an "orientation" according to the meaning you are using. Instead, it is simply another case of using an outdated term rather than correcting the terms in our languages.

It's not the meaning I AM USING. It's the meaning ebia is using. Please direct your comments to ebia.

 

[""]

I couldn't care less, but one minute you ask for calm and the next you are deliberately inflamitory[SIC].

It might come as a surprise to you, but in a debate, people actually take opposing positions. This is not inflammatory.

No one has proved anything of the like, because you can't prove the nature of any phenomenon from the language underlying the phrase used to describe it.

Sure they have. You did. Even SimplyMe seems to think so.

Similarly, while people once thought homosexuality was a "sexual orientation" we are learning that it is not an "orientation" according to the meaning you are using. Instead, it is simply another case of using an outdated term rather than correcting the terms in our languages.

 

[SimplyMe]

Don't direct your statements at me lady. I'm not claiming anything. I'm not claiming that a person's sexual preference can be changed. I have said nothing of the sort. It is Ebia who used a definition that suggests a person's sexual preference can be changed. I have merely pointed it out.

I'm simply pointing out the phrase "sexual orientation" does not mean there is a choice involved, regardless of the word "orientation. I'm not suggesting anyone is claiming anything, just making the point.

Actually there are some men on these forums who probably believe that. I wouldn't happen to agree with them.

While there are plenty of men, on this forum and off, who might joke about that, I believe few if any actually believe it.

 

[ebia]

Don't direct your statements at me lady. I'm not claiming anything. I'm not claiming that a person's sexual preference can be changed. I have said nothing of the sort. It is Ebia who used a definition that suggests a person's sexual preference can be changed. I have merely pointed it out.

I humbly suggest that anyone who wishes to see through the falsity of this statement reads back over the past umpteen pages.

It's not the meaning I AM USING. It's the meaning ebia is using. Please direct your comments to ebia.

It's the inference that you are trying to draw, and have been trying to draw, for the last couple of days.

But lets go back a step. The OED says that Orientation comes from Orient. So calling it "Homosexual Orientation" is a clear reference to gays walking towards Asia.

 

[SimplyMe]

No one has proved anything of the like, because you can't prove the nature of any phenomenon from the language underlying the phrase used to describe it.

Sure they have. You did. Even SimplyMe seems to think so.

Please do not speak for how I think. In this case, you would be wrong. I simply stated that words and phrases show the beliefs of the people who originally coin them, such as hysterical coming from the womb. In truth, these words simply reflect beliefs and prejudices at the time they were coined, they don't necessarily have anything to do with the true nature of the subject. Despite this, they still remain linguistically correct. Science still uses hysteria as a term, but the use of the term by science does not suggest that hysteria comes from the womb.

 

[ebia]

It might come as a surprise to you, but in a debate, people actually take opposing positions. This is not inflammatory.

Correct. Taking a position is not inflammatory.

Sure they have. You did. Even SimplyMe seems to think so.

If I have, then I have done something impossible without even trying. Quite an achievement.

 

[Gentle]

of course they should

God bless
Andrew

 

[""]

I humbly suggest that anyone who wishes to see through the falsity of this statement reads back over the past umpteen pages.

As do I, because you will see that all along, I have not been attempting to prove anything about homosexuality. I only used what was given to me by ebia and outlaw, who both stated that gay persons are of a sexual orientation. I defined orientation, and then suggested that if they do not wish to promote homosexuality as something that can be changed, then perhaps they should coin another phrase, besides "orientation". This was subsequently agreed upon by SimplyMe, who, whether or not she agrees with me on other issues, has stated that she agrees that the phrase "homosexual orientation" is probably not an accurate description of gay persons. Ebia on the other hand has been insistent that it is appropriate, and then went on to offer proof of that, but in the process showed that orientation does indeed suggest a changeable behavior, thereby supporting his opposition.

But lets go back a step. The OED says that Orientation comes from Orient. So calling it "Homosexual Orientation" is a clear reference to gays walking towards Asia.

Origin isn't the same as meaning.

Origin:

1. The point at which something comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived.
2. Ancestry: “We cannot escape our origins, however hard we try” (James Baldwin).
3. The fact of originating; rise or derivation: The rumor had its origin in an impulsive remark.
4. Anatomy. The point of attachment of a muscle that remains relatively fixed during contraction.
5. Mathematics

Meaning:

1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.
2. Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose.
3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: “The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority” (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
4. Inner significance

If it were, then my son would be sleeping with Theodore Roosevelt at the moment, instead of his teddy bear. That might be a frightening experience.

 

[Gentle]

asia? this thread is confusing or it's me
Asia Argento?
lets talk about her now, its time we get to the truth of this

 

[""]

asia? this thread is confusing or it's me
Asia Argento?
lets talk about her now, its time we get to the truth of this

It is confusing isn't it? I'm not clear on this, but it seems that Ebia thinks homosexuals are migrating toward Asia.









all in good fun

 

[Gentle]

It is confusing isn't it? I'm not clear on this, but it seems that Ebia thinks homosexuals are migrating toward Asia.









all in good fun

well, I believe crazier things why not indeed.
i love this place
God bless
Andrew

 

[ebia]

As do I, because you will see that all along, I have not been attempting to prove anything about homosexuality. I only used what was given to me by ebia and outlaw, who both stated that gay persons are of a sexual orientation. I defined orientation, and then suggested that if they do not wish to promote homosexuality as something that can be changed, then perhaps they should coin another phrase, besides "orientation". This was subsequently agreed upon by SimplyMe, who, whether or not she agrees with me on other issues, has stated that she agrees that the phrase "homosexual orientation" is probably not an accurate description of gay persons. Ebia on the other hand has been insistent that it is appropriate, and then went on to offer proof of that, but in the process showed that orientation does indeed suggest a changeable behavior, thereby supporting his opposition.



Origin isn't the same as meaning.

Origin:

1. The point at which something comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived.
2. Ancestry: “We cannot escape our origins, however hard we try” (James Baldwin).
3. The fact of originating; rise or derivation: The rumor had its origin in an impulsive remark.
4. Anatomy. The point of attachment of a muscle that remains relatively fixed during contraction.
5. Mathematics

Meaning:

1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.
2. Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose.
3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: “The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority” (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
4. Inner significance

If it were, then my son would be sleeping with Theodore Roosevelt at the moment, instead of his teddy bear. That might be a frightening experience.

Now keep going and distinguish between the meaning of a phrase and the phenomenon it describes.

 

[Scally Cap]

I simply watched you unravel your beliefs before my eyes, and pondered at the significance of them.

ebia and others have very patiently pointed out that the APA's definition of "homosexual orientation" is not dependent on which OED usage you want to select for the single word "orientation." If all you have to fall back on is splitting hairs about linguistics, rather than the substance of the APA's position on homosexuality, that's pretty weak. Okay, fine. Everybody here should call Adiya's bluff and quit using the term. Switch to two words whose definitions she seems to deem immutable--"innate" and "homosexuality." Don't talk about homosexual orientation anymore. Talk about innate homosexuality and see if the linguistic arguments evaporate.

By the way, Adiya, since you took every opportunity to demonstrate that your grasp of English is superior to ebia's, I assume you used "ponder" incorrectly in the quoted sentence above for humorous effect.

 

[morningstar2651]

Openly gay people are not allowed to be in the boy scouts. Do you feel gays should be allowed in them? I am trying to find some opinions for either side of the argument.

Seriously though, I'm Pagan and I'm an Eagle and an assistant scoutmaster. At least one of the of the guys in my old troop was in the closet when I was a scout.

"No gays allowed -- because we're Christian" just doesn't quite fit.

Purpose of the BSA

The Boy Scouts of America was incorporated to provide a program for community organizations that offers effective character, citizenship, and personal fitness training for youth.

Specifically, the BSA endeavors to develop American citizens who are physically, mentally, and emotionally fit; have a high degree of self-reliance as evidenced in such qualities as initiative, courage, and resourcefulness; have personal values based on religious concepts; have the desire and skills to help others; understand the principles of the American social, economic, and governmental systems; are knowledgeable about and take pride in their American heritage and understand our nation's role in the world; have a keen respect for the basic rights of all people; and are prepared to participate in and give leadership to American society.

Boy Scout Program Membership

Boy Scouting, one of the traditional membership divisions of the BSA, is available to boys who have earned the Arrow of Light Award and are at least 10 years old, or have completed the fifth grade and are at least 10 years old, or who are 11, but not yet 18 years old. The program achieves the BSA's objectives of developing character, citizenship, and personal fitness qualities among youth by focusing on a vigorous program of outdoor activities.

No "Sinners not allowed!" clause. Singling out homosexuals is, in my opinion, a cowardly attempt at parent pleasing -- a fear of being the scapegoat if little Billy comes out of the closet at a troop meeting.

Oh well, there is always the Spiral Scouts.