Originally Posted by YelloJeep
(I know, not necessarily an all ending source, but...) From Wikepedia:
"The Establishment Clause was established mainly as a consensus among all of the religious groups in America during 1787, to prevent one religion from having too much influence."
It was againi, primarily a response to previously being required by the king of England to adhere to one government endorsed religion only.
You're almost there. You're implying the principle I'm speaking of, but you're not stating it.
The founding fathers could have created a third house of congress, comprised of representatives of the various religions. They could have guaranteed religious freedom by giving religion significant power within the government, and ensuring that any legislation created was consistent with the religious beliefs of Americans.
They didn't create such a house.
The principle they valued was that each person should be responsible for his own religious beliefs.
Please enlighten me... If there is in fact a quote in the BSA bylaws saying "we will determine ones human worth based on our beliefs..." or where that has been said by anyone in their ranks (verbatim)... You can spin almost anything by placing your own working on it. If they fully accept "gays" into their ranks they are not respecting one's beliefs and practices they are ENDORSING those beliefs.
By your argument, you're suggesting that BSA endorses heterosexuality. Except that they don't: they explicitly prohibit sexual activity at BSA events, going so far as to prohibit men and women from sleeping in the same cabin or tent, even if they are married to eachother.
BSA does not endorse sexuality of any sort. They prohibit all forms of sex during their events. That prohibition need not be lifted; what needs to be removed is the ban on homosexual preference; the belief that same-sex love is as valid as heterosexual love.
This goes back to our fundamental disagreement as to what is natural and nature intended. (Or as I would say, what GOD intended for His people)
BSA dictates the answer to that question to scouts and volunteers. They don't leave it up to the beliefs of the individual, they declare their answer as valid and prohibit any sort of disagreement on it. In this sense, they have more in common with King George III than with the principles of the founding fathers.
Another quick question... Just curious as to how you would answer this...
What if everyone had been gay since the beginning of time?
What do you mean by "gay"? A man who has sex 100 times, 50 with men, 50 with women - is he gay?
How about 99 with men, 1 with a woman? How about 99 with women, 1 with a man?
If you consider all three of these men "gay", then I would say that the human race would be alive and kicking. If your question refers to "exclusively gay" persons, then there would, of course, be no persons.
How many sexual partners have you had throughout your lifetime? It's extremely rare for a person to have only one sexual partner throughout their entire life. Have you procreated with each and every one of your sexual partners? Having a child with each and every single one of a person's sexual partners is also extremely rare.
How many children do you have? How many times have you had sex? And no, I don't really want an answer to either question, but I'll bet the ratio of sex to offspring is over 100:1. My point is that the vast majority of sex that humans have is for non-procreative purposes. Numerically and biologically speaking, the primary purpose of sex is for entertainment, not procreation. Procreation is a secondary function of sex, not the primary purpose.
BSA does not prohibit a person who desires casual sex with one or more heterosexual partners for purposes other than procreation. If they did, "it's necessary for procreation" argument might make sense. But they don't do that. What they are basing the prohibition on is the individual's romantic preference, and you haven't yet provided a reason that allows for people to choose to have non-procreative heterosexual relations, but does not allow for homosexual relations.
One other argument against the "it's necessary for procreation" argument is that gay people can adopt and raise children. Given that BSA is a youth organization, the vast majority of homosexual volunteers you would find would be family members of the scout. To say that another way: Gay people *can* have children. It's far more likely for a gay person to be raising a child than for a fertile person who exclusively engages in non-procreative heterosexual activities with a fertile partner, or those who have rendered themselves infertile.