Attempt to ban Boy Scout recruiting in schools rejected

Where did Dale say anything about his sexual behavior... in the context of the Boy Scouts... or anywhere else, publicly?

Hehehe…Aren’t you the one who said it was in a Newark newspaper?

Are newspapers sold publicly? Yes or No?

The Radical Right, all those groups with words like "family," "concerned," "traditional," "research," and "values" (et al) in their names... would like to believe that you don't have a sexuality until you dim the lights in your Honeymoon Suite.

Pure sophistry. I have to admit it, you’re really good at it. Abstinence is not “a sexuality”, whatever the soft-sciences mean by that. There is only ONE “sexuality”; it’s called a man/woman relationship. The rest is called perversion.
[Add the “sexuality” of bestiality, incest and consensual pedophilia for emphasis]

Most gay folks identify themselves by who they are, not by what they do.

It’s a coping mechanism, how else can you/they live with the filth and degradation you/they subject themselves to?

The obssessive focus on sexual behavior is NOT a "gay thing." It's an antigay thing.

No it’s not, it’s an objective thing. The obsession is how you define your pathology. The obsession is declaring your perversion. The obsession is trying to equate right behavior with wrong behavior. Like I said, it’s a coping mechanism.

Now I just have to convince you to use the term: "Molestation Libel."

Sorry, objective reading of data from Freund and Thomas, something an 8 year old could do, is anything but libelous.

"... which were not directed at the Boy Scouts of America," he tirelessly added. *g*

This is not the issue. The issue isn't that Dale discussed his sexual orientation within the context of Scouting, it's that he discussed it in the media. Kids can read. So can their parents.Don't you see the Grand Leap you just took? Who said anything about "witnessing" an "adult sex [life]" to kids? "Excuse me Mister Dale but the newspaper says that you're a fag." "I'm sorry, Johnny, but I can't talk about that. Ask your parents or clergy." I don't see the crisis.

The crisis is that in the paper, he said he was gay. If you're gay and want to be a leader in the BSA, keep out of the papers. I don't think that's too far of a stretch. I've been a Scouter for 10 years now, and so far I've managed to keep my sexual orientation and my marital status out of the papers.

But mentioning that you HAVE a wife would NOT "subject" you to "sanctions"... ey?

10-4 on that. I'm not saying that the two situations are exactly equivalent. An "avowed" heterosexual can be in the BSA. An "avowed" homosexual can't.

I agree that seeing someone and saying that that person is attractive is not necessarily a sexual response (although it can be).

As long as it remains mental and not physical it can't be. That's the distinction I'm making and you seem to understand it now.

I'm aware of the distinction, especially since I refer to women as "attractive" all the time even though I'm not attracted to any of them "that way." But how can you say that "someone has a nice shape and might be sexually interesting isn't a sexual response." If you think that they may sexually interesting (to you) then that's your inherent sexual attractions at play.

No, it's still just a mental evaluation of their looks. Until I let it move into erotic thinking intended to stimulate myself sexually, it's not a sexual response. It's no different than saying, "She'd be a good Playmant(TM or whatever)"

If you didn't have the attraction (IE: sexual orientation) then you wouldn't think that way about her.

I disagree. Recognition of reality is not the same as sexual response. By your definition, what does it make me when I think a dog is a particularly pretty dog and would make a good bitch?

And I agree with the other distinction as well, regarding "platonic" love. "I love you but I'm not 'in love with' you." I neither claimed nor intended to imply that all love is sexual in nature.

And yet you do if you claim you could never love a woman, marry her, and raise a family with her.

Believe me, you don't have to convince me of the homophobic nature of American culture.

Let me come back to that.

Anyway, we're disgreeing on what constitutes a "sexual response." If you'll pardon the vulgarity, I believe you're saying that something isn't sexual (or erotic?) unless a man springs wood.

Or intentionally thinks in a way so as to cause same (to accomodate the Viagra crowd.

There's no way I can agree with that. That would be a very poor indicator. Too unreliable, and often terribly inaccurate. I think that nearly 100% of the men that have gone to High School have at some time carried their books in front of them... even without any obvious sexual stimulation.

We agree here, and that is the obvious result of sexual attraction. But you're supposed to outgrow that.

That's why I keep insisting that "eroticism" in all in your head. It may or may not be accompanied by arousal... no "behavior" is required whatsoever... and that attraction is not an "act of will."

And I insist that moving beyond a simple recognition of beauty (in all its forms) is an act of will, whether you take it to the point of erection or stop short.

So when you say: "But for a man to take that to the sexual response stage is not reasonable," it is YOU who is being unreasonable.

But I am speaking from a real experience in the real world. What we are seeing now is a disagreement based on the actual sexual stage of you and me. I say I can decide when to let an observation of beauty move me to a sexual response, you say you can't. I submit that you have some growing to do, but I'll understand if you disagree.

You are suggesting a level of control that doesn't exist.

Not unless you are suggesting I'm a liar.

Guys get the "she's hot" ping even if they're just passing someone in the mall. They're with the wife so they can't (shouldn't) swivel around to watch the beauty walk away... and there won't be any other obvious physical reactions... but you can't say that it wasn't a sexual event... nor that it wasn't erotic... nor that inherent attractions weren't at play.

But I do say all but the last. And that's the distinction between the sexually healthy and the sexually unhealthy. And one of the key evidences that gays need help.

While reserving sexual behavior for "the good of the society" is a noble cause, it seems to be an underutilization of near negligent proportions. Human sexuality is a gift to humanity. Treated respectfully... shared honestly... and loyally... it's great. Everyone should be sexually comfortable and honest with himself or herself. "Be a HAPPY worker bee," right?

Again, evidence of a psychosis.

But none of this explains why you decided to poke your head into this discussion of sexual orientation. What was your inspiration? *g*

The desire to inject some adult thought into the debate.

I can walk up to anyone in America and ask: "What is your sexual orientation: homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual," and the overwhelming majority will (at the very least) KNOW what I'm talking about.

Of course, we have a mass culture. What they may not know is that you have created definitions out of whole cloth. It's like saying I can walk up to everyone in America and say, "I'm the king of the world ... NOT" and they'll know what I mean. It's terrible syntax, just a well recognized terrible syntax.

Why is it that YOU start pulling Greek gods out of antiquity and asking me if I make stuff up?

Eros isn't a god, it's a word. And it's not my fault that the Greeks have more precise words than the English "love." Most reasonably educated people know the difference between eros, phileo, agape, and that fourth one that goes with "I love apple pie."

Back to your issue of "homophobic" America.

I bet if you ask 100 people on the street who express a revulsion to homosexual behavior, they will tell you they have always felt that way. They will tell you it is an automatic reaction and a natural one. Would you then conclude they have a homophobic orientation and must have their diversity respected, accepted, and affirmed?

Hope you had a good night.

Shalom.

Since we have agreed to disagree on the basic definitions, I'll leave it here.

However, unless you are under 20, you really should think about what your need to see certain events as sexual says about your mental and social health.

Shalom.