Boy Scouts

monahorns,
and I think that gets to the crux of it. I'm guessing that many of you that are 'ok' with the recent shift in the BSA don't have sons and aren't in scouts and therefore treat the whole subject in the abstract.
 
"..don't have sons and aren't in scouts and therefore treat the whole subject in the abstract."
I agree.
 
I was in the Boy Scouts. Didn't get Eagle but I was only maybe 1 or 2 badges and the community service project away. I have two daughters and another baby on the way, not sure which gender yet. So while my statement was somewhat theoretical, I think about the subject from a standpoint of reality.

The point of my last statement was this: child predators/molesters whether they are minors or adults have no more or less access to the Boy Scouts today than they did 20 years ago. I would also venture to say that predators/molesters looking for boys will not be open about their intentions or lifestyles. Any Scout who is publicly gay will be heavily scrutinized. They wouldn't be the ones I would be most concerned with. The other thought is that Scouts both straight and gay will be there for the same reasons, to Scout. If that changes I could see more policy changes or bylaws to maintain behavior and focusing on the subject of Scouting. In a sense reverting back to previous guidelines.
 
Y'all realize God forgives sin right? Like if you confess its wrong, ask for forgiveness, and repent you are forgiven. You aren't burdened by your previous sins for the rest of your life. This applies to murders, liars, rapists, thieves, adulterers, homosexuals, etc. Christianity is a pretty easy religion since its based on forgiveness.
 
Question for Ivan, Htown, monahorns, stampede. Do you believe in "curing" homosexuality or that they should go to therapy when they feel homosexual urges? This is not related to boy scouts, just in general.
 
Larry, I believe sexuality is a mutable aspect of human nature on some level. However, I don't know the limits of possible change and can't expound on them with any real understanding. I base my view on this verse.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

When a person is born again something fundamentally changes within the person. Theologically it is called regeneration. I have talked to people who were drug addicts that were immediately released from the desire to take them after trusting in Jesus. I also know people who start a slow, hard road to sobriety as a result of conversion. I think that is the way it is with all sin. I talked with one person who was homosexual about a week after they trusted in the gospel. I don't know what his lifestyle is today, but he described to me feeling different all of sudden in relation to God, the Bible, his family, and his lifestyle.
 
I don't know if "curing" a sexual deviant is possible. I do believe it is possible for sexual deviants such as pedophiles, homosexuals, necropheliacs etc, to control their abnormal behavior but I do not beleive they can be cured. Much like alcoholism or gambling addiction, behavior modification can be achieved. An alcoholic can say he was born an alcoholic, but that doesn't mean he cant modify his behavior.(see anon) We, as a society tolerate many human frailties, but at the
same time we do not accept those frailties, especially around our youth.
 
"Aberration", "failings", maintaining "normal". I can't help but think you're soft peddling the same doctrines that the Taliban is an extreme example of.
Christian Fundamentalism is eerily similar to Islamic Fundamentalism in that they have a strong desire for everyone to conform to their worldview. The only difference is the latter uses weapons to force conformity. Their desire to force others to operate by their rules is the same though.

I have no problem with someone subscribing to fundamentalist views. Just don't force others to adopt those same views.

Heterosexual individuals do not have a monopoly on virtuous and righteous living.
 
"I have no problem with someone subscribing to fundamentalist views. Just don't force others to adopt those same views."

Unless, of course, it is the liberal view on sexual deviancy being forced on others to adopt those same views.

"I would be fine with the Boy Scouts taking the same stance. Prying and prejudice would hardly seem to be BSA values. "

I doubt that you have a clue about the BSA.


"I'm still stunned to see those things bolded above tossed together as though they're similar"

Dont be stunned, they are similar as they are human behavior failings and as such we need to teach our youth to aspire to be better than those failings.
 
SH,
" have no problem with someone subscribing to fundamentalist views. Just don't force others to adopt those same views"
Exactly...

The LGBT folks shouldn't force the scouts, through their financial blackmail, to adopt their views. It was around for 103 yrs with the same values. LGBT should have made their own organization,

And I'm certainly not a Christian Fundamentalist. I don't believe the bible is the literal word of God anymore than I believe the Koran or Torah. They were all written by fallible men and are very likely derived from the same oral traditions just spun for different audiences. But almost every religion and every society, since, ummmmm...forever, has regarded homosexuality as an aberration.

You characterizing my view, that gay is abnormal, as fundamentalist is what intrigues me. The majority of the world does, and has for thousands of years, considered gay abnormal. But several of you, in your enlightened state, have determined that biology and anthropology be damned...gay is normal.

"It's when those views start impacting others that the buck stops, IMHO."
"Until their individual actions harm someone else, the whole affair, to me, is their business not mine."

That is the exact arguement I'm making. It does impact others. It impacts the boys in the troop directly and it impacts the society I live in directly. Either way you decide the issue you impact others. To pretend that you can have a social standard/policy either way that doesn't "impact others" is intellectual dishonesty.

To borrow some Rush...Even "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

Do we allow people to run around naked? Why not? There are certainly a few people that really want to do it? It doesn't really 'harm' anybody else by what I believe are your standards of 'harm'. Do you have a daughter? Would you mind if I came and ran around naked in front of her? How about if I started spewing explatives? Or racial slurs? These don't really harm her... do they? I mean, since they aren't directed at her, it would be totally cool with you if she saw and heard me say/do those things, right?

RV,
I didn't say they were evils and I certainly don't consider all failings equal. In my view, evil implies intent to do harm. I don't think gays/alcoholics/drug abusers/etc intend to do harm, but that doesn't mean that they aren't doing harm just the same.

Judging what is right and wrong is necessary. We all do it all day, everyday. To pretend that we don't have a right judge and set societal standards is ludicrous. We judge when it is ok to hit someone...bar fight/not ok...self-defense/ok. We judge when it is ok to kill someone. We judge when it is ok to drive 35MPH and when it is not. We judge when it is ok to look at pictures of naked girls...18+/ok...17/not ok. These are all value judgments. We draw societal lines all the time about what is acceptable and what is not.

Many of you have succumb to the brilliant marketing job of the LGBT community. Most of your parents wouldn't have the same views as you and almost none of your grandparents.

Let's raise a toast to squishy morality...whatever is in vogue...that's what I'll have.
 
Going to repeat my earlier point that was completely ignored. Homosexuality is a behavior. You can prove your eye color. How do you prove someone is heterosexual or homosexual? If a person is married to woman for 20 years then leaves her to engage in homosexual sex, is he straight or gay? If a man spends 20 years with a male partner, then leaves that partner for a woman, he is he straight or gay?

I agree you should not discriminate against someone because they were born with blue eyes or any other color of eyes. No one is born having sex. People can live their entire lives without having sex.

We discriminate against behavior all the time. This state has an open container law. This law makes it illegal to ride in a car and drink a beer. Who does drinking while riding hurt? We discriminate against people who engage in this behavior that hurts no one all the time. Homosexuality is a behavior, it is not the same as race, eye color, or some other immutable characteristic.

It has been stated some people can't control their urges to engage in homosexual behavior and that behavior makes them happy. Stealing makes kleptomaniacs happy. We don't treat people that are born an abnormal urge to steal any differently in a court of law.

I find it interesting Romavicta classified alcoholism as a disease. What is the difference between alcoholism and homosexuality? Both are groups of people giving into urges and choosing to engage in some behavior. Apparently the one Romavicta doesn't like is a disease and the other is normal.
 
Proving you're sexuality matters when people claim they didn't get a job because they were discriminated against because of their "sexuality." I am tired of people comparing behavior to race or eye color. That argument was used on this very page.
 
Sorry up front, I have a question to ask that will change the subject again.

I have always believed that gay people are "born" that way, in a sense, just like we are all born with unique personalities. My question is, what does that mean exactly? Does it mean that homosexuality is genetic? That it is a product of our DNA and therefore, inescapable in a way, like race? If that is your belief, then what do you do with the news of Jason Collins being gay? The issue isn't so much him being gay. It is the fact that Jason is gay and has an identical twin that is straight. They share the exact same genes but they have a different sexual identity. Doesn't this pose a huge problem with the belief that homosexuality is strictly genetic?
 
EH, so if one is born gay, which I actually don't disagree with but I am trying to understand this, how can 2 people with the same dna have two different sexual preferences? Even if twins are likely to have the same preference, it still doesn't answer the question. If genes determine sexuality, then how can one person be gay and the other not? Could it be because sexuality isn't completely determined by genetics?

Jarron could be gay, but using that as an excuse is a copout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top