Inappropriate conduct will still be chastised, recently I witnessed two fellow scouts (boy and girl) get chewed for displays of affection (holding hands and hugging) in front of the entire Crew, I am sure two males would also be chastised.But no matter how a Crew wants to operate, there are BSA prohibitions on boys and girls co-tenting. No Crew leader can (legitimately) allow otherwise.
And that is what I would like to see happen with SSAD boys, to have a BSA level prohibition on co-tenting.
That, and that alone, would be consistent with Catholic moral principles. And if the BSA does not do that in regards to SSAD boys, yet keeps a separation policy between boys and girls in Ventures, well, that is just simple hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, having the BSA change over to how Scouting in the rest of the world operates would be a major step backward.
There have been very good reasons why Catholic scouting in Europe has broken away from secular Scouting. It would be a shame for that to have to happen here as well, but that is where we would be heading, especially if proper separation policies were not universally enforced.
As I mentioned in my previous post, an organization being ‘secular’ puts it on the low end of the totem pole, as far as myself or my boys are concerned.
Then why do they separate boys and girls in Venture , why not just meet out ‘swift discipline’ if there are breaches of conduct?Inappropriate conduct will still be chastised, recently I witnessed two fellow scouts (boy and girl) get chewed for displays of affection (holding hands and hugging) in front of the entire Crew, I am sure two males would also be chastised.
Society has never segregated people based on orientation before because people didn’t (care to) notice and/or because swift discipline would be meted out in case of breaches in conduct.
We separate males and females, sexual orientation is irrelevant to the segregating of males and females.Then why do they separate boys and girls in Venture and just meet out ‘swift discipline’ if there are breaches of conduct?
The fact is we DO separate based on orientation, we separate boys and girls.
Now another orientation is being added to the mix, and it will need to be treated identically.
But why, if ‘swift discipline’ for inappropriate behavior is sufficient to regulate conduct?We separate males and females, sexual orientation is irrelevant to the segregating of males and females.
Why are males and females separated? Is it purely physiological our is it more psychological?We separate males and females, sexual orientation is irrelevant to the segregating of males and females.
Now another orientation is being identified in the mix that has always been in the mix undeclared anyway, and it will need to be treated as it should have been treated as it always should have been treated anyway. Frankly, the concern for the potential for abuse or discipline problems seems to be a “six of one, half dozen of another” kind of situation when it comes to comparing pros & cons before & after the changed policy.Now another orientation is being added to the mix, and it will need to be treated identically.
Exactly!Why are males and females separated? Is it purely physiological our is it more psychological?
Yeah, you can let the Catechism speak for itself. Nothing the Bishop said contradicts the Catechism in any way. Same-sex attraction is not immoral. Those were his words. True words.I’ll let the Catechism speak for itself.
Same-sex attraction is objectively disordered in the same way that sexual attraction to animals is objectively disordered.
Since when?We separate males and females, sexual orientation is irrelevant to the segregating of males and females.
Your points are well made but lost on most. The mantra that homosexual orientation is not a sin is true but seems reductionist when used in these circumstances. If the issue were simple some child has this inclination and no one knew that would be one thing, but this culture does not operate that way and it is unlikely that ratifying the identification as “gay” will be a good idea.One other thing.
The CDF issued a note in 1992 that goes more specifically into the fallacy of declaring homosexuality a suitable subject for non-discrimination rules. The entire thing is worth reading, but the following is the upshot:“Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern… Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices.
This note also clarifies that there are areas where it is not considered “unjust” discrimination to take sexual orientation into account:
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
It lists those as examples. Implying that there may be other areas as well.
If you consider the verbiage from the CDF 1986 document I excerpted above, the issue, in my mind, is not so much with the boys themselves…but with their parents and with the pro-homosexual pressure groups that will use those boys’ sad situation to further their political agenda.
Of course, one could ask “why wasn’t this in the Catechism?”
There was a HUGE amount of information that had to be condensed into a single volume for the Catechism. It would have been nice had they included all of the above detail into it, but, sadly, they didn’t.
That is why the 1986 letter to the bishops is so important. It identifies the attempt to inculturate the homosexual doctrine and the propaganda that sports those efforts.Your points are well made but lost on most. The mantra that homosexual orientation is not a sin is true but seems reductionist when used in these circumstances. If the issue were simple some child has this inclination and no one knew that would be one thing, but this culture does not operate that way and it is unlikely that ratifying the identification as “gay” will be a good idea.
It is almost simple minded to assume that this issue will be viewed and treated in a Catholic sense. The pressure has already started that is why the policy changed even though there was no reason to change it.
Venturing does so because Exploring did so and Explorers did so because of the time period it was founded. Since it was this way and there are no benefits from changing the status quo so it remains the status quo. There are no benefits from segregating males from males baseds on sexual orientation so the status quo shall continue in that respect.But why, if ‘swift discipline’ for inappropriate behavior is sufficient to regulate conduct?
Both, but gay or straight a man is a man is a manWhy are males and females separated? Is it purely physiological our is it more psychological?
So the entire point of segregating males and females in Scouting is just because that is what was done in the past.Venturing does so because Exploring did so and Explorers did so because of the time period it was founded. Since it was this way and there are no benefits from changing the status quo so it remains the status quo. There are no benefits from segregating males from males baseds on sexual orientation so the status quo shall continue in that respect.
And the attraction to the same sex is to be? Overlooked? Ignored? Pretend it plays no role?Both, but gay or straight a man is a man is a man
Apparently the idea is to stay very fuzzy and general. The specifics get too logical and make the arguments to limpid.That is why the 1986 letter to the bishops is so important. It identifies the attempt to inculturate the homosexual doctrine and the propaganda that sports those efforts.
Written almost 30 years ago, it should be blatantly obvious for those who aren’t intentionally trying to stay ignorant.
They are and your sexual orientation is not on the application. Are you involved in Scouting?The contents of application forms should be treated as confidential information.
Personally, I’d say “vapid” – but to each, their own.Apparently the idea is to stay very fuzzy and general. The specifics get too logical and make the arguments to limpid.
Actually, you’re wrong. While, yes, SSA is disordered, it is not inherently sinful. Just like with heterosexual attraction, if you don’t entertain sinful thoughts and don’t commit any sinful acts, you haven’t sinned. It’s a different vice, and like any other person, should strive to avoid giving into sin. The big difference (beyond the fact that it’s disordered) is that celibacy is the only option, as opposed to marriage.Bishop Guglielmone is flat out wrong when he states that “Church teaching is very clear that the homosexual inclination is not sinful and that same-sex attraction is not immoral.”