Bishop responds to Boy Scouts' decision on admission of homosexual members [CWN]

[Sonic]

Also that child clearly has mental issues and probably was sexually abused.

So, all three boys who forcefully committed a homosexual act on another boy clearly had mental issues and were probably sexually abused?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Perhaps they are being myopic, since they changed the policy to allow for avowed homosexuals, but made no similar provisions for avowed bdsm fetishists, avowed masturbators, avowed kleptomaniacs, or other disordered tendencies, even though those tendencies may never be acted upon. Everybody has disordered tendencies, but most will just have to keep quiet about them.

All of those require acting on it, kleptomaniacs are incapable of not stealing, meaning someone who doesn’t steal can’t be a kleptomaniac; BDSM is to some degree a lifestyle and the term masturbator is exclusively linked to actions

So, all three boys who forcefully committed a homosexual act on another boy clearly had mental issues and were probably sexually abused?

The ring leader definitely does, the other two, maybe.

 

[Sonic]

The ring leader definitely does, the other two, maybe.

[sign]**Speculation

When you can’t see the target,
but you’re pretty sure you hit it!**[/sign]

 

[ishii]

Why resort to flippancy?

Its the refuge of those who have lost the argument and are very frustrated. So they resort to sarcasm. Of course I could play the same game by saying: “of course there will always be sinners in the scouts and there’s nothing we can do about it, so let’s allow gay men to bunk with 12 year old boys.”

Ishii

 

[JimG]

All of those require acting on it, kleptomaniacs are incapable of not stealing, meaning someone who doesn’t steal can’t be a kleptomaniac; BDSM is to some degree a lifestyle and the term masturbator is exclusively linked to actions

No, I’m talking about temptations, not actions, one can be strongly inclined to steal, and yet resist, one can be strongly inclined to bdsm or other fetish fantasies, and yet never act on them, one can be strongly inclined to masturbation, and yet never act on it. One can be strongly inclined toward the same sex, and yet never act on it. Do we all get to admit to our temptations? Is that a good thing for civil society?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

[sign]**Speculation

When you can’t see the target,
but you’re pretty sure you hit it!**[/sign]

Actually I used probability…

 

[Sonic]

Actually I used probability…

Well, I hope you win the lottery.

 

[mystagogia]

The bishop’s response seems addled. He says he fully expected to lose, and he’s not confident the “this but no further” line in the sand that the BSA has drawn will hold. Well, it won’t hold, I can tell him that now.

My advice to this bishop is that he should wake up and begin to provide good leadership instead of reactive defeatism. You’d think that sexualizing the Boy Scouts would be a no brainer issue that would evoke clear action from our leadership. So, get to it, bishop.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Some of us have gained a little foresight through the years by watching this scenario get played out over and over again by the gay militants and the homosexual lobby. The recipe works - so they don’t see any need to change it :

debate → vote → legislation.

It always starts with a “little debate” - it’s “harmless” they tell us . Then , they vote on it. BSA is following that pattern established by the homosexual lobby precisely. Who decided they ever needed to vote on it ? Who decided in their pompous haught that they are above parents’ rights ? . . . .just because gay activists organized a campaign to have as many of their supporters as possible send in petitions ? These reckless individuals are wreaking a negative effect on the entire group.

Ultimately, the militants apply political pressure and keep up the media blitz,then, in what seems like no time at all, the laws/rules are changed to make homosexuals more equal than anybody else.

I wouldn’t believe this compromise

a resolution that would not allow youth Scouts to be excluded based only on sexual orientation. The ban on gay adult leaders would remain in place.

• for even one second.

You can be sure that once it is made public policy that openly homosexual youths can be members , it will only be a matter of time until they push for homosexual scout leaders - arguing that their own rule discriminates against homosexual leaders. Don’t be too amazed when the arguments such as *“homosexuals can already adopt children so they would make great scout leaders too” * are used to justify their position. . . all of this done in an effort to normalize active homosexuality. Another very convincing argument will be, "Well he was such a good scout and he’s a homosexual, so he will be a good scout leader too". The infiltration won’t be considered complete by the homosexual lobby , until it is, well . . . complete. They’re ruthless.

We should further pause a moment and recall that the so-called “decision” of BSA is based on a (ahem) “vote” precipitated by the “petitions” . These petitions didn’t ask simply for youths who experience SSA to become members. The petition demanded

to end the ban on gay scouts and leaders

Anyone who is aloof enough to think they gay militants won’t be coming back to claim the rest of their depraved victory and get openly homosexual leaders installed, well , I’m sure there are several among us who wouldn’t mind waking you when it’s all over, but I have this suspicion that you won’t be too willing to open your eyes if we do. . . . it won’t be pretty.

BTW did anyone notice that they’ve got the new “inclusion badge” all ready to go when it’s time -uch: Click ahead to photo # 7 of 11 featured in this same article Boy Scout leaders to vote on lifting gay ban to have a look . That opens up new promising possibilities for scouts to be coerced into accepting or approving of the gay lifestyle as something normal. Let’s not fool ourselves. Wearing that badge is a subtle way of effectively giving the message that everyone - particularly scouts, must approve of the gay lifestyle .

“Inclusivity” . . . another one of those nice comfy abiguous blankets the gay militants love to throw over the truth.

 

[NeedImprovement]

A couple of more examples of those “convincing arguments” supporting complete infiltration that are, as we can plainly see, already in the works ; as they come straight from the horse’s mouth. I note the lawsuits comment in the quote below. Lawsuits are to the homosexual lobby, what water is to sharks.

(Highlights mine)

The proposal, unveiled Friday after weeks of private leadership deliberations, will be submitted to the roughly 1,400 voting members of the BSA’s National Council during the week of May 20 at a meeting in Texas.

The key part of the resolution says no youth may be denied membership in the Scouts “on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.” A ban would continue on leadership roles for adults who are openly gay or lesbian.

**Gay-rights groups, which had demanded a complete lifting of the ban, criticized the proposal as inadequate.

“Until every parent and young person have the same opportunity to serve, the Boy Scouts will continue to see a decline in both membership and donations,” said Rich Ferraro, a spokesman for the gay-rights watchdog group GLAAD.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the BSA was too timid.

“What message does this resolution send to the gay Eagle Scout who, as an adult, wants to continue a lifetime of Scouting by becoming a troop leader?” he asked.**

Some conservative groups assailed the proposal from the opposite direction, saying the ban should be kept in its entirety.

“The policy is incoherent,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The proposal says, in essence, that homosexuality is morally acceptable until a boy turns 18 — then, when he comes of age, he’s removed from the Scouts.”

Perkins predicted that the proposed change, if adopted, would subject the BSA to “crippling lawsuits” because it would no longer be able to argue that excluding gays was integral to its basic principles.

wpri.com/dpps/news/us_news/boy-scouts-may-lift-gay-ban-for-youth_6004373

 

[Cat_Herder]

Political advocacy and all sexual conduct is prohibited and grounds for expulsion.

Then all Catholic units will get expelled for using BSA to inculcate Catholicism, since Catholicism includes social and life issues that are deemed “political” such as pro-life, Rerum Novarum, etc.

Moreover, BSA is forcing Catholic units to affirm homosexuality as a moral life choice.

If the policy was contrary to the Church’s teachings the Bishops would have said so, they didn’t.

The USCCB has been misled by the BSA to believe that the policy is compatible with the Catechism. It is not, for the reason I just explained: BSA is forcing Catholic units to affirm homosexuality as a moral life choice, when it is not. The Church teaches that the homosexual impulse, while not in and of itself sinful, must be treated as abnormal and RESISTED. BSA says it must be AFFIRMED and treated as normal.

You can point to any number of BSA statements in which they say they’re not going to force this on anyone, but they issued a previous statement saying that they WERE going to do so. Then they retracted it when it became politically expedient to do so, in order to get the resolution passed… just like when they said last year they were NOT going to change their policy on homosexual boys, and then they changed it.

A Scout is supposed to be trustworthy. BSA is not. You cannot trust anything BSA has said based on their proven record of lying to push their agenda. You must verify every claim that they make, whether to the USCCB or anyone else, before you can believe it.

A number of studies have show that that is because the definition require [sexual terms]

If you are drawing these distinctions you have lost the argument.

Last time I checked the BSA voted on it.

You cannot vote for child abuse any more than you can vote for abortion. It is immoral regardless of the democratic process. And the process wasn’t even democratic anyway. You didn’t get a ballot and neither did I. BSA also lied about the process, the impact on chartered organizations, the level of support in the membership, etc.

 

[vsedriver]

Well, I can’t channel the bishop’s thoughts and won’t disagree, however, I am still missing the point of this decision. Scouts who were gay served in the past, now, what? What’s changed? And the instigators have already stated the decision has not gone far enough. I can’t speak for anyone in Church leadership but the instigators have announced they want more.

Peace,
Ed

my son who is an eagle scout, and is still active in scouting told me that he knows boys in scouting who are gay. No one is interested or cares. But with the old rule if it became public knowledge the scout would be kicked out. That means if a boy during a conversation happens to mention that he thinks he is or is gay and someone reports that conversation to the scoutmaster or other officials that kid would lose everything he had worked for up to that point. That is what is not fair.

The charter partner decides who can be adult leaders of their troops. BSA can’t force a church to accept a gay scoutmaster. The BSA is an organization for boys. It should be open to all boys who follow the rules.

 

[Cat_Herder]

my son who is an eagle scout, and is still active in scouting told me that he knows boys in scouting who are gay. No one is interested or cares.

If they just have homosexual tendencies, and don’t promote their lifestyle, then they should be left alone.

But with the old rule if it became public knowledge the scout would be kicked out.

Because he promoted it as normal. It is not. Please read your Catechism if you are unsure on this.

That means if a boy during a conversation happens to mention that he thinks he is or is gay and someone reports that conversation to the scoutmaster or other officials that kid would lose everything he had worked for up to that point. That is what is not fair.

It was fair for Lance Armstrong to lose his trophies because he cheated. The previous and correct policy said this:

“While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”

BSA was not supposed to inquire into your sexual orientation. It only became an issue if YOU, the youth member, made it so. If you are homosexual, that’s just a different take on the cross of chastity that we all must carry. You keep your lusts to yourself just like a heterosexual does, and everything is fine. NO DISCRIMINATION THERE. But if you’re promoting a homosexual lifestyle as normal, you’re being dishonest because it is not. A Scout is trustworthy; if you’re not trustworthy, then you cheated. Therefore, you lose everything, not because you are gay but because you are dishonest. Is it that hard to understand? Why do you have to assume hatred and bigotry where none exist?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Well, I hope you win the lottery.

Most children who sexually abuse children were victims of sexual abuse.

The bishop’s response seems addled. He says he fully expected to lose, and he’s not confident the “this but no further” line in the sand that the BSA has drawn will hold. Well, it won’t hold, I can tell him that now.

My advice to this bishop is that he should wake up and begin to provide good leadership instead of reactive defeatism. You’d think that sexualizing the Boy Scouts would be a no brainer issue that would evoke clear action from our leadership. So, get to it, bishop.

I can’t tell whether you are saying the bishops are stupid or incompetent.

If they just have homosexual tendencies, and don’t promote their lifestyle, then they should be left alone.

Because he promoted it as normal. It is not. Please read your Catechism if you are unsure on this.

It was fair for Lance Armstrong to lose his trophies because he cheated. The previous and correct policy said this:

“While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”

BSA was not supposed to inquire into your sexual orientation. It only became an issue if YOU, the youth member, made it so. If you are homosexual, that’s just a different take on the cross of chastity that we all must carry. You keep your lusts to yourself just like a heterosexual does, and everything is fine. NO DISCRIMINATION THERE. But if you’re promoting a homosexual lifestyle as normal, you’re being dishonest because it is not. A Scout is trustworthy; if you’re not trustworthy, then you cheated. Therefore, you lose everything, not because you are gay but because you are dishonest. Is it that hard to understand? Why do you have to assume hatred and bigotry where none exist?

To clarify, you are saying if person A tells something in confidence to person B and person B tells no one then that is okay, but if person A tells something in confidence to person B then person B tells person C about that thing then person A should get expelled. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Then all Catholic units will get expelled for using BSA to inculcate Catholicism, since Catholicism includes social and life issues that are deemed “political” such as pro-life, Rerum Novarum, etc.

Moreover, BSA is forcing Catholic units to affirm homosexuality as a moral life choice.

The USCCB has been misled by the BSA to believe that the policy is compatible with the Catechism. It is not, for the reason I just explained: BSA is forcing Catholic units to affirm homosexuality as a moral life choice, when it is not. The Church teaches that the homosexual impulse, while not in and of itself sinful, must be treated as abnormal and RESISTED. BSA says it must be AFFIRMED and treated as normal.

You can point to any number of BSA statements in which they say they’re not going to force this on anyone, but they issued a previous statement saying that they WERE going to do so. Then they retracted it when it became politically expedient to do so, in order to get the resolution passed… just like when they said last year they were NOT going to change their policy on homosexual boys, and then they changed it.

A Scout is supposed to be trustworthy. BSA is not. You cannot trust anything BSA has said based on their proven record of lying to push their agenda. You must verify every claim that they make, whether to the USCCB or anyone else, before you can believe it.

If you are drawing these distinctions you have lost the argument.

You cannot vote for child abuse any more than you can vote for abortion. It is immoral regardless of the democratic process. And the process wasn’t even democratic anyway. You didn’t get a ballot and neither did I. BSA also lied about the process, the impact on chartered organizations, the level of support in the membership, etc.

Regarding advocacy

Boy Scouts and adult volunteers planning to wear their uniforms in Utah’s upcoming LGBT pride parade aren’t allowed to do so under the organization’s guidelines prohibiting advocating political or social positions, a leader with the program said Friday.
Rick Barnes, chief scout executive of the Great Salt Lake Council, said he learned of the plans for Sunday’s parade from a Scoutmaster, Peter Brownstein, organizing for Scouts and adults working with the Boy Scouts of America.
“We as a Scouting movement do not advocate any social or political position, so I reminded Mr. Brownstein that we do not wear uniforms at an event like this,” Barnes said. "We do not, as Boy Scouts, show support for any social or political position. We’re neutral. If he wants to attend the parade and others do that are Scouts or Scouters, they’re welcome to do so as private citizens wearing whatever they want except their uniform."
“That’s our official position. It always has been, there’s nothing new here,” he added. “We just don’t want people to use the Boy Scouts to advocate their positions.”
Brownstein, 53, and a machinery appraiser in Salt Lake City, was just starting to organize for the Utah Pride Parade to be held in Salt Lake City after last week’s historic vote by the Boy Scouts of America to allow openly gay youth to join the program. He was organizing under the banner of Scouts for Equality, a group that campaigns for the LGBT community to be welcomed in Scouting.
“I am asking everyone to wear their Scout uniforms,” Brownstein, whose son recently earned the BSA’s highest honor – the Eagle rank – said before receiving the notice from the scout executive. “The message we want to send is that Scouting should be open to everyone and it’s a wonderful program and everyone deserves to be included and have the benefits of the program.”
After learning of the uniform decision, he said: “I have some real good soul-searching to do … but we’re going to figure this out.” He added that he was leaning toward wearing his uniform.
At this stage, Brownstein believes the numbers of participants is small. One of them, Kenji Mikesell, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout in Salt Lake City, said he was also inclined to wear his uniform.
“If at all possible I want to wear my uniform,” he said, saying that though he could go either way on wearing it, he felt it would be a “welcoming” for “gay kids getting involved in Scouting. Kind of like ‘we want you here’ type of thing. And also as sort of a sense of pride. I’m glad the ban was lifted. I wish it was lifted for leaders but this is a first step in the right direction.”
When asked about the consequences of wearing the uniform, Barnes, the Scout executive, said: “The first point of the Scout law is a Scout is trustworthy. Once they’ve been told our policy, we expect them to be a good Scout and be trustworthy.”
Mikesell said he will wear his uniform despite what Barnes said.

source

It is false to say the “BSA is forcing Catholic units to affirm homosexuality as a moral life choice” as homosexuality isn’t an action, it is the state of being attracted (exclusively) to the same sex.

One can technically say that there are no cases of women raping anyone in England, but the fact that for it to be rape in England the perpetrator must penetrate the victim with his penis is a very important qualifier.

The districts voted, just like American Senators before the 17th Amendment. This also isn’t child abuse.

 

[markomalley]

I’ll just leave this here…

Third-grade boy forced to perform oral sex on three male classmates at Harlem school: suit

It’s a good thing that those boys didn’t have any pop-tarts shaped like guns or they’d be in real trouble now.

(/sarc)

 

[Momofmyangels]

Are you seriously advocating that children avoid all contact with people who have SSA? We weren’t even talking about people who are acting on their disordered desires, just those who admit to having them. Should we also “protect” children from depressed people, who are more likely than others to commit the sin of suicide? After all, their feelings are disordered. How about all men? While not inherently disordered, they’re much more likely than women to commit the sin of rape. Should we really trust them with our little boys?

Being gay in and of itself- if that means having SSA and admitting that one has it- is hardly an “immoral lifestyle”, any more than admitting one has depression.

Is that what I said? Avoid all contact? No, I did not say that. What I did say was that children should not be exposed to and forced to accept this new lifestyle as perfectly ok. There is a further goal here, this is not the first nor final step. NeedImprovement states it more eloquently than I ever could in his/her posts. You can choose to believe it or not, that is your choice.

 

[Teelynn]

Wake me up when Christians are allowed to read the Torah in a synagogue.

It is not discrimination to associate among members of your own faith to the exclusion of others. If you’re looking to pick a fight, you won’t get one from me because I have much better things to do. Au revoir.

I was going to post something in response to this, but this is perfect. As for me, I am really up to my eyeballs with this type of politically correct thinking.

 

[on_the_hill]

Unfortunately, the troop you described in post 142 wouldn’t be considered a model troop, and you also mentioned it was disbanded (as it should have been). You also mentioned that the boys came from troubled backgrounds.

It wasn’t disbanded. Kids stopped coming to meetings. It just fell apart until no one was left.

I’m seeing a contradiction here. You said the boys who did the “sexual harassing” were straight, and then you are contrasting that with the example of “gay scouts” or “gay adults” not being the ones who participated in the harassment.

I have to ask…

Would a truly straight scout (who was not suffering from an anti-social pathological condition) sexually harass his fellow boy scouts?

I don’t see a contradiction. Of course it would happen. If you put a group of hormonally charged pubescent teenaged boys together, especially without adequate adult supervision, you can end up with crazy situations pretty easily. And we rarely had adequate adult supervision. When we would camp in cabins, there was a “leader” cabin, and cabins for the boys. The adults stayed in the leader cabin and the boys were on their own.

It’s not about “sex.” It’s about victimization.

 

[Kamaduck]

Is that what I said? Avoid all contact? No, I did not say that. What I did say was that children should not be exposed to and forced to accept this new lifestyle as perfectly ok. There is a further goal here, this is not the first nor final step. NeedImprovement states it more eloquently than I ever could in his/her posts. You can choose to believe it or not, that is your choice.

Are you or are you not saying that boys who admit to having SSA should be excluded from scouts? The new descision does not say, as far as I can tell, that this “new lifestyle” must be accepted or embraced by anybody, only that you can’t deny someone membership on the basis of sexual orientation (or, more accurately, admitting to one’s sexual orientation).

If you don’t want them to be “exposed to and forced to accept this new lifestyle”, I would argue that the decision doesn’t do this. Yet you say that scouting with boys who admit to having SSA is forcing them to accept their “lifestyle”. This seems rather silly to me, unless you also believe that boys should not scout with athiests and those of other faiths, with depressed people, with those who have any other mental problem, with those who are tempted to lust, or, as a matter of fact, anybody who admits being tempted to any sin. Because that’s basically what it means to be “openly gay”, you’re admitting that you have a certain temptation.

When I google “openly gay”, I get results for “coming out”, meaning that those who are “openly” gay are those who admit that they are not straight, not those necessarily involved in committing homosexual actions. Sure, that’s just based on a google search, but I’ve yet to see any evidence that “openly gay” only refers to those who act on their desires.

I realize that allowing boys with SSA to scout is not the end goal here. But you know what? We’re not allowed to unjustly discriminate against those with SSA, not even if we know the activists will want more later. Unless you can convince me that allowing boys with SSA, in and of itself, is a bad decision, I will continue to support it.

As for the story about the boy being sexually assaulted- of course I want to stop incidents like that. I realize that they happen. But stuff like that is already clearly, 100% against the rules. They should have better supervision in schools, and if necessary, in scouting. That’s what’s going to stop it, not banning or quarantining those children with SSA. I still don’t think that introducing otherwise responsible children with SSA will cause sexual assault numbers to skyrocket. If they are a behavior problem, you can kick them out based on that.