Boy Scouts - Gay acceptance

[LaSainte]

What is wrong is your failure to see that this one group that has lowered the age of consent in a country to age 16 is accepted as a bonified resource for the gay population. It is listed with all the others. There is something to be said about that.

Some homosexuals are pedophiles. Some pedophiles are homosexual. The entire notion of aberrant sexuality is wrong.

What’s wrong with lowering the age of consent to 16? The Church married people who are 16. Clearly, even the Church believes that 16 is a reasonable age of consent.

 

[CopticChristian]

Sex with 16 year olds isn’t pedophilia, at 16 some people have finished puberty especially females.

Wonderful. For the record, you approve of men having sex with 16 year old boys.

 

[LaSainte]

Ridiculous indeed.

Let’s not allow my uncle, a pillar of the community (and a married man with children) to teach high school because of course the only reason a man would want to do that is to be around teenage girls.

There are indeed gay men who are former Boy Scouts, who do not prey on boys, who might simply want to share the positive experience with them. I’m thinking of one in particular. It’s just absurd to say that they’re all “weirdos” and “sickos” that only join so they can prey on boys.

Exactly.

 

[CopticChristian]

What’s wrong with lowering the age of consent to 16? The Church married people who are 16. Clearly, even the Church believes that 16 is a reasonable age of consent.

Perfect. You too can go on record of approving of men having sex with 16 year old boys.

 

[LaSainte]

Wonderful. For the record, you approve of men having sex with 16 year old boys.

Don’t put words in my mouth, thank you. I said that 16 is past puberty and is a reasonable age for a person to decide if they want to have sex with someone or if they don’t. If they choose for that person to be a man of the same sex, well, they are responsible for their own choices. A 16 year old is not a child and is capable of deciding on their own who they want to sleep with. Even the Church says so, unless they have intentionally been performing invalid marriages all these years.

 

[CopticChristian]

Don’t put words in my mouth, thank you. I said that 16 is past puberty and is a reasonable age for a person to decide if they want to have sex with someone or if they don’t. If they choose for that person to be a man of the same sex, well, they are responsible for their own choices. A 16 year old is not a child and is capable of deciding on their own who they want to sleep with. Even the Church says so, unless they have I gentoo ally been performing invalid marriages all these years.

Ok,

Then you approve of a man having sex with a 16 year old boy, if they decide that this is OK because you believe that 16 years of age is when a boy can consider a decision that having sex with a man is acceptable.

Is that better?

 

[CopticChristian]

What’s wrong with lowering the age of consent to 16? The Church married people who are 16. Clearly, even the Church believes that 16 is a reasonable age of consent.

Wonderful. The age of consent for commitment to a relationship based on Canon law you have translated to consent to commit to sin. Wonderful.

 

[april32010]

Don’t put words in my mouth, thank you. I said that 16 is past puberty and is a reasonable age for a person to decide if they want to have sex with someone or if they don’t. If they choose for that person to be a man of the same sex, well, they are responsible for their own choices. A 16 year old is not a child and is capable of deciding on their own who they want to sleep with. Even the Church says so, unless they have intentionally been performing invalid marriages all these years.

are you are really equating Holy Matrimony with sodomy .

 

[LaSainte]

Ok,

Then you approve of a man having sex with a 16 year old boy, if they decide that this is OK because you believe that 16 years of age is when a boy can consider a decision that having sex with a man is acceptable.

Is that better?

I approve of the free will of an older man and 16-year old male to choose to do whatever it is they feel like doing together. The Church marries 16-year olds all the time, thus, the Church must consider 16 to be an age at which people can make these decisions. God gave us free will. Is it morally wrong for 2 men of any age to have sex? Of course. Can a 16 year old make that decision for himself? Of course.

 

[LaSainte]

are you are really equating Holy Matrimony with sodomy .

Of course not. Don’t be obtuse. The question is: is the age of 16 old enough to decide what to do with one’s body? Is it old enough to decide what to do with one’s future? Is it old enough to decide to commit a sin? On ALL accounts, barring mental insufficiency, the Church says YES.

 

[LaSainte]

Look, if 16 is old enough to consent to marry, it is also old enough to consent to sex. If I am old enough to consent to sex, I am old enough to decide with WHOM I am consenting, man or woman. If I am old enough to consent to the GOOD of holy matrimony, I am also old enough to consent to the EVIL of homosexual sex.

If I am old enough to consent to worshiping GOD, I am also old enough to consent to worshiping SATAN.

That is how good and evil works. If you are so AGAINST the age of consent being lowered to 16, then you MUST be against the Church marrying 16 year olds, because marriage by its very NATURE involves consensual sex between spouses!

 

[Elizabeth502]

sexuality should never be a part of scouting. Do you think there were no gay scouts in the past?

Precisely correct. The “point” of the whole "gay acceptance (in the BSA) " crowd is to affirm sexuality as a part of scouting.

Sick. Not because sexuality is sick, or because self-awareness is sick, but because those with an agenda want much more than mere healthy psychological integration. They want sexuality to be consciously a part of every activity, group, identifier. It is Identity Politics gone off the rails. That fact alone makes it directly oppositional to Catholic teaching, which affirms every person (Catholic or not) as a whole person not overshadowed by sexuality, by left- or right-handedness, eye color, or any other compartmentalized approach to the human person.

Teenagers are coming into acute awareness of their sexuality. That does not mean that the adults who guide them should encourage sexual awareness to be an overt identifier within non-sexual groups and activities. As I said earlier, the BSA is not a sex club or a social club/dating club, per se: It is an activity club with specific steps of accomplishment along that line of activity and purpose. It is also a fraternity. Newsflash: Fraternity does not mean a sexual fraternity. The friendships gained therein have legtimacy, but adults have no business encouraging the sexualizing of those friendships, as that potentially falls into the sexual harrassment and sexualized atmosphere which is problematic legally.

I’m waiting for some activist to sue for Lesbians of America being formally admitted to the GSA.

Sick world.

 

[LaSainte]

Precisely correct. The “point” of the whole "gay acceptance (in the BSA) " crowd is to affirm sexuality as a part of scouting.

Sick. Not because sexuality is sick, or because self-awareness is sick, but because those with an agenda want much more than mere healthy psychological integration. They want sexuality to be consciously a part of every activity, group, identifier. It is Identity Politics gone off the rails. That fact alone makes it directly oppositional to Catholic teaching, which affirms every person (Catholic or not) as a whole person not overshadowed by sexuality, by left- or right-handedness, eye color, or any other compartmentalized approach to the human person.

Teenagers are coming into acute awareness of their sexuality. That does not mean that the adults who guide them should encourage sexual awareness to be an overt identifier within non-sexual groups and activities. As I said earlier, the BSA is not a sex club or a social club/dating club, per se: It is an activity club with specific steps of accomplishment along that line of activity and purpose. It is also a fraternity. Newsflash: Fraternity does not mean a sexual fraternity. The friendships gained therein have legtimacy, but adults have no business encouraging the sexualizing of those friendships, as that potentially falls into the sexual harrassment and sexualized atmosphere which is problematic legally.

I’m waiting for some activist to sue for Lesbians of America being formally admitted to the GSA.

Sick world.

No. The “point” is not to sexualize the scouts. The “point” is that they don’t have to HIDE their preferences among their fellow scouts.

The “point” of admitting gays into the military and getting rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is not to sexualize the Army, but so that if one’s personal life comes up in casual conversation, one does not either have to lie or risk being thrown out of the military altogether.

Same goes with the scouts. They are just trying to create an atmosphere where people can be honest about their lives and say “my partner and I saw that movie too!” Without being thrown out.

It’s you people who are rabidly terrified that the gay culture is actually becoming a part of mainstream society who are attributing sick and perverted motives to people who are just looking to live their lives with honesty.

 

[buffalo]

I would say incest. Anything consensual would be a logical endpoint. Beyond that, we are getting into hyperbole. (Ex: bestiality, legalized murder)

The word that is troublesome is consent. That aside though society has an obligation to regulate or at least make unlawful certain behaviors that are detrimental to the common good. The consequences of risky behaviors almost always know fall on the taxpayer or insurance payers back. That has changed in the last hundred years. It is even more important today than ever before for the costs to be considered.

 

[buffalo]

Don’t put words in my mouth, thank you. I said that 16 is past puberty and is a reasonable age for a person to decide if they want to have sex with someone or if they don’t. If they choose for that person to be a man of the same sex, well, they are responsible for their own choices. A 16 year old is not a child and is capable of deciding on their own who they want to sleep with. Even the Church says so, unless they have intentionally been performing invalid marriages all these years.

Is that why people get married? Just for the sex?

 

[buffalo]

Precisely correct. The “point” of the whole "gay acceptance (in the BSA) " crowd is to affirm sexuality as a part of scouting.

Sick. Not because sexuality is sick, or because self-awareness is sick, but because those with an agenda want much more than mere healthy psychological integration. They want sexuality to be consciously a part of every activity, group, identifier. It is Identity Politics gone off the rails. That fact alone makes it directly oppositional to Catholic teaching, which affirms every person (Catholic or not) as a whole person not overshadowed by sexuality, by left- or right-handedness, eye color, or any other compartmentalized approach to the human person.

Teenagers are coming into acute awareness of their sexuality. That does not mean that the adults who guide them should encourage sexual awareness to be an overt identifier within non-sexual groups and activities. As I said earlier, the BSA is not a sex club or a social club/dating club, per se: It is an activity club with specific steps of accomplishment along that line of activity and purpose. It is also a fraternity. Newsflash: Fraternity does not mean a sexual fraternity. The friendships gained therein have legtimacy, but adults have no business encouraging the sexualizing of those friendships, as that potentially falls into the sexual harrassment and sexualized atmosphere which is problematic legally.

I’m waiting for some activist to sue for Lesbians of America being formally admitted to the GSA.

Sick world.

Good post… Sick world.

 

[edwest2]

No. The “point” is not to sexualize the scouts. The “point” is that they don’t have to HIDE their preferences among their fellow scouts.

The “point” of admitting gays into the military and getting rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is not to sexualize the Army, but so that if one’s personal life comes up in casual conversation, one does not either have to lie or risk being thrown out of the military altogether.

Same goes with the scouts. They are just trying to create an atmosphere where people can be honest about their lives and say “my partner and I saw that movie too!” Without being thrown out.

It’s you people who are rabidly terrified that the gay culture is actually becoming a part of mainstream society who are attributing sick and perverted motives to people who are just looking to live their lives with honesty.

I get the honesty thing 100%. In the past, I worked with gays, a lesbian and a bisexual. The fake word homophobia did not exist. I could care less what these people did on their own time and in private. It was never an issue. It was never brought up. We worked together just fine. I don’t care if half my neighbors are LGBT.

Later, it came time to mobilize the troops, and in any conflict and to raise morale among your forces, you have to demonize the ‘enemy.’ Against gays with partners? You’re homophobic. Against gay marriage? You are filled with ignorance and hate. You want to hear honest? Some years back when same-sex marriage was defeated by vote in Michigan, a letter appeared in a major Detroit newspaper where the writer called “Michigan, the great hate state.” Little 8 year old Bobby hates gays? 90 year old women in nursing homes hate gays?

Had this been an honest conversation, that would have been one thing. Instead, I’m watching a professional sports figure who has come out on TV, and he keeps repeating: “Stop being homophobic.” What, his teammates run and hide now that he’s out? They cringe in the corner whenever he walks by? They have an irrational fear of him? Give me a break.

Had the conversation started differently, this whole discussion would not be taking place, but this was forced on the scouts by who? Gay activists. People who are forced to do something generally do not respond well since force is not an argument. It’s forcing others to do not just what you want but exactly the way you want it. Let’s talk? ** crickets **

Ed

 

[buffalo]

No. The “point” is not to sexualize the scouts. The “point” is that they don’t have to HIDE their preferences among their fellow scouts.

The “point” of admitting gays into the military and getting rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is not to sexualize the Army, but so that if one’s personal life comes up in casual conversation, one does not either have to lie or risk being thrown out of the military altogether.

Same goes with the scouts. They are just trying to create an atmosphere where people can be honest about their lives and say “my partner and I saw that movie too!” Without being thrown out.

It’s you people who are rabidly terrified that the gay culture is actually becoming a part of mainstream society who are attributing sick and perverted motives to people who are just looking to live their lives with honesty.

You and I well know that there is way more to it.

If they looked at their lives honestly they would be ordered toward the good, which is chastity.

Voris points out a reality in this Vortex. Show America what sodomy is and America will reject it. Even Hollywood won’t show this film because much of America bought the propaganda and would be disgusted to find out they have been snookered.

Is it really the case something can be “too gay” for modern Hollywood? Apparently so! Please watch this episode of the Vortex and pass it to your family and friends.

 

[LaSainte]

The word that is troublesome is consent. That aside though society has an obligation to regulate or at least make unlawful certain behaviors that are detrimental to the common good. The consequences of risky behaviors almost always know fall on the taxpayer or insurance payers back. That has changed in the last hundred years. It is even more important today than ever before for the costs to be considered.

So you think practicing homosexuality should be a crime?

 

[LaSainte]

Is that why people get married? Just for the sex?

Did I say that? No. But a 16-year old getting married is consenting to sex by saying their marriage vows. Ergo, a 16-year-old, according to the Catholic Church, is capable me tally and emotionally of consenting to sex.

So to harass gay groups for trying to lower the age of consent to 16 is hypocritical, unless you ALSO disagree with the Church marrying 16 year olds.

You cannot have it both ways, unless you are saying that you are on a mission to make pre-marital sex a punishable crime.