Boy Scouts to allow gay youths to join

  • Thread starter Thread starter EmperorNapoleon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
signit said:
Looking at this quote from the site again:

(emphasis added)

It seems to me the Scouts, on their site (as I quoted in my first post on the other thread) went out of their way to make it clear that the proposal was not a political statement on whether homosexuality was good or bad.
Click to expand...
I agree, but people will read into it what they need to read into it, and for now, the persecution complex is in full stride.
 
fix said:
The Church does not encourage anyone to “come out of the closet” or self identify as “gay”.
Click to expand...
Right, but she doesn’t condemn those who do either. There is nothing sinful in coming out of the closet.
 
StJudeprayforme said:
So, a word that means bigotry against homosexuals cannot be used legitimately because it is misused by some activists, but a word that means bigotry based on race can have a legitimate use even thought it is misused by activists? Seems like a double-standard to me.
Click to expand...
How is it a double standard? One is legitimate and one is like many ideological terms that are mere propaganda. Pro choice, marriage equality, homophobia, and all the rest are political tools.
Evoke moral concern? How?
Click to expand...
It is easily used as an ideology or to further gay propaganda.
The BSA isn’t exploiting others for an ideology.
Click to expand...
Those who self identify may be used by others.
They made it abundantly clear that this has nothing to do with sex or marriage. It is just taking the policies of the majority of charter organizations (don’t shun gay people from your parish or congregation because of their orientation) and putting it in force.
Click to expand...
Yes, the BSA is going to be using Catholic moral theology.:rolleyes:
 
wynnejj said:
Would you be of the same opinion if the PDA kiss became relatively commonplace?

Would you be of the same opinion if scoutmasters decided to expel the two boys from scouting but the appeal to BSA national council overrode the local decision?
Click to expand...
(1) Well, of course, I said it’s wrong. But I’d punish the violators.

(2) Yes. I would still support the original decision to expel (or at least sanction) the violators.
I don’t understand why the national council would overrule the decision.
 
Ridgerunner said:
We’ll just have to see. It isn’t a matter of having a “strong dislike for gays”, though. It’s a matter of self-identification with a group regarded as homosexual; something most boys and young men are not inclined to do.

Most young men are not inclined to favor open expression of any kind of sexual perversity, and that’s not limited to homosexuality.
Click to expand...
So how do you propose dealing with gay boys in school or on the play field? I guess they were born into “perversity”? My God does not make a person gay to be treated as perverse. What kind of Father would do that to their child?
 
Fairwinds said:
so what if he just announces he’s gay and that’s all the “evidence” there’s gonna be. maybe he’s not practicing. maybe he’s a chaste gay. maybe he’s a full fledged gay. maybe he’s pushing buttons because he can, or maybe because he takes an ethical position that people shouldn’t be punished for what they are, only for what they do.

kick him out?
Click to expand...
\

What if he announces he a thief and intends to practice it?
 
EvangelCatholic said:
So how do you propose dealing with gay boys in school or on the play field? I guess they were born into “perversity”? My God does not make a person gay to be treated as perverse. What kind of Father would do that to their child?
Click to expand...
A loving father would help his child deal with his inclination to perversity, not celebrate it and encourage it.
 
fix said:
The Church does not encourage anyone to “come out of the closet” or self identify as “gay”.
Click to expand...
That’s true. The local organization can still discourage the idea by simply stating the church’s position to the applicant / membership in general … maybe with an explanation as to why. Granted, it would be better had the new policy not passed, but I’ve been looking at the church’s position and the BSA position … and how it will unfold will depend on how much “reverence” BSA National will give Catholic troops in their interpretation of “sexual orientation or preference alone”.
 
buffalo said:
\

What if he announces he a thief and intends to practice it?
Click to expand...
he’s not a thief; extremely weak analogy. this is a question about someone who announces he’s gay, and does nothing else.

kick him out?
 
Joe_5859 said:
Scouts cannot be barred on the basis of orientation alone. But Scouts are still expected to be morally upright, which means no sexual activity for any Scout, regardless of orientation.
Click to expand...
Scouts never were barred on the basis of orientation alone. Open declaration that one is homosexual was, as I understand it.

Just in passing, I think it is an extreme case of “whistling in the dark” to imagine that young men of any sexual orientation will not pursue the objects of their desires whenever opportunity presents. As far back as I can remember (certainly pre-grade school) I liked girls. I just did. Prior to my marriage, I don’t think I was ever involved in any mixed anything in which some girl didn’t catch my eye. If she did, I did not hesitate to “romance” her in whatever way I was capable of doing at the time, unless I was under the watchful eye of someone who would disapprove. It’s just human nature to do that, and to suppose that somehow homosexuals are not going to be attracted to persons of the same sex, and to pursue them within whatever limitations they feel are on them, is just unrealistic.

Yes, boy scouts are expected to be morally upright. So are members of the armed forces. How many sexual assaults and liasons are there in the military every year? We are informed that there are plenty of them, and the potential consequences are considerably harsher than they would be in the scouts.

Even if one brings oneself to believe that open homosexuality in the scouts will not cause diminution in their numbers by itself, one needs to further consider what the consequences of even one known homosexual liason or event in a troop would be. It is not difficult for me to imagine the troop would very quickly resolve itself down to an all-homosexual group or no troop at all.

As I said before, I think the scouts are finished. We’ll see, I guess, but it’s hard to imagine a different outcome.
 
wynnejj said:
That’s true. The local organization can still discourage the idea by simply stating the church’s position to the applicant / membership in general … maybe with an explanation as to why. Granted, it would be better had the new policy not passed, but I’ve been looking at the church’s position and the BSA position … and how it will unfold will depend on how much “reverence” BSA National will give Catholic troops in their interpretation of “sexual orientation or preference alone”.
Click to expand...
Sure, but this is just a toe testing the water. More to follow.
 
fix said:
How is it a double standard? One is legitimate and one is like many ideological terms that are mere propaganda. Pro choice, marriage equality, homophobia, and all the rest are political tools.
Click to expand...
I think you watch too much cable news. I know plenty of people who use the term homophobia without it being a political tool to further gay marriage (myself included). This is an empirical claim, but when tested against experience it turns out not to be true. You shouldn’t let the extremes define words.
It is easily used as an ideology or to further gay propaganda.
Click to expand...
The fact that someone has attractions to the same-sex furthers the propaganda that homosexual persons exist? Okay.
Those who self identify may be used by others.
Click to expand...
Yes, the BSA is going to be using Catholic moral theology.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If someone was going to be used because of his orientation he would be used anyway, regardless of whether or not he was in the scouts.

I never claimed they would be using Catholic moral theology: I was claiming that the Scouts themselves clarified that all the resolution did was allow people who admit to having homosexual tendencies into the scouts, and that it still expects scouts not to be sexually active. I think this is in line with Catholic moral theology.
 
Fairwinds said:
he’s not a thief; extremely weak analogy. this is a question about someone who announces he’s gay, and does nothing else.

kick him out?
Click to expand...
Alternatively, he could refrain from announcing that he’s gay.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Well, I’m glad that the bishops don’t share your sentiment and don’t mind taking the time to think through things. 🤷

I understand the tendency to want to plug this into some larger narrative about our culture’s assault on traditional morality. But if we take a look at the new policy as worded, there is nothing objectionable to Catholics. Scouts cannot be barred on the basis of orientation alone. But Scouts are still expected to be morally upright, which means no sexual activity for any Scout, regardless of orientation.

We should look at this as a moment to teach the wider culture about the correct Catholic view of gay people: we do not discriminate against them. We do not ostracize them. We welcome them. But, as with all people, they are called to live morally virtuous lives in accordance with Catholic teaching.

I’m sure that there are those who were pushing for this who want to use it as a foot in the door and that they carefully crafted it in such a way that it can’t really be objected to on the face of it but will lay the groundwork for things to come. But their motives and aspirations are not relevant here. This change doesn’t really change anything for Catholic troops. If they start trying to force this into promoting or tolerating immoral behavior, then we’ll cross that bridge at that time and we’ll obviously hold our ground.

And, again, there is nothing in the new policy change that would be unacceptable as a policy for admitting children to Catholic schools or to the sacraments. So why turn our ire on the Boy Scouts?
Click to expand...
“our ire”? What ire? IF A PARENT wants to remove his boy from the scouts, he’s free to do so, Catholic or not. My opinion is not a comment against anything the Church may do.

You apparently do not believe that the normalization of homosexual behavior from school kids all the way up to adults has not been growing worse and worse every year, and yes, this is all part of the same fabric. The evidence is crystal clear.

Who’s teaching the wider culture, Joe? The mass media? Face it, the agenda has vilified the Church. The Church is wrong, especially about gay sex. If you missed that, I don’t know what else to say.

You want Indifference? If little Billy is told it’s OK he’s gay AND wants to look forward to marrying another young man as he gets older, what are young people, in particular, being taught? Yes, the Church is telling us the correct way to treat homosexual persons, but go to any “gay marriage” site - list on request - and see what they are saying about the Church when the subject is brought up.

First, it was “leave us alone,” now this.

Peace,
Ed
 
fix said:
It sure helps that. If not why the change? Was there a tidal wave of problems with “gay” issue there?
Click to expand...
Sure, there are political motives and outside pressure at play. That’s why this all is happening now

But I prefer to look at the rule as written rather than the editorializing on either side about what it might mean symbolically.

And the rule as written is not objectionable. AIt also presents the perfect opportunity for us to articulate the Catholic teaching that we welcome and accept those with a homosexual inclination even while calling them to live a life of virtue by not acting on those inclinations.

The Archdiocese of St. Louis calls this a “teachable moment”. I agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top