Boy Scouts to allow gay youths to join

[StJudeprayforme]

And the new policy:
Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. **No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.

**When do you tell them? Sign up and then disclose? Disclose at signup?Lie at signup?

It was never a question on the registration, and I can’t see them adding it. It was only enforced if it came to the attention of the leaders that the person identified as gay or somehow they knew in advance.

 

[buffalo]

An analogous situation happens in co-ed Venture crews. Female leaders and male Ventures, Male leaders and female Ventures. I would put my child in a Venture crew with no problem because:

1. I trust people in general.
2. I know there are mechanisms in place to prevent this from happening.

Again, opportunists priests have used the priesthood to hurt children. I would still tell my child to go to Confession, because, in general, I trust priests.

In most cases the homosexual priests were not molesting male kids in the confessional. However, consider a homosexual priests answer to a boy confessing that he has a desire for other boys. Would he even get a penance?

 

[StJudeprayforme]

In most cases the homosexual priests were not molesting male kids in the confessional. However, consider a homosexual priests answer to a boy confessing that he has a desire for other boys. Would he even get a penance?

Yes, because a priest with homosexual tendencies can be a good priest who is orthodox and chaste.

Just because someone likes people of the same-sex doesn’t mean that they are a robot who promotes the “gay agenda”.

Also, the Jay report said that homosexuality wasn’t the issue with the priestly abuse scandal, so can we stop pretending that it was for ideological reasons. The issue at hand here is the BSA policy for YOUTH.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, because a priest with homosexual tendencies can be a good priest who is orthodox and chaste.

Can be…perhaps, but your statement is contrary to Church guidance on the matter:

Instruction
Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders

 

[gracepoole]

I’m not clear what your question is. What has the “entire medical community” concluded about the genesis of same sex attraction. Where, exactly, do those attractions come from, according to the “entire medical community?”

You wrote, “It is just an excuse people have developed to sin - ‘God made me this way.’” Clearly the medical community does not view homosexuality as a convenient excuse. Questions about same-sex attractions (or all sexual attractions, for that matter) are still being explored (at least for those who aren’t looking to the Bible for answers).

 

[rlg94086]

Why would you want to be a French citizen confounds me.

"StJudeprayforme:

That being said, you are born into a country and you are automatically a citizen of it. I don’t define myself by the country I was born in (not the most patriotic person on the planet…)

Of course you wouldn’t, because it has nothing to do with who your humanity.

If someone is born gay, which is a possibility though the causes are unknown, it doesn’t mean that identifying as such is reducing their personhood to that. The BSA isn’t promoting reductionism with this new policy.

If it is found that someone is “born gay,” then they will probably find a “cure,” just as they have found cures for other birth defects.

Identifying as “gay” is absolutely putting your sexual desires as your primary descriptor. It makes no sense.

 

[rlg94086]

You wrote, “It is just an excuse people have developed to sin - ‘God made me this way.’” Clearly the medical community does not view homosexuality as a convenient excuse. Questions about same-sex attractions (or all sexual attractions, for that matter) are still being explored (at least for those who aren’t looking to the Bible for answers).

Okay…the medical community doesn’t generally comment about morality or using “God made me this way” as an excuse for immorality. Therefore, your question doesn’t make sense.

The medical community doesn’t determine morality, and they have no medical basis for declaring that someone is “born gay.” Therefore, their views on the subject are immaterial.

 

[edwest2]

So, you are in favor of people identifying themselves by their other disordered feelings? Hi, I’m a masturbater. Hello there, I’m sexually attracted to sheep. Well, hello there, I get sexually excited when I see a 5 year old. Etcetera.

That’s it. It’s all about getting young people to say, “I have disordered feelings but since I like them, it’s OK.” Values? Why should anyone need values? Why it goes right back to that Hippie saying, “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

Oh yeah, that’s how civil, as in civilized, societies always operate Teaching kids self control? Pfft! Who wants that?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I don’t doubt that the gay agenda was a factor in this coming to the fore, but I don’t think the policy change would have passed if that was all it was. The Mormons pretty much backed the change en masse. This is the same group that donated millions towards passing Proposition 8 in California. They clearly don’t subscribe to the “gay agenda”.

I think we need to be very careful about how we react to this change. I’m inclined to find it unnecessary for people to wear their sexual orientation on their sleeve as a badge of honor. But I also find it unnecessary for a person to keep it locked away inside never daring to tell another living soul for fear of intense and immediate retribution. When we get all bent out of shape over the “what ifs” and the “what’s next”, we give the impression of wanting to cram people back in the closet to live a life of fear (whether or not we really feel that way is beside the point – this is the impression we leave people with).

Joe, I don’t mean to be rude, but you don’t go up to people and announce: “Hi, I’m a chronic masturbator.” The only living souls you should tell are your priest and God. The same with: “Hi. I have sex with 20 different women every month. What? Oh yeah, they’re all prostitutes. What’s the big deal?”

What if? What’s next? We already know —

“In 1998, Canadian Scouts (CS) decided to allow females, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to join the CS. In 1999, they approved the establishment of an all-homosexual troop, which now marches in Canada’s “gay pride” parades. Within five years, scouting membership dropped over 50 percent. Many scouting camps and offices were closed, and staff was laid off.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[gracepoole]

Okay…the medical community doesn’t generally comment about morality or using “God made me this way” as an excuse for immorality. Therefore, your question doesn’t make sense.

The medical community doesn’t determine morality, and they have no medical basis for declaring that someone is “born gay.” Therefore, their views on the subject are immaterial.

Yes, that’s the point. The medical community has more information at its disposal than the Bible. It’s interesting that out of the many avenues one could use to explore this issue, only one identifies homosexuality as a grand lie, a conspiracy, etc. Why doesn’t psychiatry still define homosexuality as disordered?

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Can be…perhaps, but your statement is contrary to Church guidance on the matter:

Off-topic, but for the sake of clarifying for readers: The document you cite is open to interpretation by major superiors and bishops. Religious orders tend to interpret it more liberally than local bishops, but as a whole it is a mixed bag.

If it is found that someone is “born gay,” then they will probably find a “cure,” just as they have found cures for other birth defects.

Identifying as “gay” is absolutely putting your sexual desires as your primary descriptor. It makes no sense.

No. It isn’t, no more than identifying as straight is “putting your sexual desires as your primary descriptor”. The only people who make this argument are straight people. Even the most pro-gay rights person I know (who is straight, btw) agrees that defining yourself by sexual orientation is a bad thing, and agrees with Card. Ratzinger’s concerns about reductionism. Card. Ratzinger continued to use the phrase “homosexual persons” in the same document that he raised concerns about reductionism. It is all about intent.

 

[edwest2]

I was responding to a thread in comments related to the existence of homosexuality as a mental disorder. It is not a mental disorder.

My post did not relate to Catholic moral teaching. The mental health community is not an arm of the Church and is not related to questions of Catholic morality. For a licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, marriage and family counselor, licensed counselor to practice using Catholic moral teaching as a guide would be grossly unethical and abusive to clients.

Source for your claim it is not a disorder?

Peace,
Ed

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Source for your claim it is not a disorder?

Peace,
Ed

psychiatry.org/mental-health/people/lgbt-sexual-orientation

The APA is the governing body for mental health diagnosis in the United States. It does not consider it a mental disorder. Now that it is sourced, can we move away from this discussion.

 

[edwest2]

The most trusted organization is no longer trustworthy.

I have reached the same conclusion. And I’m sure there have been gay scouts in the past, but this decision was forced on the scouts. I struggle with sin, but it not now my job to give the world a list. My sins are between me, God and sometimes, a trusted brother in Christ. It would be creating open scandal to announce to everyone that I do certain things.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rlg94086]

No. It isn’t, no more than identifying as straight is “putting your sexual desires as your primary descriptor”. The only people who make this argument are straight people. Even the most pro-gay rights person I know (who is straight, btw) agrees that defining yourself by sexual orientation is a bad thing, and agrees with Card. Ratzinger’s concerns about reductionism. Card. Ratzinger continued to use the phrase “homosexual persons” in the same document that he raised concerns about reductionism. It is all about intent.

Right…so, what is the intent of someone who makes it a point to declare to others that he is “gay?” Why is that important, if they are leading a chaste life? It is reductionist by its very nature.

The only people I know who identify themselves to others as “straight” are those who accept the same reductionism prevelant in your posts, or they are doing it because they have to in conversation with “gay” reductionists.

 

[edwest2]

Okay. But simply because a discussion is not “public” does not mean information never comes out. The new policy does not in any way necessitate speaking about these things in public. It simply provides a safeguard for a youth if the information becomes known.

Please identify the specific safeguard.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Yes, we do. So, you are advocating that people identify as a pathological liar and everyone else accept that as it is, because they are made in the image of God? It isn’t their fault…they were “born” that way… Serial killers? Meh…they had a strong, innate desire to dismember people. Not their fault. Let them in Scouts!

You’ve been watching Dexter, haven’t you? Yep, you know things have changed when a serial killer is the likable lead in a TV show. I’m still waiting for a show about that likable family of cannibals that live in a neighborhood just like mine.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It is not defined as a mental disorder. It is not a coded diagnosis. There is no treatment modality to address homosexuality.

Source? Or you should check on the DSM that was in effect just prior to 1973.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rlg94086]

You’ve been watching Dexter, haven’t you? Yep, you know things have changed when a serial killer is the likable lead in a TV show. I’m still waiting for a show about that likable family of cannibals that live in a neighborhood just like mine.

Peace,
Ed

I haven’t seen it. Everyone says it’s a great show, but the concept doesn’t sit well with me.

 

[edwest2]

Serious question, Robert: has the entire medical community simply bought into the secret “gay agenda,” then?

The American Psychological Association did in 1973 by vote. What was a disorder yesterday became not a disorder after the vote. Years of research? Out the window.

peace,
Ed