Boy Scouts to allow gay youths to join

  • Thread starter Thread starter EmperorNapoleon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
What??? Promiscuity is rampant in the homosexual community.

Most abuse is homosexual men on younger males.
Click to expand...
That is not correct. Most gay men seek other gay men who are relatively the same age. They do NOT, as a rule, abuse young boys. Men who do that suffer from pedophilia, and they come in both straight and gay varieties.
 
buffalo said:
Then why does anyone need to express their sexual desires at all? And then why even ask?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand your question.

I don’t think anyone needs to state they are homosexual or heterosexual. I think we are all people.

I think sexual expression belongs only within marriage (which is between a man and a woman).

I don’t think anyone needs to be discussing or asking about sexual preferences.

However, people do make mention of sexual orientation. I think if the BSA voted to allow a boy who claims he is “gay” to join Scouting, we should still continue to support Scouts and allow our “straight” sons to remain.
 
“The Gay Agenda”:
  • On “hate crimes” laws: “Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.”
  • On “hate thoughts” and “hate speech” laws: “Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.”
  • On influencing public policy: “Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.”
  • On “same-sex marriage”: “Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”
  • On “gays” in the Church: “Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.”
Desensitization

Jamming

Conversion

**You can do your own search and find the publicly anounced platform.
**
 
meltzerboy said:
That is not correct. Most gay men seek other gay men who are relatively the same age. They do NOT, as a rule, abuse young boys. Men who do that suffer from pedophilia, and they come in both straight and gay varieties.
Click to expand...
Sources?
 
buffalo said:
Unmasking the “gay” agenda

Below are two of the central demands put forth by homosexual activists in their “1972 Gay Rights Platform”:
  • "Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent." (This should send a chill down the spine of any parent. It would legally allow pedophiles, and homosexuals who were so inclined, to access your children and teens for their own predatory sexual gratification — so long as those children “consented” to having sex.)
  • "Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." (Once marriage is redefined, there can be no logical or ethical objection to any conceivable “marriage” combination, including polygamous “marriages.” By watering down marriage, “gay” activists and like-minded politicos [usually activist judges] remove this foundational institution’s intrinsic value.)

    Here are just a few of the demands the homosexual lobby put forth during the 1987 (Homosexual) “March on Washington”:
  • "The government should provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations and education just as protection is provided on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin." ([ENDA] This would force all religious business owners, landlords and schools to abandon — under penalty of law — sincerely held and constitutionally protected religious beliefs and adopt a view of sexual morality that runs entirely counter to central teachings of every major world religion.)
  • "Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools." (Translation: pro-homosexual, government-mandated indoctrination. This is already occurring in thousands of public schools throughout America. Children are being force-fed the absurd notion that male-male anal sodomy is a perfectly acceptable, “alternative” sexual “orientation.” This calculated propaganda continues to expand, despite the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged that such behaviors place participants at extremely high risk for dangerous and often deadly infectious disease.)
  • "The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice. … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding." (This means churches, religious schools and religious businesses. Some jurisdictions, such as the state of New Jersey, have already begun removing tax-exempt status from church related ministries that refuse to provide “commitment ceremonies” to homosexuals.)
  • "Public and private institutions should support parenting by lesbian or gay couples." (This is now being mandated in many states such as California and Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities’ adoption service was recently forced to close down because it refused to assign children to homosexuals for adoption.)
need more???

Click to expand...
So, so much more. Preferably from somewhere other than the esteemed “Renew America.”
 
RoseMary131 said:
I’m not sure I understand your question.

I don’t think anyone needs to state they are homosexual or heterosexual. I think we are all people.

I think sexual expression belongs only within marriage (which is between a man and a woman).

I don’t think anyone needs to be discussing or asking about sexual preferences.

However, people do make mention of sexual orientation. I think if the BSA voted to allow a boy who claims he is “gay” to join Scouting, we should still continue to support Scouts and allow our “straight” sons to remain.
Click to expand...
We all are born either xx or xy.

We are in agreement the Boy Scout Application should not ask for preference?

Declaring your sexual prefernce publicly or privately?
 
Obviously, the problem is the fear that, in the future, openly gay leaders will be allowed. Honestly, in this case, it could actually make it HARDER for boys with homosexual attractions. The additional thing is, and this is simply from my own experience, is that girls are much more likely to experiment at an earlier age with same-sex romance than boys are. In essence, most boys who would be declaring themselves “gay” would be pretty close to Eagle Scout level. That’s the problem in and of itself - too much opportunity for these boys to fall into sin. In addition, a lot of people use the term “gay” to mean “in, or actively searching for, a homosexual sexual relationship” - not just meaning “chaste, but physically attracted to people of the same sex”. Are there some people that have homosexual inclinations? Of course - and it’s a cross they have to bear. All of us have our crosses - I personally have a speech impairment and a nervous system tic. It is up to us to accept them and carry them. Obviously, having attractions to people of the same sex is one of the more difficult ones, especially when knowing that it is evil to act on those attractions. But, as St. Paul noted in one of the letters to the Corinthians, “I begged the Lord 3 times to take the thorn away from me, but He refused, replying, ‘My grace is sufficient for you’.”
 
gracepoole said:
So, so much more. Preferably from somewhere other than the esteemed “Renew America.”
Click to expand...
It was easy. As I said you can find it on their own sites. The platform of 1972 is very clear. You should ask yourself why you don’t know this.
 
gracepoole said:
What I don’t understand is the lack of a twitching conscience experienced by people who claim that openly gay Boy Scouts shouldn’t be permitted.
Click to expand...
You play the offended but malign others’ consciences. Typical.

I guess when you elevate your judgment above God’s Church it’s inevitable to view those who follow Church teaching as lacking in conscience. 🤷
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I’m glad they made the right decision. 👍
Click to expand...
Right. I will fight against admitting one that is openly gay based on the means in which the youth decides to be “open”. If he discusses sex, I will seek to have him removed for the good of the others, again, depending on how the issue arrives. Homosexuality will not be promoted and homosexual activities will be condemned for the evil that they are. I am not afraid of the conflict this ill-advised decision will bring. I personally do not think this will be an issue locally for me. If it is, I will deal with it accordingly. I (when) they go to gay leadership, I will fight any one that tries to join and withdraw if I fail. I am not going to turn the Scouts over to the homosexual agenda without fighting it first.
 
buffalo said:
It was easy. As I said you can find it on their own sites. The platform of 1972 is very clear. You should ask yourself why you don’t know this.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that I didn’t. I’m saying it is not credible evidence.
 
rlg94086 said:
You play the offended but malign others’ consciences. Typical.

I guess when you elevate your judgment above God’s Church it’s inevitable to view those who follow Church teaching as lacking in conscience. 🤷
Click to expand...
I’ve actually been taking you at your word, Robert, when you sign with “pax.” I’ve not taken offense.
 
Code: 
         The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
        ***Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972***
 
ringil said:
The majority of Americans in the South opposed the integration of public schools so the Supreme Court did the right thing and stood up for morality.

Sometimes the majority is wrong.
Click to expand...
Ah, the old “homosexuality is the same as race” bit again. It is old and no more logical than any other time this is brought up. But take your point, the majority is not always right, up until one generation ago homosexuality was never considered a right, any more that prostitution was a right or sex with children was a right. NARTH may be considered fringe now by this current generation, but they are the voice of pretty much all Christentom up until a few years back. So does their current minority voice mean they are wrong?
 
No more; no more donations, no more support, and any future children I have will not be joining. I will not expose them to open homosexuality and whatever devastating fallout will come from this disgusting resolution.
 
torch621 said:
No more; no more donations, no more support, and any future children I have will not be joining. I will not expose them to open homosexuality and whatever devastating fallout will come from this disgusting resolution.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
buffalo said:
Code: 
         The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
        ***Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972***
Click to expand...
Placing the title in bold isn’t any more convincing.

"Further, officials at several nationally based gay groups said they are unfamiliar with the rights platform mentioned and that, despite the charges of critics, no one in the established gay community has ever called for the legalization of sex with children.

‘To use something that some fringe political extremists in 1972 may have thought was an agenda item and compare it to today is completely misleading,’ said Robert Bray of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington. ‘That issue has never been discussed by anyone in the gay movement.’"

Notice this article was published back in 1989, so it’s baffling that this is still an issue.
articles.latimes.com/1989-11-03/local/me-324_1_human-rights-ordinance
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top