Why would anybody condemn the Boy Scouts simply because they allow openly gay boys?

[JimG]

By referring to a human male child as “gay”, you are not respecting his personhood in the least but reducing him to a purely sexual term. why is this necessary at all when referring to a child? why is this issue even a subject for conversation when dealing with a child who would like to participate in any organization. Can’t you see the harm you are doing to an individual person by your label? there is a very sinister and damaging agenda that is being foisted on our children. Children who are least able to protect and defend themselves.

I agree with this. The danger is in implicitly encouraging kids this young to self-identify as gay. There are no gay Scouts; there are only Scouts.

 

[Baelor]

But it does serve to create focus on a single aspect of one’s essence whether it denies the others or not, and this particular label carries with it tremendous potential for harm.

I suppose I fundamentally disagree. While there is a focus, it may be justified given the context of the conversation. Certainly calling someone “a homosexual” once does not create a permanent focus that endures in aeternum?

into put a young boy in a most undesirable position. It is best that he works out his feelings about his sexuality with his parents and other trusted mentors in private, not expose him to public scrutiny.

I agree; I believe I mentioned that in a prior post (likely addressed to someone else). We should not be labeling children. On the other hand, there are Scouts ages 18-20 who probably have a better sense of their sexuality (and can even be married).

 

[yellowbird]

Plus, it is dubious whether a young man near the age of puberty with raging hormones going on is in any position to make a credible determination of his own orientation. It is quite easy to confuse admiration of father figures and the pleasures associated with masturbation which is frequently experienced at that young age with the idea of homosexuality. Some young boys are late bloomers and not yet focused on the opposite sex, some are strongly attracted to sexual pleasure in general, and some of these young minds are strongly influenced by the pornography that abounds and that is easily accessible on the Internet. Now to encourage labeling at this tender age range is absurd and potentially very harmful.

I agree with this - however, I don’t know of a single young man who has enbraced his homosexuality from the get-go as something wonderful to be celebrated. Most struggle with it for years - trying to pray it away - hoping it’s not true, telling themselves it’s not true… they want to be anything BUT gay and they worry people will find out, and when they do - they’ll be rejected as the perverted disgusting freaks they believe themselves to be.

If you read their stories, they are heartbreaking.

If a young man labels himself, I think we have to support him - not simply dismiss it as absurd because that label may be something he’s struggled with for years and admitting it requires an unbelievable amount of courage. I’m not talking about the confused 12 year old… I’m talking about older teenagers who are very aware of their sexuality. I don’t think anyone wants to be gay. I really don’t. In my line of work I’ve known a lot of gay people and none of them wanted to be gay.

I also think we have do a much better job of learning how to love the sinner and hate the sin. And I think we have to stop viewing homosexuals as this powerful evil bloc of activists who are out to destroy morality and make our children gay. They individuals with their own stories, and we haven’t walked in their shoes.

 

[yellowbird]

But it does serve to create focus on a single aspect of one’s essence whether it denies the others or not, and this particular label carries with it tremendous potential for harm. Labeling someone a heterosexual, being that heterosexuality is the norm, has no potential for harm. Same with labeling someone an American, as you suggest. But labeling someone gay with its close association to those who practice gay sex which in turn is taught to be a grave intrinsic evil by the Catholic Church is to put a young boy in a most undesirable position. It is best that he works out his feelings about his sexuality with his parents and other trusted mentors in private, not expose him to public scrutiny.

Who is going around labeling children gay? Do you think this new policy will usher in Scout leaders who will label children gay?

 

[shocktrooper]

And I think we have to stop viewing homosexuals as this powerful evil bloc of activists who are out to destroy morality and make our children gay. They individuals with their own stories, and we haven’t walked in their shoes.

This reminds me of a quote I heard that went…“the first victim of Islam is the Muslim himself”. This can easily be considered when one thinks of “gays”. The first victims of the homosexual movement are the gays. And like the Muslims who never speak out against the “radicals”, the struggling gays (in general) stay quiet also. Where are the “gays” that stand up and say, “NO, I forbid to be labeled by a condition that is unnatural and disordered”.

Those that try to loosen gays from their SSA are the ones that truly love them. Not the ones that pretend it is normal.

 

[yellowbird]

This reminds me of a quote I heard that went…“the first victim of Islam is the Muslim himself”. This can easily be considered when one thinks of “gays”. The first victims of the homosexual movement are the gays. And like the Muslims who never speak out against the “radicals”, the struggling gays (in general) stay quiet also. Where are the “gays” that stand up and say, “NO, I forbid to be labeled by a condition that is unnatural and disordered”.

Those that try to loosen gays from their SSA are the ones that truly love them. Not the ones that pretend it is normal.

If a person is born gay that is their “normal.” Next you’ll probably say nobody is born gay. I say prove it. Prove they aren’t born gay.

Did you miss that most don’t WANT to be gay. They’d change it if they could… but they can’t - no more so that you could change being attracted to the opposite sex. Trying to make someone no longer have SSA isn’t very effective. The best most can hope for is to live a life of chastity.

The homosexuals I know who do so (live a chaste life) still consider themselves homosexuals. It’s who they are.

 

[CopticChristian]

Did you miss that most don’t WANT to be gay. They’d change it if they could… but they can’t - no more so that you could change being attracted to the opposite sex. Trying to make someone no longer have SSA isn’t very effective. The best most can hope for is to live a life of chastity.

The homosexuals I know who do so (live a chaste life) still consider themselves homosexuals. It’s who they are.

If a person is born gay that is their “normal.” Next you’ll probably say nobody is born gay. I say prove it. Prove they aren’t born gay.

On any given day, throughout the world, there are many babies born, delivered, into nurseries, at home, with their mother’s possibly with fathers and where there is the ability to identify the child they do…and nowhere in this world, absolutely nowhere, having worked in nurseries, having delivered babies…did I ever see and I would challenge you to visit some nurseries at your local hospital…did I see…any child not labeled.

Girl Smith
Boy Jones

Not one child has ever been born in this world that I am aware of with an identifier…

Gay boy jones…

Proof enough…

 

[CopticChristian]

It is not going anywhere; this is an end in se. I am simply defining my terms; no rhetorical sleight-of-hand or maneuvering will follow. Please be charitable.

I also see no reason to produce studies. The dictionaries clearly agree with me; “homosexual” as a noun has only the definition (at least in the OED) of sexual attraction. I see no reason to assume that my anecdotal experience is different from the norm, and since there is no evidence whatsoever that it is skewed or that people in general disagree with me, I am perfectly content with using the definitions I laid out.

Then you should understand as everyone else does that Dictionaries are made up of words as they are used. They are not static, they are dynamic and if someone proposes a different understanding of a word than you see in a dictionary to insist that a dictionary has a particular definition and you want others to cling to it then you will be left behind as word usage determines definition not the definition that determines word usage.

 

[CopticChristian]

You are on these forums; see my earlier comments.

.

You are misinformed. If you check the OED, which includes a list of early occurrences, you will find that the earliest instances of “homosexual” involve attraction and not behavior

No, you are misinformed. Word usage determines a definition. Words do not appear in the dictionary out of the sky. How words are used, have been used and will be used determine the definition and as such are subect to change. It is not a dictum that because a dictionary says something that it has to be that way. How words are used determine how we communicate. If you want to cling to the definition in a dictionary then that is your peragotive that you don’t have the right to insist others abide by.

Let me give you some examples…

Ebonics…how many words have been created here through word usage…

Try this one…

Nutritarian…

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nutritarian

nutritarian
The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

Dr. Joel Fuhrman coined this term and I am going to start using it. It makes more sense to me than…

Vegetarian
Vegan
Carnivore

or any other type of diet you choose to have…and what is a Nutritarian…someone that eats based on the Nutritional value of the food…it will be in the dictionary in time but the absence from the dictionary does not determine the value of the word or understanding of the word…

So give up beating people over the head with dictionary definitions and asking them to be forced to do the same…

Spend some time with this word…

Transubstantiation…when did it appear in the dictionary?

 

[yellowbird]

On any given day, throughout the world, there are many babies born, delivered, into nurseries, at home, with their mother’s possibly with fathers and where there is the ability to identify the child they do…and nowhere in this world, absolutely nowhere, having worked in nurseries, having delivered babies…did I ever see and I would challenge you to visit some nurseries at your local hospital…did I see…any child not labeled.

Girl Smith
Boy Jones

Not one child has ever been born in this world that I am aware of with an identifier…

Gay boy jones…

Proof enough…

Are you trying to be funny?

People are born with all sorts of characteristics & predispositions both physical & psychological that aren’t indentifable at birth.

 

[CopticChristian]

Are you trying to be funny?

If a person is born gay that is their “normal.” Next you’ll probably say nobody is born gay. I say prove it. Prove they aren’t born gay.

Here is what you said…now you say this…

People are born with all sorts of characteristics physical & psychological that aren’t indentifable at birth.

When a baby is born, they are rated according to an Apgar scoring. They are inspected for number of toes, fingers, noting if the anus is perforate or imperforate, and whatever characteristics, whatever physical and psychological identifiable or unidentfiable things they are…no one is born designated gay according to any scale…

There is no Pediatrician monitoring that child as they grow, that I am aware of, that designates a child, in their medical record as “gay”…Are you aware of any Pediatrician that has growth charts and other landmarks of development with a sheet with boxes to be checked that designates any child as “gay”?

So now you prove that someone is born gay=Essentialism…

or give it up and rethink your proposition as you look to enter the Octagon for which you are ill prepared…

 

[yellowbird]

Here is what you said…now you say this…

When a baby is born, they are rated according to an Apgar scoring. They are inspected for number of toes, fingers, noting if the anus is perforate or imperforate, and whatever characteristics, whatever physical and psychological identifiable or unidentfiable things they are…no one is born designated gay according to any scale…

There is no Pediatrician monitering that child as they grow, that I am aware of, that designates a child, in their medical record as “gay”…

So now you prove that someone is born gay=Essentialism…

or give it up and rethink your proposition as you look to enter the Octagon for which you are ill prepared…

I’m guessing you don’t have children? If you did, you’d recognize how short sighted your post was. Three of my children were born with beautiful singing abilities. From the time they could sing - perfect pitch. Two were not. One of my boys was born with athletic ablility… he could toss a ball & catch it from a very early age. One of my children has a strong apptitude for math - and one has been SUCH an artist from the time she could first hold a crayon. Two have hot tempers… one is especially kind and sensitve, she’s my Saint in the making. Four are very social - one is total introvert. Four are skinny as rails, one will have to watch her diet because she takes after my husband’s family and they are heavier.

None of my children were designated any of these things at birth. That’s one of thrills of being a parent… discovering who your child is… what talents, traits they possess. Some can be developed of course - but so many are just because it’s who they are. Three of my children could have been born to the poorest mother in Africa and without a single voice lesson or knowledge of a musical note, and they’d still be be able to sing like songbirds. And the two with the hot temper - were like that from Day 1.

They didn’t chose those traits, and I certainly didn’t foist it upon them. They were born that way.

So it is such a leap to think that a child could be born with a predisposition to be gay?

 

[CopticChristian]

One of my children has a strong apptitude for math - and one has been SUCH an artist from the time she could first hold a crayon. Two have hot tempers… one is especially kind and sensitve, she’s my Saint in the making. Four are very social - one is total introvert. Four are skinny as rails, one will have to watch her diet because she takes after my husband’s family and they are heavier.

They didn’t chose those traits, and I certainly didn’t foist it upon them. They were born that way.

I’m guessing you don’t have children? If you did, you’d recognize how short sighted your post was. Three of my children were born with beautiful singing abilities. From the time they could sing - perfect pitch. Two were not. One of my boys was born with athletic ablility… he could toss a ball & catch it from a very early age.

Your guess is incorrect. I have 5 children and 5 grandchildren. Here is where we take out pictures from our wallets and share stories of accomplishments. The fact is that not one of my children or your children was born designated with any trait or talent.

None of my children were designated any of these things at birth.

And you should add not one was born gay nor is anyone born gay.

That’s one of thrills of being a parent… discovering who your child is… what talents, traits they possess. Some can be developed of course - but so many are just because it’s who they are. Three of my children could have been born to the poorest mother in Africa and without a single voice lesson or knowledge of a musical note, and they’d still be be able to sing like songbirds. And the two with the hot temper - were like that from Day 1.

All my children have great voices, play intruments, are athletic and do well. One of my daughters was the state champ in gymnastics at 2 different levels. Why? Because she trained and learned.

Hot tempers, traits and all of this have nothing to do with being born gay.

I suggest you do as I asked and give it up…there is not now or ever been any proof for

Essentialism=born gay=God created me gay…

Let us now put our pictures back in our wallets, get on our knees and thank God for giving us children…Ok…

 

[Baelor]

Then you should understand as everyone else does that Dictionaries are made up of words as they are used. They are not static, they are dynamic and if someone proposes a different understanding of a word than you see in a dictionary to insist that a dictionary has a particular definition and you want others to cling to it then you will be left behind as word usage determines definition not the definition that determines word usage.

You are correct. The dictionary definition conforms to popular usage. In this case, popular usage and the dictionary definition coincide – homosexuality refers to attraction, not action.

The fact that the dictionary definition conforms to mine is simply further evidence that the current definition of the word is exactly what I claimed it is.

 

[Baelor]

No, you are misinformed. Word usage determines a definition. Words do not appear in the dictionary out of the sky. How words are used, have been used and will be used determine the definition and as such are subect to change. It is not a dictum that because a dictionary says something that it has to be that way. How words are used determine how we communicate. If you want to cling to the definition in a dictionary then that is your peragotive that you don’t have the right to insist others abide by.

I never said that I cling to the dictionary definition. I simply have produced evidence – including the dictionary, which you yourself admit by your statements is an indication of word usage – that shows that the current definition of “homosexual” refers to attraction and not activity.

You are more than welcome to use it however you want. You can use whatever word you want however you want. I made one claim, and one claim only: that current usage of “homosexual” refers to attraction, not activity.

The dictionary, which you claim is based on usage, defines it in this way. Point for me. Everyone I have ever met defines it in this way. Another point for me.

I am consequently very comfortable with my definition, which I have every reason to believe is exactly what I say it is: the dominant one.

So give up beating people over the head with dictionary definitions and asking them to be forced to do the same…

I am not. I am using the dictionary definition to demonstrate a widely-accepted definition; you yourself have argued for this by claiming that the dictionary definition reflects usage.

 

[meltzerboy]

Your guess is incorrect. I have 5 children and 5 grandchildren. Here is where we take out pictures from our wallets and share stories of accomplishments. The fact is that not one of my children or your children was born designated with any trait or talent.

And you should add not one was born gay nor is anyone born gay.

All my children have great voices, play intruments, are athletic and do well. One of my daughters was the state champ in gymnastics at 2 different levels. Why? Because she trained and learned.

Hot tempers, traits and all of this have nothing to do with being born gay.

I suggest you do as I asked and give it up…there is not now or ever been any proof for

Essentialism=born gay=God created me gay…

Let us now put our pictures back in our wallets, get on our knees and thank God for giving us children…Ok…

No personality traits or temperaments by nature AT ALL, Coptic? Everything in children is learned by nurture without ANY predisposing features? That’s a bold statement and is not supported by the research.

 

[Elizabeth502]

They didn’t chose those traits, and I certainly didn’t foist it upon them. They were born that way. So it is such a leap to think that a child could be born with a predisposition to be gay?

Yes, it’s a leap for anyone who has read any respected secular text on the psycho-sexual develoment of the human person. Then it would be a “leap,” because you could assume, if you hadn’t been educated, that sexual attraction is fixed at birth, when sexuality is fluid for quite some time in human development. It is also complex and depends on a variety of responses to the individual, to “fix” that sexuality (or result in that becoming the dominant orientation).

Whatever physiological components sexuality has (hormonal, for example) and however those may be “fixed,” the dimension of sexuality in the human person is primarily relational. In utero, the pre-born child has only one relationship.

And yes, I’m a parent.

 

[CopticChristian]

No personality traits or temperaments by nature AT ALL, Coptic? Everything in children is learned by nurture without ANY predisposing features? That’s a bold statement and is not supported by the research.

Meltz,

You have generalized beyond what I have stated. The premise is that someone needs to prove that someone is born gay as Yellowbird states. Reality is that no one has proved that anyone is born gay.

No one has solved the entirety of Nature vs Nurture as you know.

So, if the premise is being gay is pure Nature…there is no proof…

back to reality…

 

[CopticChristian]

I never said that I cling to the dictionary definition. I simply have produced evidence – including the dictionary, which you yourself admit by your statements is an indication of word usage – that shows that the current definition of “homosexual” refers to attraction and not activity.

You are more than welcome to use it however you want. You can use whatever word you want however you want. I made one claim, and one claim only: that current usage of “homosexual” refers to attraction, not activity.

The dictionary, which you claim is based on usage, defines it in this way. Point for me. Everyone I have ever met defines it in this way. Another point for me.

I am consequently very comfortable with my definition, which I have every reason to believe is exactly what I say it is: the dominant one.

I am not. I am using the dictionary definition to demonstrate a widely-accepted definition; you yourself have argued for this by claiming that the dictionary definition reflects usage.

Word usage is a starting point for a conversation, not a hammer to nail a dialogue and handcuff it…if there is to be dialogue there has to be understanding that I don’t see from you…

Baelor…Dictionary says this, I know people that say this, I believe this…

Everyone that disagrees…

Baelor…Dictionary says this, I know people that say this, I believe this…

and then of course the usual…“irrelevant” or “that’s not relevant”…all you have to do is add

“this is not relevant to me” or “this is irrelevant to me” and then…ask…can you explain why that is relevant to you?

You stifle communication and do not allow for encompassing anyone elses understanding…

Do you want to be right?

Do you want to control the conversation?

Do you want understanding of what someone else thinks…?

 

[Baelor]

Deleted for double-post.