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

[Baelor]

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…

There is nothing to “understand.” I put forth my definitions. They are clear and common. If you do not like them; that is fine. You can either accept them for the purposes of the discussion or stonewall. The choice is yours.

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

What the dictionary says is irrefutable and verifiable. If you do not wish to claim me a liar or that you know better than I do persons you have never met, then you accept my authority regarding what definition the persons in my life use.

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

Communication is my goal. I am seeking clear communication. There is no ambiguity in any of my terms; I have explained exactly how I used them.

There is no “understanding” to be acquired in this case. Someone may say that they use “homosexual” to refer to what we would call “an octopus.” To which I respond, “That’s nice, but I think I am fine not using that definition.” If you claim that such a response is ignoring the “understanding” of others, then I am perfectly fine with being ignorant.

Do you want to be right?

Yes; anything else is lack of understanding. Only the insane do not wish for truth.

Do you want to control the conversation?

If it is the only way for it to occur, yes.

Do you want understanding of what someone else thinks…?

I understand what someone else thinks. That does not mean I have to accept it.

 

[CopticChristian]

Deleted for double-post.

I have little to say to you and I hope and pray that others that have found you offensive offer you some charitable correction.

I am sure in your mind, as you read this you are ready to type…

Irrelevant!

 

[Baelor]

I have little to say to you and I hope and pray that others that have found you offensive offer you some charitable correction.

I am sure in your mind, as you read this you are ready to type…

Irrelevant!

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[shocktrooper]

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.

I can’t prove it and neither can you prove the opposite. I believe in Original Sin, so I think people can be born with a certain disposition or inclination towards sin. But regardless of how one falls on the “born this way” argument, you still don’t normalize a disordered inclination. One still has to check it. When society starts to allow bad dispositions to be accepted, then the logical conclusion is that those dispositions progress into action.

For instance, when the American Church leadership failed to teach the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist on local parish levels (after VII), ripped the altar rails out and quit exhorting people to turn from sin (after VII), people then approached the Eucharist with a poor disposition. When this happened, reception of the Eucharist in the hand followed, along with long lines at Communion and practically no line at the confessional. Action always follows an allowed disposition. And by “allow”, I mean any behavior that endorses, normalizes, remains silent on, encourages, appeases, fosters or minimizes a disorder or bad disposition or inclination.

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.

Can link to a study that supports your claim that “most” don’t WANT to be gay". From here on out, I will call those with SSA ONLY, “a person with SSA”. Those that act on it and are unwilling to abandon the lifestyle, I will call “homosexuals”. So I agree, those people with SSA do not want to be that way. Homosexuals do want to be that way. Which one has more in their corner? I will have to see some numbers from a reputable and non bias source.

Now that you know how I define and use my terms, I presume we can get on with agreeing with each other more often.

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

Again, I find it odd they would consider themselves to be a “homosexual” rather than a…

Christian
child of God
person
human
male
female

…with SSA.

It just seems a little more “benign” my way.

 

[meltzerboy]

I can’t prove it and neither can you prove the opposite. I believe in Original Sin, so I think people can be born with a certain disposition or inclination towards sin. But regardless of how one falls on the “born this way” argument, you still don’t normalize a disordered inclination. One still has to check it. When society starts to allow bad dispositions to be accepted, then the logical conclusion is that those dispositions progress into action.

For instance, when the American Church leadership failed to teach the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist on local parish levels (after VII), ripped the altar rails out and quit exhorting people to turn from sin (after VII), people then approached the Eucharist with a poor disposition. When this happened, reception of the Eucharist in the hand followed, along with long lines at Communion and practically no line at the confessional. Action always follows an allowed disposition. And by “allow”, I mean any behavior that endorses, normalizes, remains silent on, encourages, appeases, fosters or minimizes a disorder or bad disposition or inclination.

Can link to a study that supports your claim that “most” don’t WANT to be gay". From here on out, I will call those with SSA ONLY, “a person with SSA”. Those that act on it and are unwilling to abandon the lifestyle, I will call “homosexuals”. So I agree, those people with SSA do not want to be that way. Homosexuals do want to be that way. Which one has more in their corner? I will have to see some numbers from a reputable and non bias source.

Now that you know how I define and use my terms, I presume we can get on with agreeing with each other more often.

Again, I find it odd they would consider themselves to be a “homosexual” rather than a…

Christian
child of God
person
human
male
female

…with SSA.

It just seems a little more “benign” my way.

Yes, it would be more benign your way as well as the ideal, and no doubt some gay people do identify themselves more diversely and with less emphasis on the gay part. But I don’t find it so odd that, for many, the sexual orientation is a significant part of their overall identity. This is because when society in general perceives a group of people as outcasts or different, that is, “the other,” the target of that perception often coalesces around the feature of their identity which is perceived, or believed to be perceived, in a negative light. This may shift in degree or kind depending on the environment. For example, I don’t go around always thinking I’m Jewish in New York City, but when I lived in a small town with hardly any Jews, I was more conscious of the fact. The same applies to my being a member of a Catholic Forum. It’s a similar situation with other groups, whether ethnic, racial, religious, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation. Not everyone is so sensitive to their differences, but it is understandable they might be.

 

[shocktrooper]

Yes, it would be more benign your way as well as the ideal, and no doubt some gay people do identify themselves more diversely and with less emphasis on the gay part. But I don’t find it so odd that, for many, the sexual orientation is a significant part of their overall identity. This is because when society in general perceives a group of people as outcasts or different, that is, “the other,” the target of that perception often coalesces around the feature of their identity which is perceived, or believed to be perceived, in a negative light. This may shift in degree or kind depending on the environment. For example, I don’t go around always thinking I’m Jewish, but when I lived in a small town with hardly any Jews, I was more conscious of the fact. The same applies to my being a member of a Catholic Forum. It’s a similar situation with other groups, whether ethnic, racial, religious, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation. Not everyone is so sensitive to their differences, but it is understandable one might be.

Good points. It is not preferred to consider people as outcasts, as opposed to their behavior, unless they are so tightly wrapped up in the unacceptable behavior that it is impossible to detach the label from them. They kind of force one’s hand. But it is acceptable to “cast out” or marginalize a bad behavior" or disordered inclination for the good of the whole. This is why laws, discipline and policies exist in the first place, to create order and to discourage or stop something before it manifests.

We can’t be thought police but we can discourage the thought in general, hoping the crime does not follow. Those with only SSA are not sinning nor is it implied that they are thinking of doing so. But if you don’t discourage it by making it normal, then action (in general) will follow. It is just the nature of our fallen state.

You make good points. Thanks.

 

[Tigg]

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.

We are speaking of young boys still in their formative years whose minds (and emotions) are like unsettled clay. This is the time, more than ever, that they need positive support and a strong moral directive. I do not believe for a moment that during certain BSA activities those with SSA aren’t at possible risk of strong temptation. Ahhhh – how strong the attraction and how subtle the persuasion. Is this what we want for them?

 

[fix]

Are the BSA demanding these things? I sure don’t condone homosexual behavior, but I think society needs to accommodate them as much as possible, just like Christ accommodated the tax collectors at dinner.

The BSA is affirming the inclination as healthy and correctly ordered.

 

[pnewton]

The BSA is affirming the inclination as healthy and correctly ordered.

I missed that part. Is this a commentary and opinion, or did the BSA actually say this?

 

[Elizabeth502]

The BSA is affirming the inclination as healthy and correctly ordered.

…and somehow pertinent to the mission of BSA.

This is the very reason for the conversations with sexual content (hetero- or homo-) to be advised as inappropriate for the workplace, because their very existence within hearing of others does not promote the central purpose of the commerce in question and in fact changes the atmosphere. Thus, informally, good bosses never initiate, or encourage, such conversations, and formally, the law supports those complaining about the inappropriate introduction of sexual topics in the workplace.

The principle of context applies. Sexuality is irrelevant to the mission of BSA, unless they are now going to modify their Mission Statement to include sexual exploration, by its members, as an option or a priority. It’s all absurd. And just part of the gay lobby’s attempt to change the culture of the West radically and permamently.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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?

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).

Baelor, I have been around a long time, but have never personally known a boy scout, unless you mean Explorer Scout, between 17 and 20, although I don’t doubt there are some, perhaps many. I would not fashion a policy that was influenced by these outliers. If push came to shove, I would find it far more reasonable to lower the “boy scouting” age limit to exclude men capable of serving their country in the armed forces, and I would have no policy regarding gays for this lower age group. The older group, which could go by a different name, such as Explorer Scout, which I once belonged to, would be fairer game for a homosexual policy IMO, even though I still have reservations. Thanks. Jim

 

[shocktrooper]

I missed that part. Is this a commentary and opinion, or did the BSA actually say this?

The BSA obviously thought “sexual orientation” alone was a good enough reason to keep a boy out prior to changing it. Has there been some new revelation about “homosexuals” that I don’t know about? Is it now good to have these attractions? They were banned before because of the danger it posed to other boys and also to the homosexual, which means they now feel that this danger is no longer present, hence the changing of the policy.

Can you provide us with reasons why young boys with homosexual tendencies are no longer a concern or danger to other boys? I can understand why homosexuals are less likely to be in danger of others due to our almost complete acceptance of the disorder in our culture.

Would someone honestly feel comfortable with letting their child hang out in the woods with another child that is an avowed pyromaniac or at least has a perverted orientation towards lighting fires. Wouldn’t we tell our beloved child that we would prefer he hang out with someone else that does not profess to having this disordered attraction?

 

[fix]

I think this piece nicely explains my position:

Link

 

[fix]

The BSA obviously thought “sexual orientation” alone was a good enough reason to keep a boy out prior to changing it. Has there been some new revelation about “homosexuals” that I don’t know about? Is it now good to have these attractions? They were banned before because of the danger it posed to other boys and also to the homosexual, which means they now feel that this danger is no longer present, hence the changing of the policy.

Can you provide us with reasons why young boys with homosexual tendencies are no longer a concern or danger to other boys? I can understand why homosexuals are less likely to be in danger of others due to our almost complete acceptance of the disorder in our culture.

Would someone honestly feel comfortable with letting their child hang out in the woods with another child that is an avowed pyromaniac or at least has a perverted orientation towards lighting fires. Wouldn’t we tell our beloved child that we would prefer he hang out with someone else that does not profess to having this disordered attraction?

You make good points. I think the key to understanding the argument that sees no problem with the political policy change is to down play everything and pretend it is no big deal. Do not ask deep questions.

 

[JimG]

I think this piece nicely explains my position:

Link

Well yes, thanks for the link. That article sort of sums it up.

 

[pnewton]

The BSA …attraction?

So did you have an answer? Why all the questions? Is this a game where all answers are now questions?

 

[JamesCaruso]

I think this piece nicely explains my position:

Link

 

[yellowbird]

Would someone honestly feel comfortable with letting their child hang out in the woods with another child that is an avowed pyromaniac or at least has a perverted orientation towards lighting fires. Wouldn’t we tell our beloved child that we would prefer he hang out with someone else that does not profess to having this disordered attraction?

I teach my children not judge people based on their sexual orientation. If my teenage child had a good friend who was gay it wouldn’t bother me in the least if they hung out in the woods or anywhere else. My kids have always picked nice friends. Why would I think they are suddenly imcapable of that? Or that the gay kid suddenly poses a threat?

My teenage daughter has good friend who is a boy - there is no attraction between the two - they are just the best of friends. They hang out all the time and I never worry that he’s going to try to make a move on her or vise versa. He’s a great guy - she’s a good girl. They are friends.

Everything isn’t about sex you know.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I teach my children not judge people based on their sexual orientation. If my teenage child had a good friend who was gay it wouldn’t bother me in the least if they hung out in the woods or anywhere else. My kids have always picked nice friends. Why would I think they are suddenly imcapable of that? Or that the gay kid suddenly poses a threat?

My teenage daughter has good friend who is a boy - there is no attraction between the two - they are just the best of friends. They hang out all the time and I never worry that he’s going to try to make a move on her or vise versa. He’s a great guy - she’s a good girl. They are friends.

Everything isn’t about sex you know.

I think you should trust your daughter one hundred percent, it sounds like she deserves it, and at the same time, as a parent I think you should keep both eyes wide open at all times.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Everything isn’t about sex you know.

Faithful and knowledgable Catholics do know it, as do balanced people with common sense. Others seem yet to understand that, or perhaps to accept it.