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

[Corki]

N

Furthermore, identifying as gay =/= being involved in any sort of activism.

And yet, what was the very first thing we heard about after the BSA made the change? Before the ink was even dry, there were pictures of “Boy Scouts” marching in uniform at a “Gay” pride parade.

It may be that as we move into 2014, when the BSA change really takes effect, that such activity could still get a person kicked out but just admitting to homosexuality wouldn’t. However, the indications are that troops and their sponsors will be forced to accept the whole can of worms or go elsewhere.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why do you think the BSA bans boys and girls from tenting and showering together?

Do you think they feel that inappropriate actions might happen and are making an effort to combat it.

Or do you think they feel that the girls might simply be androphobes and object to showering with boys?

This is a mildly amusing aspect of this whole sordid business. Heterosexual boys and girls are PRESUMBED to be unable to tent or shower together without getting sexually involved somehow, while homosexuals are PRESUMED to be sexually chaste.

 

[edwest2]

To stay in BSA is to be a tool of the homoactivists who have won this first battle, over the objections of 70% of the scouting membership. The BSA has no regard for its members’ views; has engaged in a lying, manipulative campaign to gain this change, and there is zero reason to expect that it will end with this first step. After all, the game plan of all revolutionaries is to get people to agree with incremental, relatively inoffensive steps, which eventually lead to their ultimate goal, in this case, the homosexualization of scouting, or in the alternative, the destruction of this organization which until now was one of the very few institutions to tell the truth about homosexuality, and thus forbade their participation in the program.

Even from a Catholic viewpoint, allowing a self-identified homosexual youth into the program is wrong, because while acting on the impulses is immoral, even having the attraction is disordered, and such a youth needs help and counselling, not to be put into a situation where temptation will be rife.

You are exactly right. And now gay activists are forcing the scouts to accept gay adults as leaders and mentors. That is the game plan of all revolutionaries, start small, then take the next, in this case, openly declared step.

Sad. Sad that people don’t see and understand.

Ed

 

[Baelor]

And yet, what was the very first thing we heard about after the BSA made the change? Before the ink was even dry, there were pictures of “Boy Scouts” marching in uniform at a “Gay” pride parade.

While I find gay pride parades repulsive, there was nothing stopping Scouts from doing that before once they turned 18, so it is not as if the policy has changed that.

That being said, I do not like the current policy. I see no reason whatsoever for sexuality to be discussed or mentioned in the BSA. That would include using status as a Scout to promote or legitimize anything sexual (whether the person is a part of the NOM or a gay activist). But the BSA policy inappropriately singled out gay Scouts, some of whom are more sexually moral than some current Scouts, like the ones who talk about their colorful sex lives.

 

[Baelor]

This is a mildly amusing aspect of this whole sordid business. Heterosexual boys and girls are PRESUMBED to be unable to tent or shower together without getting sexually involved somehow, while homosexuals are PRESUMED to be sexually chaste.

Not quite. I do not think anyone is assuming that homosexuals are chaste, but rather that most males and females are heterosexual (so the odds of “attraction” if they tent together are high) while a minority are homosexual (so pairing a gay Scout with another random Scout is unlikely to produce a pair of gay Scouts in a tent).

 

[Corki]

Logical fallacy. No one is calling for impeccability, but the BSA does not align with the Church institutionally, so why should its specific policies be subject to the Church’s teachings?

Actually, it does align institutionally. The BSA has for decades actively sought sponsorships from parishes, dioceses, and various other churches. Up until know, the sponsors have been free to “flavor” the troop with their own teachings. Boy scouts in a Methodist sponsored troop in my home town attended Sunday service in uniform, volunteered at the church and even earned badges associated with the church. Same thing with the Catholic parish sponsored groups.

From the reports that I have read, the question for Catholics is whether parishes and diocese that sponsor Boy Scout troops should back away from sponsorship. They aren’t “condemning” the Boy Scouts as the OP’s title suggests. They are simply saying that it would be hypocritical to continue to support a group that will put Church leaders and Scout troop leaders in the position of having to choose Church or Scouts. They aren’t saying “no Catholic should be a Boy Scout” or “buying BSA popcorn is a sin”. But there is a real problem with a Catholic entity sponsoring a group that advocates (as in the case I cited above with the “gay” pride parade) something that stands so drastically against the Church.

 

[shocktrooper]

I may feel shame about my naturally quick temper. Does sharing this information suddenly mean that I am “accepting of it?”

Talk about a non sequitur.

Would you be lobbying to have a “naturally quick temper” be accepted as normal by a private or religious institution, or just mention it in passing with a confidant?

So you do acknowledge that a homosexual who identifies as such is not actually restricting or collapsing his identity to that plane alone. Are you a Catholic? A man? A woman? Married? Single?

In reality, they are more than a homosexual. However, by them labeling themselves this way, they show the priority of being a homosexual is to them by elevating it above all other attributes. Again, they are choosing to identify themselves with a sin or a disordered lifestyle. How is this good for anyone?

As others have mentioned, the BSA ruling simply seeks to make normal what is not. Why else would this change in policy even be needed? Homosexuals already admit to homosexuals being in the Scouts already. They simply want it accepted by all as normal.

Should “alcoholics” now petition the BSA to allow openly professed “alcoholics” to join, or maybe boys that openly profess to having a sexual attraction towards wild animals?

 

[shocktrooper]

This is a mildly amusing aspect of this whole sordid business. Heterosexual boys and girls are PRESUMED to be unable to tent or shower together without getting sexually involved somehow, while homosexuals are PRESUMED to be sexually chaste.

Good point.

 

[Baelor]

Actually, it does align institutionally.

No, it does not. The BSA is not institutionally Catholic, and does not enforce the same morality that the Church does.

The BSA has for decades actively sought sponsorships from parishes, dioceses, and various other churches. Up until know, the sponsors have been free to “flavor” the troop with their own teachings. Boy scouts in a Methodist sponsored troop in my home town attended Sunday service in uniform, volunteered at the church and even earned badges associated with the church. Same thing with the Catholic parish sponsored groups.

The fact that there is a Methodist-sponsored troop at all proves my point.

They are simply saying that it would be hypocritical to continue to support a group that will put Church leaders and Scout troop leaders in the position of having to choose Church or Scouts.

I do not see how the current policy necessitates that choice.

But there is a real problem with a Catholic entity sponsoring a group that advocates (as in the case I cited above with the “gay” pride parade) something that stands so drastically against the Church.

Are they, though?

Would you be lobbying to have a “naturally quick temper” be accepted as normal by a private or religious institution, or just mention it in passing with a confidant?

The current policy bans gay Scouts. Those gay Scouts may not be doing anything morally wrong. Your question is therefore irrelevant since my comparison relates to any gay Scouts, not only those who are essentially lobbyists.

In reality, they are more than a homosexual. However, by them labeling themselves this way, they show the priority of being a homosexual is to them by elevating it above all other attributes.

Again, no. The fact that I in certain contexts say that I am an American does not mean I am prioritizing that identification over all others.

Again, they are choosing to identify themselves with a sin or a disordered lifestyle. How is this good for anyone?

They are not identifying with sin or a disordered lifestyle. They are stating that they suffer from a disorder.

As others have mentioned, the BSA ruling simply seeks to make normal what is not.

Where does the BSA policy state that homosexuality is normal?

Why else would this change in policy even be needed? Homosexuals already admit to homosexuals being in the Scouts already. They simply want it accepted by all as normal.

I would refrain from guessing the motivations of individuals you do not know. The BSA has provided a statement about the policy change. It is clear that some individuals wanted the change for the reasons you have mentioned. That does not mean that the decision was made for those reasons.

Should “alcoholics” now petition the BSA to allow openly professed “alcoholics” to join, or maybe boys that openly profess to having a sexual attraction towards wild animals?

I do not know. Given that abortion doctors can profess their occupation in the BSA, why should other sinners not have the same rights?

 

[shocktrooper]

No, it does not. The BSA is not institutionally Catholic, and does not enforce the same morality that the Church does.

The fact that there is a Methodist-sponsored troop at all proves my point.

I agree with you here, which is why I think the Catholic Church should forbid any association with an organization that promotes, endorses or normalizes anything contrary to Church teaching. This goes for charities that feed the poor out one door and then pushes condoms out another.

The current policy bans gay Scouts. Those gay Scouts may not be doing anything morally wrong. Your question is therefore irrelevant since my comparison relates to any gay Scouts, not only those who are essentially lobbyists.

Not true. A gay boy was able to join as long as it was unknown to BSA. The policy change only made permissible the gays to come out of hiding.

Again, no. The fact that I in certain contexts say that I am an American does not mean I am prioritizing that identification over all others.

I agree, but… If you are asked what country you come from and what your faith is, and you answer “American Catholic”, then you do prioritize your national allegiance over your faith. If it is the opposite, then you identify yourself first as a Catholic, then as an American.

The point is that everything about homosexuals seem to revolve around their sex lives. This is unique to them alone. Sexual orientation should never be used to identify oneself with unless they are asked specifically by someone that has a good reason to know the answer.

 

[Estevao]

Christian Service Brigade it is.

I’d figure that most Catholics, given the sexual abuse scandal that the church has experienced in the past few decades, would be opposed to allowing 17 year old men who identify as gay to sleep together in the same tent as 12 year old boys.

Plus this move is going to inevitably allow for openly homosexual men to join the scouts as leaders.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not quite. I do not think anyone is assuming that homosexuals are chaste, but rather that most males and females are heterosexual (so the odds of “attraction” if they tent together are high) while a minority are homosexual (so pairing a gay Scout with another random Scout is unlikely to produce a pair of gay Scouts in a tent).

No. It is presumed that one should not put a girl and a boy in a tent because there may be at least an attempt (and usually just an attempt) at sexual interaction, but titillation no matter what. However, putting a homosexual in a tent with a person of the same sex is presumed not to do the same things.

There is an assumption of superior chastity on the part of the homosexual. We have gone beyond “equality” to an assumption of superiority in virtue on the part of homosexuals.

Going beyond that, we would all acknowledge that no girl should be obliged to tent or shower with a boy. Forcing her to do so, we would all acknowledge, is a deprivation of her rights as a human being and reasonably offensive, perhaps even criminal. And yet, the heterosexual boy is to be obliged to tent or shower with an overtly homosexual boy and can’t object to it.

Assumption of superior rights on the part of the homosexual. It’s as plain as plain gets.

 

[Tigg]

The BSA is not a Catholic organization. Parents can react as they will; but viewing this policy change as any failure on the part of BSA is a disturbing perspective because the BSA had no moral authority in the first place.

I was responding to the question as it appears in the thread title to a poster who identifies as Catholic. Our faith life is not just Sunday Mass, but encompasses daily life.

 

[shocktrooper]

They are not identifying with sin or a disordered lifestyle. They are stating that they suffer from a disorder.

There are better ways to make this claim on their part. I find it interesting, in light of this, how heresies are almost always named after the heretic.

Where does the BSA policy state that homosexuality is normal?

Well, heterosexuality is normal and the policy was made so that homosexual scouts would have the same standing on all levels as heterosexual scouts in the BSA. This is a form of equality and if the one being equaled to is normal, then so becomes the other.

What do you think is going to happen when a “gay” scout graduates and then wants to become a scout leader? Any guesses?

 

[Baelor]

I agree with you here, which is why I think the Catholic Church should forbid any association with an organization that promotes, endorses or normalizes anything contrary to Church teaching. This goes for charities that feed the poor out one door and then pushes condoms out another.

The BSA does not institutionally promote or endorse or normalize anything contrary to Church teaching, at least to my knowledge. But in general, yes, at least within reason (e.g. are American citizens compelled morally to renounce citizenship)?

Not true. A gay boy was able to join as long as it was unknown to BSA. The policy change only made permissible the gays to come out of hiding.

Not true. The BSA prohibits avowed homosexuals. It does not state that that avowal must occur within the BSA sphere. If I am an avowed homosexual but never mention it at any BSA event, I could still be expelled.

I agree, but… If you are asked what country you come from and what your faith is, and you answer “American Catholic”, then you do prioritize your national allegiance over your faith.

No, because I do not think in those terms. You are attempting to project your own linguistic or psychological processes on others. Please recognize that some people may just give such answers in alphabetical order, or in the order of questions asked (you did ask what country before what faith…).

If it is the opposite, then you identify yourself first as a Catholic, then as an American.

Yes, chronologically, since I answered “Catholic” first. That does not mean that one identity is more important than the other simply because I mentioned it first.

The point is that everything about homosexuals seem to revolve around their sex lives. This is unique to them alone. Sexual orientation should never be used to identify oneself with unless they are asked specifically by someone that has a good reason to know the answer.

And you are not in a position to assess whether every circumstance in the world qualifies as a compelling one for disclosing homosexuality. Again, “homosexual” often means nothing more than sexual attraction to the same sex.

 

[Baelor]

No. It is presumed that one should not put a girl and a boy in a tent because there may be at least an attempt (and usually just an attempt) at sexual interaction, but titillation no matter what. However, putting a homosexual in a tent with a person of the same sex is presumed not to do the same things.

Because the other person of the same sex is not likely to be homosexual. Whereas two persons of different sexes are likely to be heterosexual (just as two random people of the same sex are likely to be heterosexual).

There is an assumption of superior chastity on the part of the homosexual. We have gone beyond “equality” to an assumption of superiority in virtue on the part of homosexuals.

Again, no – I already explained why ot above.

Going beyond that, we would all acknowledge that no girl should be obliged to tent or shower with a boy.

No one should be obliged to tent with any other person, period.

Forcing her to do so, we would all acknowledge, is a deprivation of her rights as a human being and reasonably offensive, perhaps even criminal.

Again, true of any individual.

And yet, the heterosexual boy is to be obliged to tent or shower with an overtly homosexual boy and can’t object to it.

Sure he can. But he should not unless he has particular reason to believe that tenting will be an issue.

 

[Baelor]

I was responding to the question as it appears in the thread title to a poster who identifies as Catholic. Our faith life is not just Sunday Mass, but encompasses daily life.

Indeed.

 

[Baelor]

There are better ways to make this claim on their part.

I think that “I am a homosexual” is a pretty succinct way to describe the disorder. Do you have any other suggestions?

Well, heterosexuality is normal and the policy was made so that homosexual scouts would have the same standing on all levels as heterosexual scouts in the BSA. This is a form of equality and if the one being equaled to is normal, then so becomes the other.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are both allowed to vote. Are you saying that equality is being forced in that case as well?

What do you think is going to happen when a “gay” scout graduates and then wants to become a scout leader? Any guesses?

The BSA should not be about sexuality. If the sexuality of the gay leader is private (which I recognize is not mandated by the current policy), what would your issue be?

 

[shocktrooper]

The BSA does not institutionally promote or endorse or normalize anything contrary to Church teaching, at least to my knowledge. But in general, yes, at least within reason (e.g. are American citizens compelled morally to renounce citizenship)?

We are having this conversation for a reason.

Not true. The BSA prohibits avowed homosexuals. It does not state that that avowal must occur within the BSA sphere. If I am an avowed homosexual but never mention it at any BSA event, I could still be expelled.

You just changed your claim. You did not say “avowed” before. Yes, the BSA did ban avowed homosexuals but not all of them. I did not say you had to confess it or act on it at a BSA function. If a homosexual boy wanted to join the BSA, prior to the policy change, he could have done so. He would have just had to keep it secret. But here we now get back to are those with SSA homosexuals. A person with just SSA would have no problem keeping it a secret. But a person that is a “homosexual” has a problem with this because their actions expose them, making their secret harder to keep.

No, because I do not think in those terms. You are attempting to project your own linguistic or psychological processes on others. Please recognize that some people may just give such answers in alphabetical order, or in the order of questions asked (you did ask what country before what faith…).

I think there is more to it than that but I see your point.

Yes, chronologically, since I answered “Catholic” first. That does not mean that one identity is more important than the other simply because I mentioned it first.

Again, I think how one identifies himself is very telling.

Again, “homosexual” often means nothing more than sexual attraction to the same sex.

By “often”, are you implying this is the majority situation because I think you would be hard pressed to prove it.

 

[shocktrooper]

I think that “I am a homosexual” is a pretty succinct way to describe the disorder. Do you have any other suggestions?

Yes, since “homosexual” can have many different understandings, as you point out in other posts. Do you not see the problem with saying, “I am a homosexual” when describing a disorder? No one asked to describe the person but the disorder.

How about saying, “I have SSA”, if one only has same sex attraction? Why use “homosexual” when it can and mean more than one just having SSA.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are both allowed to vote. Are you saying that equality is being forced in that case as well?

Are you saying that voting and sexual behavior are of the same moral weight?