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

[Baelor]

You just changed your claim. You did not say “avowed” before.

I assumed you knew what you were talking about – the BSA banned all avowed homosexuals.

Yes, the BSA did ban avowed homosexuals but not all of them.

All avowed homosexuals were institutionally banned.

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.

From everyone, yes. The BSA had a policy that dictated conduct of Scouts in other spheres of their lives. To my knowledge, homosexuality was the only such policy in Scouting.

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.

Not at all. Are you so incredibly arrogant as to believe that you know exactly why every single homosexual in the world discloses or does not disclose his disordered attraction?

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

Context is everything. Someone randomly introducing himself as “John, a homosexual” is very different from someone disclosing his homosexuality in a discussion about sexual morality or living as a member of a stigmatized group.

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

Yes. My proof is that no one outside of these forums and in my life has every used “homosexual” to connote anything other than mere attraction.

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.

A schizophrenic suffers from schizophrenia. Why can a homosexual not suffer from homosexuality?

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.

Because never in my life have I heard the term SSA other than on these forums, and never in my life have I heard the term homosexual meant as anything other than sexual attraction. So there is no reason to say “I have SSA” because “I am gay” and “I am homosexual” have invariably meant the exact same thing but are less awkward and more clear to everyone I have ever met ever.

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

What makes the situations categorically different? You stated the following:

shocktrooper:

This is a form of equality and if the one being equaled to is normal

You did not define equality. The only connection I could glean was that equal rights were being extended to both groups. That is the case in many other areas. If you meant something different, perhaps you should explain.

 

[CopticChristian]

I assumed you knew what you were talking about – the BSA banned all avowed homosexuals.

All avowed homosexuals were institutionally banned.

From everyone, yes. The BSA had a policy that dictated conduct of Scouts in other spheres of their lives. To my knowledge, homosexuality was the only such policy in Scouting.

Context is everything. Someone randomly introducing himself as “John, a homosexual” is very different from someone disclosing his homosexuality in a discussion about sexual morality or living as a member of a stigmatized group.

What makes the situations categorically different? You stated the following:

You did not define equality. The only connection I could glean was that equal rights were being extended to both groups. That is the case in many other areas. If you meant something different, perhaps you should explain.

Not at all. Are you so incredibly arrogant as to believe that you know exactly why every single homosexual in the world discloses or does not disclose his disordered attraction?

The same is true for you when you claim based on who you know and what you know from these forums. Since you are not a Physician or mental health worker your exposure is limited.

Yes. My proof is that no one outside of these forums and in my life has every used “homosexual” to connote anything other than mere attraction.

This is no proof. This is empiricism that has value but only to you. I have and do declare that

male and female He created them
male/female can have ssa
male/female can have ssa and act on it and act homosexual
male/female can have ssa and act on it and act homosexual and accep this as a fait accompli that this is their life=gay

Homosexual in reality is the action and you insist otherwise causing difficulty in dialogue…

Whenever someone uses the word homosexual, anyone should ask…what do you mean by that…and if the answer is SSA, the response should be

Oh you mean you have SSA…

A schizophrenic suffers from schizophrenia. Why can a homosexual not suffer from homosexuality?

Well for one thing, you know little about, have not treated, have not been involved with Schizophrenics and most homosexuals would not be happy with your equating a mental disorder, ie Schizophrenia that is in the DSM and homosexuality having been removed from the DSM. You are way out of your league here.

Because never in my life have I heard the term SSA other than on these forums, and never in my life have I heard the term homosexual meant as anything other than sexual attraction. So there is no reason to say “I have SSA” because “I am gay” and “I am homosexual” have invariably meant the exact same thing but are less awkward and more clear to everyone I have ever met ever.

Because your expereince is limited, your understanding is limited and you should allow for others to have a point of view that differs from your myopic view.

 

[signit]

Yes. My proof is that no one outside of these forums and in my life has every used “homosexual” to connote anything other than mere attraction.

[edit]

Because never in my life have I heard the term SSA other than on these forums, and never in my life have I heard the term homosexual meant as anything other than sexual attraction. So there is no reason to say “I have SSA” because “I am gay” and “I am homosexual” have invariably meant the exact same thing but are less awkward and more clear to everyone I have ever met ever.

Me as well.

I always understood the terms “SSA” and “homosexual” or “homosexuality” to mean the same thing.

That’s another reason why I think this policy gets people up in arms. As I interpret it, it means someone won’t be kicked out for SSA. But when you say “avowed homosexuality” maybe in some people’s minds that means someone who commits sin, or advocates for it or promotes it.

 

[signit]

Homosexual in reality is the action and you insist otherwise causing difficulty in dialogue…

Whenever someone uses the word homosexual, anyone should ask…what do you mean by that…and if the answer is SSA, the response should be

Oh you mean you have SSA…

The important thing for this thread, though, is what the BSA means by it.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Because gays are evil and they might molest your children.

 

[CopticChristian]

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. 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.

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…).

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.

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.

**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. **

This is a legitmate statement and it refers to what you believe and the only way to distinguish the importance is to ask…so may I ask, do you believe that by saying American Catholic…you prioritize national allegiance…

No, let me explain, I should have said Catholic American and so as to be sure we understand each other let us go with that…

This would have solved the problem…and guaranteed further communication…

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…).

However you see there is not desire to clarify, only be correct…and here you attack…

 

[CopticChristian]

Me as well.

.

I always understood the terms “SSA” and “homosexual” or “homosexuality” to mean the same thing.

That’s another reason why I think this policy gets people up in arms. As I interpret it, it means someone won’t be kicked out for SSA. But when you say “avowed homosexuality” maybe in some people’s minds that means someone who commits sin, or advocates for it or promotes it

It really only matters to one person on this thread that it means what they want it to mean and will argue about it. It matters not what you understand. It matters what someone else understands if you want to communicate and why you and everyone else should always ask…

What do you mean by that? When you say SSA do you mean Homosexual?

Yes, I mean Homosexual.
No, I mean male/female with SSA that has not acted on it.
No, I mean male/female with SSA that is thinking of acting on it

I don’t believe Homosexuality is normal.

What do you mean by that.

I mean that someone with SSA is not normal.
I mean that someone with SSA that acts on it is not normal
I mean that someone with SSA that acts on it and believes that they are gay are not normal…

You will never communicate properly with anyone if you insisit on this means this or that and don’t ask…

What do you mean by that?

 

[CopticChristian]

The important thing for this thread, though, is what the BSA means by it.

I agree. I believe that it goes without saying that were not talking about anyone with SSA when it is stated “openly gay” membership…I doubt that anyone would consider that this is a Catholic boy, struggling with SSA, celibate, seeing Dr. Nicolosi, working with Courage, attending mass and the sacraments.

 

[meltzerboy]

We are having this conversation for a reason.

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.

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

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

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

I agree with Baelor about the use of these terms. No gay person I know says they have same-sex attraction. They don’t even use the term “homosexual” nowadays either, but rather describe their sexual identity (meaning attraction) as gay. Of course that doesn’t mean they think of themselves ONLY as gay since, just like straight people, there is much more to who they are. One suggestion in this regard: instead of saying “I am a homosexual” why not say “I am homosexual,” omitting the article and transforming the word into an adjective. Ordinarily people do this when they say "I am Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, White, Black, Asian, Latino. It is less pejorative and stark that way and also takes into account the fact this domain of their lives is not the only one.

 

[CopticChristian]

I agree with you, Baelor, about the use of these terms. No gay person I know says they have same-sex attraction. They don’t even use the term “homosexual” nowadays either, but rather describe their sexual identity (meaning attraction) as gay. Of course that doesn’t mean they think of themselves ONLY as gay since, just like straight people, there is much more to who they are. One suggestion in this regard: instead of saying “I am a homosexual” why not instead say “I am homosexual,” omitting the article and transforming the word into an adjective. Ordinarily people do this when they say "I am Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, White, Black, Asian, Latino. It is less pejorative and stark that way and also takes into account the fact this domain of their lives is not the only one.

Meltz,

"I am Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, White, Black, Asian, Latino.

You would agree that these nominalizations are identifiers in the context of a question. I do not nor would I imagine you running around greeting people…

Hi, my name is Coptic, I am Catholic…

Hi, my name is Meltz, I am Jewish…

the article is used in reference to a question and sometimes is used and sometimes not…

Hey are you Christian, oh yeah…what kind…I am Catholic or I am a Catholic are both correct…one is inclusive and the other is declarative…

To say you are Jewish is a personal declarative and to say you are a Jew is inclusive and declarative.

So I would disagree with your shortening the article from the statement…as it relates to the context of the declaration…

 

[JamesCaruso]

There are plenty of gay/lesbian Catholics who live by church teaching that are open about their sexuality. It isn’t all about sex. Honestly, in many ways it just makes life easier. I think we also provide another perspective to other Catholics and Christians in general about how the “anti-homosexual” comments actually come across. I often get offended from what I read about homosexuals on this board and I agree with church teaching.

It is not just about supporting the so-called “homosexual agenda”.

I can see what you say with regard to homosexuals who have been openly practicing a gay lifestyle, then returned to the Church and are trying to live according to the faith. They might be found in gay support groups within the Church, and they are openly seeking help to overcome sin due to SSA. But I have never met a homosexual who never practiced an openly gay life style self-identify. I can see the possibility, but unless they are seeking help to overcome sin due to SSA, I cannot see the wisdom of doing so. It would be like starting a “masturbation support group,” which may exist, but I have never heard of one. The latter is a much more common sexual problem, and gravely sinful, yet no one goes around claiming to be someone who masturbates, for what I think are obvious reasons. In the case of boy scouts, which is what we were talking about, I find it even more remote that a boy who is not practicing an openly gay lifestyle would declare openly that they are gay. Heck, at their age, I don’t think we should even allow them to make such a declaration, since they are too young IMO to make such a determination in all the confusion of the hormonal changes they are going through.

 

[yellowbird]

I agree. I believe that it goes without saying that were not talking about anyone with SSA when it is stated “openly gay” membership…I doubt that anyone would consider that this is a Catholic boy, struggling with SSA, celibate, seeing Dr. Nicolosi, working with Courage, attending mass and the sacraments.

You give people too much credit. Suppose this struggling Catholic boy was found out and pegged as the gay kid. Even though he’s exactly as you described, don’t you think the majority of the posters on this thread would object to this boy to sleeping in the same tent with their son?

I know they would.

 

[CopticChristian]

I can see what you say with regard to homosexuals who have been openly practicing a gay lifestyle, then returned to the Church and are trying to live according to the faith. They might be found in gay support groups within the Church, and they are openly seeking help to overcome sin due to SSA. But I have never met a homosexual who never practiced an openly gay life style self-identify. I can see the possibility, but unless they are seeking help to overcome sin due to SSA, I cannot see the wisdom of doing so. It would be like starting a “masturbation support group,” which may exist, but I have never heard of one. The latter is a much more common sexual problem, and gravely sinful, yet no one goes around claiming to be someone who masturbates, for what I think are obvious reasons. In the case of boy scouts, which is what we were talking about, I find it even more remote that a boy who is not practicing an openly gay lifestyle would declare openly that they are gay. Heck, at their age, I don’t think we should even allow them to make such a declaration, since they are too young IMO to make such a determination in all the confusion of the hormonal changes they are going through.

This is the typical introduction I used to see at Protestant Churches…and is a hold over from the Scarlet Letter mentality and 12 step religion of AA., also with Protestant roots…

Hi, my name is John…and I was an Adulterer till I found Jesus
Hi, my name is John…and I found Jesus, before I was an addict
Hi, my name is John…I used to be gay until I found Jesus…

 

[signit]

I agree. I believe that it goes without saying that were not talking about anyone with SSA when it is stated “openly gay” membership…I doubt that anyone would consider that this is a Catholic boy, struggling with SSA, celibate, seeing Dr. Nicolosi, working with Courage, attending mass and the sacraments.

scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Status.aspx

They use the phrase “sexual orientation or preference.”

I would interpret that as SSA.

I have opposite-sex attraction, and I would call that my “sexual orientation or preference.” My status in that regard does not say anything one way or another about whether I sin or I plan to sin.

 

[CopticChristian]

You give people too much credit. Suppose this struggling Catholic boy was found out and pegged as the gay kid. Even though he’s exactly as you described, don’t you think the majority of the posters on this thread would object to this boy to sleeping in the same tent with their son?

I know they would.

What would there be to be found out unless the kid spilled the beans. If the kid had a support group, having been counseled wisely by family, therapist, priest…there is no reason to say anything to anyone other than…

I am Catholic and I struggle with sin…or I struggle with my emotions…or I struggle with my Life in Christ…

 

[Baelor]

The same is true for you when you claim based on who you know and what you know from these forums. Since you are not a Physician or mental health worker your exposure is limited.

I am a human being who interacts with other human beings. A physician or psychologist has no more authority in determining how the individuals they meet use language than I do, since it is purely anecdotal and the issue in question has nothing to do with the expertise of the aforementioned professionals.

This is no proof. This is empiricism that has value but only to you. I have

Really? Where? Provide said proof. Until you do, I have only the proof of my own experience, which I can vouch for based on obvious grounds.

Homosexual in reality is the action and you insist otherwise causing difficulty in dialogue…

Homosexual (adj): (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.
Homosexual (n.): a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

From the Oxford Dictionary.

The earliest uses of the word all connote sexual attraction and NOT sexual action, also listed in the OED.

So please stop talking nonsense. In the kindest way possible, we have had this conversation before. “Homosexual” has no “reality” beyond empirical reality. It can mean anything speakers want it to. It may mean what we would call “lamp” in a thousand years. Words have no intrinsic value (except in onomatopoeic cases, etc.), only assigned value.

Therefore, empiricism is indeed the correct method here. The dictionary supports me. The earliest uses of the word support me. My own experience supports me. Nothing in any way anywhere suggests that I am wrong in asserting that “homosexual” as a noun means anything other than sexual attraction. In fact, the dictionaries do not even include a secondary definition suggesting action.

I have said all there is to be said on this count.

Whenever someone uses the word homosexual, anyone should ask…what do you mean by that…and if the answer is SSA, the response should be

Oh you mean you have SSA…

No, they mean they are homosexual. There is no ambiguity.

Well for one thing, you know little about, have not treated, have not been involved with Schizophrenics and most homosexuals would not be happy with your equating a mental disorder, ie Schizophrenia that is in the DSM and homosexuality having been removed from the DSM. You are way out of your league here.

Not at all, because the connection is not based on the erroneous suggestion that they are both mental disorders, but rather states of existence. The comparison holds. You seem to have issues with understanding points of comparison, so do not even bother replying.

Because your expereince is limited, your understanding is limited and you should allow for others to have a point of view that differs from your myopic view.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

However you see there is not desire to clarify, only be correct…and here you attack…

I did clarify.

It really only matters to one person on this thread that it means what they want it to mean and will argue about it. It matters not what you understand. It matters what someone else understands if you want to communicate and why you and everyone else should always ask…

What do you mean by that? When you say SSA do you mean Homosexual?

Yes, I mean Homosexual.
No, I mean male/female with SSA that has not acted on it.
No, I mean male/female with SSA that is thinking of acting on it

There is no need. When someone says, “I am a homosexual,” I know what it means.

 

[CopticChristian]

scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Status.aspx

They use the phrase “sexual orientation or preference.”

I would interpret that as SSA.

I have opposite-sex attraction, and I would call that my “sexual orientation or preference.” My status in that regard does not say anything one way or another about whether I sin or I plan to sin.

Read between the lines…

Sexual orientation=Essentialism=born that way=God created me gay

or

preference is vague, ambiguous and why would anyone have to know about preference unless someone said…“I have a preference for my same sex”…what child in their proper mind would be counseled to say this if they…

were Catholic, celibate, struggling, seeing Dr. Nicolosi, had a supportive family, priest and congregation…why would this child have to say anything when joining the scouts…?

 

[meltzerboy]

Meltz,

You would agree that these nominalizations are identifiers in the context of a question. I do not nor would I imagine you running around greeting people…

Hi, my name is Coptic, I am Catholic…

Hi, my name is Meltz, I am Jewish…

the article is used in reference to a question and sometimes is used and sometimes not…

Hey are you Christian, oh yeah…what kind…I am Catholic or I am a Catholic are both correct…one is inclusive and the other is declarative…

To say you are Jewish is a personal declarative and to say you are a Jew is inclusive and declarative.

So I would disagree with your shortening the article from the statement…as it relates to the context of the declaration…

Yes, indeed, it does relate to the context and it is generally an answer to a question. However, it seems to me that saying “I am a homosexual,” including the article, would be done EITHER if one were making a social or political statement in affirmation to a question whose intentions are less than kind OR if one has some deep-seated self-loathing about their sexual identity. It would be similar to thinking of oneself or stating that “I am a Jew,” for example, rather than the more common “I am Jewish.”

With regard to the BSA, wasn’t the previous ban on gay boys based on their (perceived) sexual orientation and not merely their behavior? If so, do you think it is the morally right thing to do to exclude boys based ONLY on appearances, rumors, or sexual orientation without any proof of homosexual activity?

 

[Baelor]

What would there be to be found out unless the kid spilled the beans. If the kid had a support group, having been counseled wisely by family, therapist, priest…there is no reason to say anything to anyone other than…

I am Catholic and I struggle with sin…or I struggle with my emotions…or I struggle with my Life in Christ…

There is no need so say anything, just as there is no need to do anything other than sleep, eat, and breathe if one wants to eke out a physical existence. That does not mean that we should not do other things. There may be cases in which it would be beneficial to outright state that a person is homosexual.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am a human being who interacts with other human beings. A physician or psychologist has no more authority in determining how the individuals they meet use language than I do, since it is purely anecdotal and the issue in question has nothing to do with the expertise of the aforementioned professionals.

Really? Where? Provide said proof. Until you do, I have only the proof of my own experience, which I can vouch for based on obvious grounds.

Not at all, because the connection is not based on the erroneous suggestion that they are both mental disorders, but rather states of existence. The comparison holds. You seem to have issues with understanding points of comparison, so do not even bother replying.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

I did clarify.

There is no need. When someone says, “I am a homosexual,” I know what it means.

Quote:
This is no proof. This is empiricism that has value but only to you. I have

Really? Where? Provide said proof. Until you do, I have only the proof of my own experience, which I can vouch for based on obvious grounds.

Your own experience=empiricism

Homosexual (adj): (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.
Homosexual (n.): a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

From the Oxford Dictionary.

The earliest uses of the word all connote sexual attraction and NOT sexual action, also listed in the OED.

So please stop talking nonsense. In the kindest way possible, we have had this conversation before. “Homosexual” has no “reality” beyond empirical reality. It can mean anything speakers want it to. It may mean what we would call “lamp” in a thousand years. Words have no intrinsic value (except in onomatopoeic cases, etc.), only assigned value.

Therefore, empiricism is indeed the correct method here. The dictionary supports me. The earliest uses of the word support me. My own experience supports me. Nothing in any way anywhere suggests that I am wrong in asserting that “homosexual” as a noun means anything other than sexual attraction. In fact, the dictionaries do not even include a secondary definition suggesting action.

I have said all there is to be said on this count.

No, they mean they are homosexual. There is no ambiguity.

You would not do well in the field of Medicine or Behavioral Science. You would do well in the University of Google.