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

[yellowbird]

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…

Let’s suppose the family does not like secrets - the mom confides in family members who talk about it in front of the cousins - who tell neighborhood kids, and the poor kid is outed. Is this really so hard to imagine?

Now I ask you, given how you described him - struggling with SSA, receiving counseling, going to mass, etc. etc. Do posters let their son tent with him?

Not a chance. They avoid him like the plague.

Because nobody cares about the sins YOU struggle with - they do too. It’s the homosexual everyone wants to stone. Well, maybe not when he’s “struggling” but for sure when he falls into sin…

 

[yellowbird]

Your own experience=empiricism

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

How rude and disrespectful.

 

[Baelor]

Your own experience=empiricism

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

Thanks for admitting you were wrong. We all know exactly why you did not produce a substantive response.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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).

So what? We would not expect a girl to undress in front of a homosexual boy at all, despite the fact the boy would be disinterested. But we would expect the heterosexual boy to do it despite the fact that the homosexual boy might well be interested.

I’m not thinking about whether the other boy is or isn’t a homosexual from the standpoint of putting a “romantic pair” together, but the fact that one is asking a boy to undress in front of a person who might well have a sexual interest, and a perverted one at that. I think that’s a horrible thing to do to a boy.

 

[shocktrooper]

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

I already knew the BSA banned ALL avowed homosexuals. But you said ALL were banned, which means ALL, even those not avowed. It is called “don’t ask”, “don’t tell”.

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?

I never claimed to know these things. Can you try not to make this personal?

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.

I think people parading their homosexuality in the streets is a way of voicing their identity. And those that seek to have their lifestyle accepted and normalized like heterosexuals in every faucet of life speaks volumes. I don’t remember a flag or special rainbows being designed to represent heterosexual people.

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.

Seems like you have never been to New Orleans. Most of the “homosexual” bars are there for interaction between homosexuals. They are not there as a meeting spot for “homosexual anonymous” meetings, hoping for conversions.

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

They can but the term still implies they are active, or at least can. A schizophrenic is always a schizophrenic. There is no remedy as far as I know. A homosexual can stop acting on it and just have SSA.

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.

The simple act of voting or desiring to vote is morally acceptable. Homosexuality being treated as normal is not morally permissible.

 

[Baelor]

So what? We would not expect a girl to undress in front of a homosexual boy at all, despite the fact the boy would be disinterested. But we would expect the heterosexual boy to do it despite the fact that the homosexual boy might well be interested.

I am not convinced “we” would expect a heterosexual boy to undress in front of a homosexual boy, or anyone else for that matter.

I’m not thinking about whether the other boy is or isn’t a homosexual from the standpoint of putting a “romantic pair” together, but the fact that one is asking a boy to undress in front of a person who might well have a sexual interest, and a perverted one at that. I think that’s a horrible thing to do to a boy.

The fact that it is perverse is obviously irrelevant to the moral issues in this scenario. I have been in Scouting for about ten years. Never once did I undress in front of anyone else. Please help me understand.

 

[meltzerboy]

So what? We would not expect a girl to undress in front of a homosexual boy at all, despite the fact the boy would be disinterested. But we would expect the heterosexual boy to do it despite the fact that the homosexual boy might well be interested.

I’m not thinking about whether the other boy is or isn’t a homosexual from the standpoint of putting a “romantic pair” together, but the fact that one is asking a boy to undress in front of a person who might well have a sexual interest, and a perverted one at that. I think that’s a horrible thing to do to a boy.

What would you suggest in the case of bisexual boys? Or essentially straight boys who may be “curious”? How should we screen boys to make sure they are 100% straight before joining the BSA? It’s behavior that counts, NOT same-sex attraction or sexual orientation.

 

[edwest2]

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?

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?

Exactly right. Normalizing the behavior is the goal.

Peace,
Ed

 

[shocktrooper]

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.

This is a great point that needs to be stressed.

 

[Baelor]

I already knew the BSA banned ALL avowed homosexuals. But you said ALL were banned, which means ALL, even those not avowed. It is called “don’t ask”, “don’t tell”.

Understood.

I never claimed to know these things. Can you try not to make this personal?

Then I am sure you retract your general claim about divulging one’s homosexuality.

I think people parading their homosexuality in the streets is a way of voicing their identity. And those that seek to have their lifestyle accepted and normalized like heterosexuals in every faucet of life speaks volumes. I don’t remember a flag or special rainbows being designed to represent heterosexual people.

I do not remember when every gay person started parading his homosexuality in the streets, brandishing flags.

Seems like you have never been to New Orleans. Most of the “homosexual” bars are there for interaction between homosexuals. They are not there as a meeting spot for “homosexual anonymous” meetings, hoping for conversions.

So? The patrons are still homosexuals, i.e. persons attracted to the same sex. The fact that the frequenters of those bars happen to want sex (if they do) does not mean that all homosexuals do.

They can but the term still implies they are active, or at least can.

I will go by my own experience and the dictionaries. You are welcome to go by your own experience.

A schizophrenic is always a schizophrenic. There is no remedy as far as I know. A homosexual can stop acting on it and just have SSA.

Nope, because homosexual = SSA to everyone I have ever met outside of these forums and to all dictionaries I know.

The simple act of voting or desiring to vote is morally acceptable. Homosexuality being treated as normal is not morally permissible.

I cannot respond to you if you keep changing your argument. Your original statement, if you acknowledge a logical connection between your statements, is that admission of gay Scouts is tantamount to treating homosexuality as heterosexuality. Did you mean something else, yes or no?

 

[Baelor]

This is a great point that needs to be stressed.

No, it does not. This ties back to my earlier statement, which you claimed was too “personal.” Do you or do you not believe that you are able to judge the motives of individuals you have never met?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Jesus does not share your view. He welcomed sinners.

I use the word “advocates” in the sense of one who endorses or champions. Jesus does not welcome anyone who “advocates” sin, and that includes SS sex. His welcome is contingent on our turning away from sin, that is, no longer advocating sin. Jesus welcomes sinners who wish to repent, not sinners who want both to continue sinning and be friends with him, which is precisely the false construct that the actively gay “Christian” community is trying to establish. A person may not be able to stop sinning, but if they want to stop, that is, if they no longer “advocate” sin, Jesus welcomes them. Neither Jesus nor the Catholic Church invites people who want to continue disregarding his commandments. He invites us to take up our cross and follow him. Anyone, he says, who does not take up his cross is not worthy of him. One’s cross is first and foremost being willing to give up serious sin in their life. It is more than that, but that is the very least requirement for becoming a Christian. So please don’t tell me that Jesus welcomes everyone, even those who are unwilling to part with sin. That’s what got us into trouble in the first place. Jesus came to save us from sin, not so we could keep on sinning.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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 is tempted to masturbate, 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.

 

[shocktrooper]

I do not remember when every gay person started parading his homosexuality in the streets, brandishing flags.

Me either.

So? The patrons are still homosexuals, i.e. persons attracted to the same sex. The fact that the frequenters of those bars happen to want sex (if they do) does not mean that all homosexuals do.

People with merely SSA do not go to a gay bar. When it comes to sexual sins, one is never to put themselves in a situation that will cause or tempt them to fall.

I will agree that one can use SSA and homosexuality as a synonym based off text book definitions but I belief reality gives us a better understanding of what people mean when they actually use the words.

I will go by my own experience and the dictionaries. You are welcome to go by your own experience.

thank you

Nope, because homosexual = SSA to everyone I have ever met outside of these forums and to all dictionaries I know.

But homosexuality does not always mean mere SSA.

What do you call a person that has SSA and is actively living a homosexual lifestyle?

I cannot respond to you if you keep changing your argument. Your original statement, if you acknowledge a logical connection between your statements, is that admission of gay Scouts is tantamount to treating homosexuality as heterosexuality. Did you mean something else, yes or no?

Look past the text of the policy and look at how pro-homosexuals are acknowledging this as a victory and just the beginning. It does not take Elijah to figure out where this is heading. You have already witnessed the normalization of homosexuality by the “science” community.

 

[shocktrooper]

No, it does not. This ties back to my earlier statement, which you claimed was too “personal.” Do you or do you not believe that you are able to judge the motives of individuals you have never met?

I DO NOT believe I can judge the motives of individuals. However, I do believe in prudential judgment and common sense.

 

[Baelor]

Me either.

Then you understand why your response was irrelevant.

People with merely SSA do not go to a gay bar. When it comes to sexual sins, one is never to put themselves in a situation that will cause or tempt them to fall.

Homosexuals who are chaste do not necessarily go to gay bars.

I will agree that one can use SSA and homosexuality as a synonym based off text book definitions but I belief reality gives us a better understanding of what people mean when they actually use the words.

My empirical reality is that SSA is never used ever and homosexuality refers to attraction.

But homosexuality does not always mean mere SSA.

In my experience, it invariably does.

What do you call a person that has SSA and is actively living a homosexual lifestyle?

Whatever I would call a heterosexual person who is sexually active – sexually active. I do not use separate words for said individuals, and I have no reason to add them to my vocabulary.

Look past the text of the policy and look at how pro-homosexuals are acknowledging this as a victory and just the beginning.

Let them. Who cares what they think, so long as it does not affect BSA policy?

 

[yellowbird]

Neither Jesus nor the Catholic Church invites people who want to continue disregarding his commandments. .

The vast majority of Catholics of child bearing age use artifical birth control… and they are all invited. The vast majority do not attend weekly mass - the Easter/Christmas ones are ALWAYS warmly welcomed and invited back.

I don’t know what you are talking about… my Priest practically begs us to invite our friends and neighbors to mass. He never once says only those who are willing to follow His commandments. He says all are welcome at mass.

The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts. Sometimes that happens quickly - sometimes it’s a life long process. I’ve never once heard of someone being asked to leave their Church because they were a sinner. Have you?

Where do you come up with this?

 

[Robert_Sock]

We’re living in a world that is undergoing rapid change. Along with this rapid change is a fair amount of chaos. Homosexuality may indeed be discorded, but it is our duty as a society to accommodate them the best as we can. We’re all in this together, and the ‘true’ solution will come with time, when the world is more stabilized.

 

[CopticChristian]

Let’s suppose the family does not like secrets - the mom confides in family members who talk about it in front of the cousins - who tell neighborhood kids, and the poor kid is outed. Is this really so hard to imagine?

Now I ask you, given how you described him - struggling with SSA, receiving counseling, going to mass, etc. etc. Do posters let their son tent with him?

Not a chance. They avoid him like the plague.

Because nobody cares about the sins YOU struggle with - they do too. It’s the homosexual everyone wants to stone. Well, maybe not when he’s “struggling” but for sure when he falls into sin…

Let’s suppose the family does not like secrets - the mom confides in family members who talk about it in front of the cousins - who tell neighborhood kids, and the poor kid is outed. Is this really so hard to imagine?

We can suppose and imagine lots of things. We can call something a secret, we can call it said in confidence, we can call it trust, or who knows what else.

I imagine that a child’s life can be made public and I can imagine that a child’s life until they become adult can be that child’s life.

 

[CopticChristian]

How rude and disrespectful.

There is nothing rude about saying

experience=empiricism. Do you know another definition?

There is nothing rude about saying that someone that says that Homosexuality and Schizophrenia has something in common as to suffering knows little about what they speak.

It is rude and disrespectful to believe you know something you do not know.

How rude is it to equate Schizophrenia with Homosexuality? Riddle me that.