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

[gracepoole]

Exactly right. To clarify, the sin is not about being openly gay, the problem becomes the affirmation will go to the next level, especially when Gay adults force their way into positions in scouting where they can “mentor” gay scouts. And that will go where? The answer is obvious.

Bridge in Brooklyn for sale - reduced price.

Ed

“Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents’ sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual.” (Wikipedia’s summary of this source: courts.ca.gov/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf)

So I’d ask for evidence to support the opposite claim that being around gays and lesbians makes one “turn gay.”

 

[yellowbird]

Key word, yellowbird, is ACTIVE. Meaning they are living the lifestyle, not just slipped up once or twice. I was not inferring that one that falls here and there has no shame. Please keep all my comments in context and not just single out one little sentence you want to highlight, trying to make me look like an uncharitable bigot.

A person that continuously or obsessively masturbates, fornicates, commits adultery, steals, rapes or murders don’t see themselves as doing wrong. If they see nothing wrong with what they are doing, then how in the heck are they suppose to feel shame?

The BSA ruling simply creates an environment that makes homosexuals feel normal. When something seems normal, then the “wrong” is done away with also. This means one that looses a sense of “wrong” fails to experience shame. When shame and guilt is done away with, then morality is turned on its head.

So by your definition, once or twice OK, but three times puts them in your ACTIVE catagory = no shame? I hope that third time was worth it?

So is it the same for the hetrosexual? Has sex 2X with his girlfriend may experience shame, but three times, four times, ten times = no shame?

So silly. People feel shame and confess the same sins over & over again. In your mind only the heterosexuals I suppose? Not the ACTIVE homosexual. And by active you mean sucumbed to sin more than 2X.

Please keep all my comments in context and not just single out one little sentence you want to highlight, trying to make me look like an uncharitable bigot.

Trust me, it’s not my highlighting that makes you look bad.

 

[shocktrooper]

Indeed, but a homosexual by definition has SSA. Anything else is something other than “homosexual.” For example, “sexually active homosexual.”

No, it has one – persons attracted to the same sex. I never mean anything more than that when I say “homosexual.” Have you read all my posts?

Homosexual is sufficiently precise. Outside of these forums, it has never produced any ambiguity whatsoever.

Because I laid out my definition of homosexual and consequently there is no ambiguity, and my definition is one that everyone I have ever met uses. Why would I submit to some bizarre niche vocabulary that adds nothing new to the discussion?

Someone who is sexually active can have “sexually active” appended to whatever other modifier is appropriate. Someone who is markedly chaste can have “chaste” appended.

Yes this is true but most people do not identify Ellen D. as a sexually active homosexual. They simply call her a homosexual or a Lesbian.

If you think the average “Joe” is going to simply relate the word homosexual to a person with ONLY SSA, then you are living in a different world than I am.

 

[gracepoole]

So what does not being “deliberately silent in the face of evil” mean in the case of the BSA?

I am not sure. What are your thoughts on it?

I honestly don’t know. I’m trained to speak about bystanders so the idea isn’t at all foreign to me. But significant problems developed for homosexuals via the military’s one-time “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

(I don’t want to derail the thread, but these conversations always seem to lead back to the same central question: is homosexuality a choice? I think it’s how one answers this question that changes his or her responses to issues like this one with the BSA. For example: “But a recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) suggests 59% of American Catholics support rights allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry. One reason behind that statistic - says PRRI CEO Robert P. Jones - is because U.S. Catholics ‘overwhelmingly reject the idea that sexual orientation can be changed.’ A PRRI poll bears that out – with 69% of Catholics nationwide saying a person’s sexual orientation cannot be changed.” religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/20/can-true-catholics-support-same-sex-marriage/)

 

[gracepoole]

Yes this is true but most people do not identify Ellen D. as a sexually active homosexual. They simply call her a homosexual or a Lesbian.

If you think the average “Joe” is going to simply relate the word homosexual to a person with ONLY SSA, then you are living in a different world than I am.

I think I’m living in that world. No one I know aside from CAF posters, NCRegister, etc. uses the term “SSA.”

 

[Baelor]

Yes this is true but most people do not identify Ellen D. as a sexually active homosexual. They simply call her a homosexual or a Lesbian.

Because she is attracted to women: if she were chaste, people would still call her a lesbian.

I feel like you have difficulty grasping what I find to be a very basic concept: Not all homosexuals are sexually active. Even if one is, when someone says, “Oh, that person is gay,” they are not referring to sexual activity, but proclivity. The fact that the person happens to be sexually active is completely irrelevant. YOU, and only you, are the one making the connection between the label and the activity. Most people do not distinguish between sexually active and sexually inactive persons; the orientation labels refer to attraction; activity is irrelevant.

If you think the average “Joe” is going to simply relate the word homosexual to a person with ONLY SSA, then you are living in a different world than I am.

Clearly, because I have not encountered anyone, average or otherwise, who does not relate the word homosexual to attraction and only attraction.

 

[shocktrooper]

So by your definition, once or twice OK, but three times puts them in your ACTIVE catagory = no shame? I hope that third time was worth it?

I never said three times put one in my “ACTIVE” category. I think you are making some assumptions here.

So is it the same for the hetrosexual? Has sex 2X with his girlfriend may experience shame, but three times, four times, ten times = no shame?

Have you ever heard of the word “vice”. A vice is a bad habit. People are not usually shameful of a habit, especially when they don’t see the habit as being bad.

So silly. People feel shame and confess the same sins over & over again. In your mind only the heterosexuals I suppose? Not the ACTIVE homosexual. And by active you mean sucumbed to sin more than 2X.

Some people, yes. But as a whole, I don’t think the lines at the confessional will support this claim.

Trust me, it’s not my highlighting that makes you look bad.

So please help me. What is it that makes me look bad?

 

[shocktrooper]

I honestly don’t know. I’m trained to speak about bystanders so the idea isn’t at all foreign to me. But significant problems developed for homosexuals via the military’s one-time “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

(I don’t want to derail the thread, but these conversations always seem to lead back to the same central question: is homosexuality a choice? I think it’s how one answers this question that changes his or her responses to issues like this one with the BSA. For example: “But a recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) suggests 59% of American Catholics support rights allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry. One reason behind that statistic - says PRRI CEO Robert P. Jones - is because U.S. Catholics ‘overwhelmingly reject the idea that sexual orientation can be changed.’ A PRRI poll bears that out – with 69% of Catholics nationwide saying a person’s sexual orientation cannot be changed.” religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/20/can-true-catholics-support-same-sex-marriage/)

Do you support gay marriage?

 

[shocktrooper]

I think I’m living in that world. No one I know aside from CAF posters, NCRegister, etc. uses the term “SSA.”

So you have heard most people call Ellen a “sexually active homosexual” as opposed to just saying “homosexual” or lesbian?

 

[edwest2]

Well if that were happening, I wouldn’t allow my child to be a scout. But who knows if that will happen? The same thing was said if we allowed gay teachers in our schools. My child had a gay teacher and guess what? She learned math - and nothing more. No indoctrination whatsoever.

Nobody is forced to be a scout… and I doubt gay people will storm the doors to be troop leaders. Besides, aren’t they busy making Disney movies to indoctrinate our children?

Who knows what will happen? Pardon me, but do you think most people here are stupid? We know, right now.

lifesitenews.com/blog/the-boy-scouts-should-learn-the-lessons-of-the-canadian-scouts/

Ed

 

[shocktrooper]

Because she is attracted to women: if she were chaste, people would still call her a lesbian.

I feel like you have difficulty grasping what I find to be a very basic concept: Not all homosexuals are sexually active. Even if one is, when someone says, “Oh, that person is gay,” they are not referring to sexual activity, but proclivity. The fact that the person happens to be sexually active is completely irrelevant. YOU, and only you, are the one making the connection between the label and the activity. Most people do not distinguish between sexually active and sexually inactive persons; the orientation labels refer to attraction; activity is irrelevant.

Clearly, because I have not encountered anyone, average or otherwise, who does not relate the word homosexual to attraction and only attraction.

We are trains passing in the night. I understand your position but maybe I can try to explain better why different terms should be used when we are discussing theology and morality…TOMORROW.

Good night!

 

[yellowbird]

So please help me. What is it that makes me look bad?

I didn’t say you looked bad… You were the one who said you looked like an uncharitable bigot.

Not me.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I agree with you.

There is no sin in being gay though… and isn’t that what this thread is about?

The sin is engaging in homosexual sex.

I’m not defending the sin. I’m not even loving the sinner. I’m loving the boy who is simply gay.

Some define gay as SSA, and some define it as engaging in homosexual sex. There is no sin in the way you have defined it.

A boy of scout age is in no position to determine whether he is gay or not. He is going through dramatic hormonal changes. Being gay is an adult decision IMO.

It was dumb to make any statement about allowing gay boys into the scouts. Boys who are having gay sex may declare themselves as gay, and I don’t want them in my Church’s troop. Why? I don’t want to expose the other boys to possible gay influences. It’s difficult enough to get through teen years.

Boys who think they might be gay but are not having gay sex are not likely to declare themselves gay, unless they are masochistic. If they are troubled about sex, the last thing they should do is make such a declaration. They should go to Mom or Dad, or seek some other trusted source of help. Making a public declaration is just going to cause more trouble for them IMHO. But I readily admit I am not an expert on this.

 

[edwest2]

Because she is attracted to women: if she were chaste, people would still call her a lesbian.

I feel like you have difficulty grasping what I find to be a very basic concept: Not all homosexuals are sexually active. Even if one is, when someone says, “Oh, that person is gay,” they are not referring to sexual activity, but proclivity. The fact that the person happens to be sexually active is completely irrelevant. YOU, and only you, are the one making the connection between the label and the activity. Most people do not distinguish between sexually active and sexually inactive persons; the orientation labels refer to attraction; activity is irrelevant.

Clearly, because I have not encountered anyone, average or otherwise, who does not relate the word homosexual to attraction and only attraction.

You’ll have to provide a few national scientific studies as opposed to just relying on the people you know, even casually. I’m not convinced since it is obvious where this is going.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Some define gay as SSA, and some define it as engaging in homosexual sex. There is no sin in the way you have defined it.

A boy of scout age is in no position to determine whether he is gay or not. He is going through dramatic hormonal changes. Being gay is an adult decision IMO.

It was dumb to make any statement about allowing gay boys into the scouts. Boys who are having gay sex may declare themselves as gay, and I don’t want them in my Church’s troop. Why? I don’t want to expose the other boys to possible gay influences. It’s difficult enough to get through teen years.

Boys who think they might be gay but are not having gay sex are not likely to declare themselves gay, unless they are masochistic. If they are troubled about sex, the last thing they should do is make such a declaration. They should go to Mom or Dad, or seek some other trusted source of help. Making a public declaration is just going to cause more trouble for them IMHO. But I readily admit I am not an expert on this.

You’re right. Once the gay adult mentors force their way into the scouts, what will they mentor the gay boys about? Note: I am 100% against bullying, verbal and physical abuse and threats. But just look around you, all these celebrities coming out as gay. How many are “only” attracted as opposed to actively engaging in sex with their partner? The answer is not zero.

Ed

 

[gracepoole]

Do you support gay marriage?

Wow, is that a non sequitur or did it come via a progressive train of thought? If the latter, can you explain it? And how my answer is relevant here?

 

[gracepoole]

You’re right. Once the gay adult mentors force their way into the scouts, what will they mentor the gay boys about? Note: I am 100% against bullying, verbal and physical abuse and threats. But just look around you, all these celebrities coming out as gay. How many are “only” attracted as opposed to actively engaging in sex with their partner? The answer is not zero.

Ed

See post #178.

 

[Robert_Sock]

As of yet, nobody has successfully dealt with Christ’s accommodating sinful tax collectors. This is a problem for those not condoning the admittance of gay boys in the BSA. This problem won’t go away by ignoring it.

 

[quiet52]

edwest2;10839646

Quote:
Originally Posted by shocktrooper
One cannot create an environment that confirms, directs or endorses (even via silence) evil while claiming to love those it will affect. Truth and love go hand and hand. If one is given without the other, then the one given is counterfeit.

Exactly right. To clarify, the sin is not about being openly gay, the problem becomes the affirmation will go to the next level, especially when Gay adults force their way into positions in scouting where they can “mentor” gay scouts. And that will go where? The answer is obvious.

Shocktrooper and Ed, I agree with you.

The Boy Scouts has not “rejected” boys or teens who haven’t made their sexual preferences or gender identities an issue. And no one “condemned” that policy.

But I think the new policy will produce moral confusion and require moral compromise. Ten year olds are confused – at their stage of development they might not know for sure if they’re gay or not. To be labeled gay at such a young age could create long-term damage for them. This policy shift is another step in the gay militants’ agenda to indoctrinate our youth with the belief that homosexuality is “normal”. And it is not.

The OP asked “Why would anybody condemn the Boy Scouts simply because they allow openly gay boys?” I don’t like his word “condemn” – but the BSUSA is a religiously-based organization. Many troops are sponsored by churches. Those troops whose churches teach that active homosexuality is a sin should not have to “accept” OPEN homosexuality as “normal”.

It is simply wrong that troops should be forced to embrace something that is disordered as good – that OPEN homosexuality is “normal” – if they are sponsored by churches which teach that active homosexuality is a sin. This policy clouds truth for the sake of political correctness. Hiding truth is not love, nor is it proper formation of boys and teens.

The Catholic Church is the third largest sponsor, accounting for about 10% of the 2.6 million Boy Scouts in the U.S. Unfortunately, Catholic leaders in the U.S. has remained neutral on this policy shift, and the top BSUSA liaison to the Catholic Church has quoted a canonist as relucantly saying the new policy does not violate Church teachings.

Militant gay activist groups will be using our nanny state to coerce the Boy Scouts and other youth organizations to fully implement their agenda. They are not happy that the BSUSA still does not allow openly gay adult leaders.

The California Senate has passed the “Youth Equality Act” (SB 323) which affects ALL YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS, not just the Boy Scouts, but private schools, school clubs, sports teams, music groups, etc. It applies not just to the youth members, but any adults who might apply as volunteers or paid leadership positions. If this bill is passed, the Boy Scouts would have to pay California tax on all donations received, on fundraiser receipts and other sales, on dues, on any income troops receive, because they still “discriminate” against adults based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

This bill would revise the Sales and Use Tax Law exemption for those organizations, as provided. This bill would also provide that an organization that is a public charity youth organization that discriminates on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation is not exempt from the taxes imposed by that law.

 

[JamesCaruso]

As of yet, nobody has successfully dealt with Christ’s accommodating sinful tax collectors. This is a problem for those not condoning the admittance of gay boys in the BSA. This problem won’t go away by ignoring it.

Where is the accommodation of sinful tax collectors? So long as tax collectors turn away from sin they are welcome. So long as practicing gay boys turn away from gay sex they are welcome.

The modern world has done its best to make the orientation, and not the behavior, the significant factor by which we label a person sexually. It seeks to make behavior a natural, sinless action and not a moral choice. But saying so does not make it so. A person who engages in same sex sex is still engaged in immoral activity by the measure of the Bible-based and infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. We may want to call that unenlightened, archaic, or old-fashioned thinking, but the Church does not bend to the will of the scientific community. The Church views sexual behavior to be a choice, restricting it to a man and a woman within marriage, and commanding celibacy for all others.

This dichotomy between the Church and the modern world of science results from the fact that science considers only the natural dimension of man and not the spiritual. The spiritual order, however, is the highest order of man, not his natural aspect. Because the Church considers both the natural and the spiritual aspect of man, it trumps the scientific community’s one-sided view.

The Bible gives direction to the Christian community regarding immoral members. St. Paul advises that we expel the immoral person from our midst.

I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators. I mean not with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or the servers of idols; otherwise you must needs go out of this world. But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves.

In other words, we do not judge those who are in the world, God is their judge. But we do judge among ourselves in the Church, and in the Church we should not allow a person to remain who practices what is immoral without repentance. For this reason, no Catholic parish should allow gay boys, gay meant in the sense of those who defend and/or practice gay sex, in their Boy Scout troops.

The Boy Scout rule does not really distinguish between gay orientation and the practice of gay sex. That is why it is a bad policy. If allowing gay boys in our Boy Scout troops means allowing those who defend and/or practice gay sex, we should not allow it.