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

[pnewton]

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.

This was done in one of the first ten posts. The Church is not the Boy Scouts. They have a different mission. You are comparing a hospital which is open for the treatment of all ills with a fitness center which is for physical training.

 

[pnewton]

I think a more interesting question is why would a boy want to be in a peer organization that condemns something that you consider integral to who you are. May a Christian troop could go all charismatic on such a one and begin each meeting by laying hands on and praying for the demon of homosexuality to be cast out. Catholics could keep sprinkling with holy water. I bet all talk about homosexuality would cease.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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

Well, you just met another one. I generally think of a homosexual as one who practices homosexual sex, although I understand the difference between orientation and behavior. In general conversation with other men in my limited experience, the term is generally applied to those whom they believe practice (or would practice given the opportunity) homosexual sex, The use of the word homosexual to denote only sexual orientation is a modern contrivance. The modern world has done its best to make sexual labeling be based on orientation and not behavior. The next step, which we have witnessed, is to describe the behavior as a natural, sinless result of that orientation.

Science only addresses the natural. The Church addresses both the natural and the spiritual. Homosexual sex is a moral choice. Those who defend and/or practice homosexual sex are considered immoral. As St. Paul puts it, those outside the Church, God judges, but we judge those inside the Church. The Church objectively condemns the practice and the defense of same sex sex. St, Paul says the Christian community should expel a person who practices immorality without repentance. 1 Cor 5:9-13 That logically extends to anyone who teaches or defends immorality, as well.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I think a more interesting question is why would a boy want to be in a peer organization that condemns something that you consider integral to who you are. May a Christian troop could go all charismatic on such a one and begin each meeting by laying hands on and praying for the demon of homosexuality to be cast out. Catholics could keep sprinkling with holy water. I bet all talk about homosexuality would cease.

From a Christian moral perspective, I find it interesting that a person would want to be defined by what they are tempted to do rather than by what they do.

I certainly would not wish to be called an adulterer because I am tempted to have sex with women other than my wife. I weary of homosexuality being viewed only as an orientation. We should not allow science to define who we are with its one-sided view. Only the Church properly considers both the natural and the spiritual aspects of man.

 

[Brian123456]

I think a more interesting question is why would a boy want to be in a peer organization that condemns something that you consider integral to who you are.

Because gender identity, sexual preference and activities enjoyed are not all neatly one package.

I know celibate homosexual men who are very masculine in appearance, voice, mannerisms and dress and enjoy what our culture defines as masculine activities such as most anything out of doors, hunting, fishing, football and all the rest. I know one having been in the military right out of high school for four years and is now mid level management having earned a BS in Business.

I know celibate homosexual men who are not masculine and are not overly fond of what our culture defines as masculine activites and like reading, writing, and art. The man I know is a well respected tailor and very sought after by attorneys, doctors and businessmen for his ability to make their suits fit them properly off the rack or make them a suit.

So it’s very likely that a boy can be ‘masculine’ in his mannerisms, but have a homosexual or pre-homosexual identity and like and want to do the activities scouting offers.

Boys being non masculine may or may not like or want to do the activities scouting offers.

Some boys struggling with a homosexual or pre homosexual identity masculine or non masculine may see the scouts as a way to be one of the boys, one of the guys and this could prevent an adult homosexual identity.

The US military has been used for decades for masculine men struggling with a homosexual identity and liking the kinds of physical activites the military requires as a therapy ground to be one of the guys and have resolved their SSA issues and married and fathered children.

Gays boys in the scouts can go either way (can prevent an adult from havng SSA or not) and it IS an experiment. But not any scout is permitted sexual contact and scouting has been providing therapy for wayward boys for many decades. The boy smoking or drinking or fighting or calling his teachers names and many other behaviors.

More than one time in my local elementary school and middle school a guidance counselor, teacher or principal has called the local scouts, told them about the boy and then called mom or mom and dad and asked if a guy from scouts could call or stop in and talk to them about what all scouting offers and maybe little Johny might want to join.

The BSA has been a therapy group for a very, very long time for some boys. I think they can handle this new inclusion of gay boys. And if it doesn’t work out they will simply vote again and not permit them in.

Last time I heard it wasn’t contagious.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

But gays in the Boy Scouts can be chaste, right?

By referring to a human male child as “gay”, you are not respecting his personhood in the least but reducing him to a purely sexual term. why is this necessary at all when referring to a child? why is this issue even a subject for conversation when dealing with a child who would like to participate in any organization. Can’t you see the harm you are doing to an individual person by your label? there is a very sinister and damaging agenda that is being foisted on our children. Children who are least able to protect and defend themselves.

 

[Marauder]

The following is a quote from the President of the Baptists for Scouting. Wonder if something similar will eventually come out from Catholic Committee on Scouting. Sorry if it has already been posted, I couldn’t read through the numerous posts made overnight, but I didn’t see anyone talking about it.

Having watched the news coverage and read numerous emails from concerned Baptists and Scouters, I contacted the Membership Impact Department at the National Office of the Boy Scouts of America, proposing an interpretation of the changes in the membership guidelines. Below is the text of what I offered as my interpretation.
First, it is my understanding that the resolution clearly states that sexual activity among Scout-aged youth is contrary to Scouting virtues, and I take that to mean that so long as it is uniformly and equitably applied, a unit could have in its statement a list of behavioral expectations regarding sexual abstinence as a condition of membership.

Secondly, it is my understanding that the resolution only says that youth may not be denied membership solely on the basis of the youth’s self-perceived sexual orientation. It does not say that a youth may not be denied membership if his behavior becomes a distraction to the program or the performance of the unit, or if his behavior casts a poor reflection on the reputation of the chartered organization.

Thirdly, the resolution, as I understand it, does not require that a church-chartered unit affirm the moral acceptability of same-sex attraction.

Fourth, the resolution does not preclude the right of the church to ask adult leaders to exemplify by word and example the positive nature of traditional, heterosexual marriage as their recognized standard what it means to be morally straight with the goal of influencing youth in the unit to appreciate and appropriate that as part of their personal values system.
The response I received from the Boy Scouts of America was that this interpretation was correct in every point so long as a charter organization did not try to use it to exclude a boy solely on the basis of his perceived sexual orientation. The BSA is working on a list of behavior expectations of its own, but I was also told that chartered organizations could craft their own codes of conduct and that they could be stricter than the one BSA creates, so long as it does not violate the new membership policy. In short, Baptist churches that charter Scout units have the power to enforce a code of conduct on the boys that precludes their ability to engage in any kind of sexual activity and to bring disciplinary measures to bear on youth who violate the code of conduct, even to the point of removing them if their behavior becomes detrimental to the unit or the reputation of the charter organization.
Given this interpretation of the situation, I believe that it is possible, even desirable, for Baptist churches to continue to utilize Scouting as an outreach ministry of the church. How it is done, however, must change. No longer can a church simply give meeting space to the Scouts. Churches must take a proactive approach to Scouting and involve members of the local congregation alongside Scout parents as leaders, set expectations for leaders consistent with the values of the church, and create an atmosphere of Scouting that is true to the vision of Lord Baden-Powell where everything done in Scouting is done with a focus on duty to God. In this way churches can turn what looks like a negative into a positive, having an influence in shaping the values of another generation, and even reach youth that might not otherwise be reached with the gospel.
A. J. Smith
President, Association of Baptists for Scouting

 

[Ridgerunner]

By referring to a human male child as “gay”, you are not respecting his personhood in the least but reducing him to a purely sexual term. why is this necessary at all when referring to a child? why is this issue even a subject for conversation when dealing with a child who would like to participate in any organization. Can’t you see the harm you are doing to an individual person by your label? there is a very sinister and damaging agenda that is being foisted on our children. Children who are least able to protect and defend themselves.

It is fortunate that boys and young men are not (yet?) required to join the Obama Youth/BSA. It’s a shame that one of this country’s venerable institution is likely to collapse the way the Canadian boy scouts did when it adopted a similar endorsement of homosexuality. But it will happen.

 

[Brendan]

From a Christian moral perspective, I find it interesting that a person would want to be defined by what they are tempted to do rather than by what they do…

It’s not all that uncommon for those who are seeking to recover from it.

Look at the ‘famous’ Alcoholics Anonymous line - “Hi, I’m John and I’m an alcoholic”

It’s useful to admit the disorder if you are seeking help, it’s part of the recognition of one having a problem to a close group of confidants and to those who would assist in the recovery process.

But it is not useful if one is making it a part of their publically portrayed identity.

 

[Baelor]

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

False premise – you assume that people are interested in describing Ellen’s sexual activity. They are not, and therefore do not add “sexually active.”

You are making a connection that is not there. If I call Ellen a “woman,” am I saying that “woman” is defined as someone with two XX chromosomes who loves other individuals with XX chromosomes and is sexually active? Obviously not. The last two states are simply coincidentally applicable to Ellen.

In the same way, she is called “lesbian” because she is sexually attracted to women. The fact that she is sexually active is not embedded in the term “lesbian.”

 

[Baelor]

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!

Good luck with that. I see no reason to change my definitions which are clear and unambiguous. This entire discussion is a rather annoying distraction from the actual issue.

 

[Baelor]

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.

It is not going anywhere; this is an end in se. I am simply defining my terms; no rhetorical sleight-of-hand or maneuvering will follow. Please be charitable.

I also see no reason to produce studies. The dictionaries clearly agree with me; “homosexual” as a noun has only the definition (at least in the OED) of sexual attraction. I see no reason to assume that my anecdotal experience is different from the norm, and since there is no evidence whatsoever that it is skewed or that people in general disagree with me, I am perfectly content with using the definitions I laid out.

 

[Baelor]

Well, you just met another one. I generally think of a homosexual as one who practices homosexual sex, although I understand the difference between orientation and behavior.

You are on these forums; see my earlier comments.

The use of the word homosexual to denote only sexual orientation is a modern contrivance. The modern world has done its best to make sexual labeling be based on orientation and not behavior. The next step, which we have witnessed, is to describe the behavior as a natural, sinless result of that orientation.

You are misinformed. If you check the OED, which includes a list of early occurrences, you will find that the earliest instances of “homosexual” involve attraction and not behavior.

 

[Baelor]

By referring to a human male child as “gay”, you are not respecting his personhood in the least but reducing him to a purely sexual term.

While I agree that we should be cautious in labeling children, labels are not reductive. They are simply descriptive. That I call someone “American” is not a denial that there are other facets of existence.

 

[shocktrooper]

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?

You brought the topic up. I was just asking for your position. It always helps to have a well rounded understanding of the person’s views one is debating.

Did you not want to answer for some reason?

 

[JamesCaruso]

By referring to a human male child as “gay”, you are not respecting his personhood in the least but reducing him to a purely sexual term. why is this necessary at all when referring to a child? why is this issue even a subject for conversation when dealing with a child who would like to participate in any organization. Can’t you see the harm you are doing to an individual person by your label? there is a very sinister and damaging agenda that is being foisted on our children. Children who are least able to protect and defend themselves.

This is so true. The secular world says we are doing him a favor by helping him “come out,” when in fact it can be doing irreparable harm. The secular world does not understand the possible spiritual ramifications of being so publicly labeled, especially in a person’s formative years.

 

[JamesCaruso]

It’s not all that uncommon for those who are seeking to recover from it.

Look at the ‘famous’ Alcoholics Anonymous line - “Hi, I’m John and I’m an alcoholic”

It’s useful to admit the disorder if you are seeking help, it’s part of the recognition of one having a problem to a close group of confidants and to those who would assist in the recovery process.

But it is not useful if one is making it a part of their publically portrayed identity.

Plus, it is dubious whether a young man near the age of puberty with raging hormones going on is in any position to make a credible determination of his own orientation. It is quite easy to confuse admiration of father figures and the pleasures associated with masturbation which is frequently experienced at that young age with the idea of homosexuality. Some young boys are late bloomers and not yet focused on the opposite sex, some are strongly attracted to sexual pleasure in general, and some of these young minds are strongly influenced by the pornography that abounds and that is easily accessible on the Internet. Now to encourage labeling at this tender age range is absurd and potentially very harmful.

 

[JamesCaruso]

While I agree that we should be cautious in labeling children, labels are not reductive. They are simply descriptive. That I call someone “American” is not a denial that there are other facets of existence.

But it does serve to create focus on a single aspect of one’s essence whether it denies the others or not, and this particular label carries with it tremendous potential for harm. Labeling someone a heterosexual, being that heterosexuality is the norm, has no potential for harm. Same with labeling someone an American, as you suggest. But labeling someone gay with its close association to those who practice gay sex which in turn is taught to be a grave intrinsic evil by the Catholic Church is to put a young boy in a most undesirable position. It is best that he works out his feelings about his sexuality with his parents and other trusted mentors in private, not expose him to public scrutiny.

 

[Captain_America]

But it does serve to create focus on a single aspect of one’s essence whether it denies the others or not, and this particular label carries with it tremendous potential for harm. Labeling someone a heterosexual, being that heterosexuality is the norm, has no potential for harm. Same with labeling someone an American, as you suggest. But labeling someone gay with its close association to those who practice gay sex which in turn is taught to be a grave intrinsic evil by the Catholic Church is to put a young boy in a most undesirable position. It is best that he works out his feelings about his sexuality with his parents and other trusted mentors in private, not expose him to public scrutiny.

Well said, well put; this really describes the situation.

And remember that at the time of life when one first experiences hormones, one hasn’t much notion of how to proceed. One can feel ambiguous, uncertain and confused.

And one can be easily manipulated. This is particularly the danger with openly gay (accepting of this sexual addiction) adult leaders.

 

[Captain_America]

My big gripes with the national BSA on this issue are these points:

(a) caving-in to outside pressure on a moral issue. This isn’t a good sign for the future of the organization if it’s willing to do this.

(b) using the boys as blackmail, the old “well, if you leave, this’ll hurt the kids.” Cheap stunt. Distracts us from the true reality here, plays on emotions.

(c) calling homosexuality morally neutral. Now, I know some adult scouters don’t care much about the Bible or even basic scientific facts about social and individual problems with homosexuality. But the national office essentially made a public declaration that homosexuality is not a bad thing (nor a good thing) but a neutral and objective condition.
I dispute that Pop Psychology entirely.