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

[yellowbird]

I think you should trust your daughter one hundred percent, it sounds like she deserves it, and at the same time, as a parent I think you should keep both eyes wide open at all times.

Yes, without question! :yup:

But until the boy gives me a reason to doubt their relationship or the daughter sounds an alarm, I trust them. Her more than him because her I know her inside out.

This level of security I probably wouldn’t have will all of my children - but this particular daughter is an open book - tells me everything, sometimes more than I care to know.

 

[meltzerboy]

Faithful and knowledgable Catholics do know it, as do balanced people with common sense. Others seem yet to understand that, or perhaps to accept it.

Elizabeth, then why is all of this regarding the change in the BSA policy such an issue? As I understand it, the policy says that gay boys cannot be denied admission to the BSA based solely on their avowed or perceived sexual orientation and, I believe, cannot be told to leave based on their sexual orientation. Of course, if there is ANY inappropriate sexual behavior (or other kind of behavior), then any boy, straight or gay, should bear the consequences. But simply avowing or being perceived as gay should not be the criterion. You appear to be concerned that one need mention one’s sexual proclivity in the first place. Yes, I agree, it is generally not necessary to discuss such things in the workplace. However, neither should it necessarily be hidden as a deep, dark, shameful secret, and sometimes it cannot be easily hidden because of other people’s (mis)perceptions or because of rumors.

You also mentioned this policy (I’m paraphrasing) as promulgated by the gay lobby and as a prelude to the change of Western culture. And other posters have talked about gay scout leaders and gay marriage in connection to this issue. Well, if we did have gay scout leaders (which we probably already do), what do you think they are going to teach the boys: a gay agenda? I doubt it since it’s not relative to scouting, and if they do, that kind of inappropriate behavior should result in their firing. With regard to the link by others between this change in policy to gay marriage: aren’t we going just a little too far here?

 

[shocktrooper]

So did you have an answer? Why all the questions? Is this a game where all answers are now questions?

Did the BSA say, “The BSA is affirming the inclination as healthy and correctly ordered”? Is that your question?

If so, as far as I know, they did not say it. I believe fix actually said it.

 

[gracepoole]

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?

Please identify the specific post in this thread in which I referenced gay marriage.

 

[gracepoole]

I have little to say to you and I hope and pray that others that have found you offensive offer you some charitable correction.

I am sure in your mind, as you read this you are ready to type…

Irrelevant!

Actually, I respect your comments, Baelor – I didn’t find them offensive at all. Just enlightening.

 

[shocktrooper]

Please identify the specific post in this thread in which I referenced gay marriage.

See post 181.

(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/)

 

[Robert_Sock]

I have to wonder what Pope Francis and the rest of the Vatican would have to say about this topic.

 

[fix]

I have to wonder what Pope Francis and the rest of the Vatican would have to say about this topic.

There are several documents from the Vatican that clearly describe what just discrimination is and that the inclination can evoke moral concern. These documents that clarify the CCC are almost never referenced in these discussions.

 

[fix]

Did the BSA say, “The BSA is affirming the inclination as healthy and correctly ordered”? Is that your question?

If so, as far as I know, they did not say it. I believe fix actually said it.

I did say that because that is in effect what the policy says.

 

[Tarpeian]

I think the main reason is conflating sexual attraction and sexual behavior. Any inappropriate sexual behavior should not be condoned in the BSA (or anywhere else). But one should not assume that a gay boy who wants to join the boy scouts does so because he is a sexual predator. This is incorrect.

There are probably other reasons as well, such as the belief that any and all attempts at equality for gay people are part of a nefarious, anti-religious, secular gay agenda. I believe this is wrong as well.

A third reason is the perpetual fear some people have of anything relative to gayness, especially when it concerns children. People are afraid that their straight child will either be sexually molested or sexually indoctrinated by gay boys into believing that being gay is simply an alternative lifestyle. This is contrary to Church teaching. I think, however, that fear is misguided. If anything, it is most likely the gay boys who have more to fear in that if other boys perceive they are gay, they may become the target of ridicule.

Finally, there is the whole macho issue. I would bet that more men are opposed to this change in the BSA policy than women.

We should not assume. You are correct. We should be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. We are taught as Roman Catholic’s not to put ourselves in the near occasion of sin. So how does a Roman Catholic keep this precept now?

I remember when so many were “outraged” when kids were molested by Michael Jackson. Oh the outrage! The shock! The horror! If it wasn’t a tragedy it would have been comical! This guy was a freak and everyone knew it, except those innocent kids who’s parents were mesmerized by “The King of Pop.” Yet they willingly let their children have sleep overs with this predator! Are those parents culpable? You better believe they were.

Now we have this scourge just waiting to rear its head. My good friends pre teen son was sexually molested by a gay scout two weeks ago. Guess what, “it could never happen in this pack”, “because it was a conservative pack.” Know one knew in this case, nevertheless Satan had his way all in the name of equality and tolerance. You are damn right people are afraid! Its time to stop living in fear and take back society. We are suppose to be The Church Militant, not The Church Yellow! This sin cries out for God’s justice, and society (christian) indifference will bring the wrath of God down. God will never bless this nation as long as we sit around, and pontificate about how we should be more accepting of this scourge.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[JamesCaruso]

Yes, without question! :yup:

But until the boy gives me a reason to doubt their relationship or the daughter sounds an alarm, I trust them. Her more than him because her I know her inside out.

This level of security I probably wouldn’t have will all of my children - but this particular daughter is an open book - tells me everything, sometimes more than I care to know.

Consider yourself blest!

 

[meltzerboy]

We should not assume. You are correct. We should be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. We are taught as Roman Catholic’s not to put ourselves in the near occasion of sin. So how does a Roman Catholic keep this precept now?

I remember when so many were “outraged” when kids were molested by Michael Jackson. Oh the outrage! The shock! The horror! If it wasn’t a tragedy it would have been comical! This guy was a freak and everyone knew it, except those innocent kids who’s parents were mesmerized by “The King of Pop.” Yet they willingly let their children have sleep overs with this predator! Are those parents culpable? You better believe they were.

Now we have this scourge just waiting to rear its head. My good friends pre teen son was sexually molested by a gay scout two weeks ago. Guess what, “it could never happen in this pack”, “because it was a conservative pack.” Know one knew in this case, nevertheless Satan had his way all in the name of equality and tolerance. You are damn right people are afraid! Its time to stop living in fear and take back society. We are suppose to be The Church Militant, not The Church Yellow! This sin cries out for God’s justice, and society (christian) indifference will bring the wrath of God down. God will never bless this nation as long as we sit around, and pontificate about how we should be more accepting of this scourge.

Pax,
Tarpeian

Tarpeian, those last few sentences about the wrath of G-d being brought down upon this nation sounds like you’ve been watching too much of Pat Robertson’s 700 Club or the videos of Michael Voris. Further, Michael Jackson may have been odd, but we really don’t know whether he was a sexual predator who molested the children who slept over at his home. Still, children sleeping in the same bed with a grown man is not a good idea, to say the least! He was not at all typical of most gay people, however, let alone gay boy scouts.

No further comment, except that my previous comment that prompted your reply stands.

 

[yellowbird]

I remember when so many were “outraged” when kids were molested by Michael Jackson. Oh the outrage! The shock! The horror! If it wasn’t a tragedy it would have been comical! This guy was a freak and everyone knew it, except those innocent kids who’s parents were mesmerized by “The King of Pop.” Yet they willingly let their children have sleep overs with this predator! Are those parents culpable? You better believe they were.

Now we have this scourge just waiting to rear its head. My good friends pre teen son was sexually molested by a gay scout two weeks ago. Guess what, “it could never happen in this pack”, “because it was a conservative pack.” Know one knew in this case, nevertheless Satan had his way all in the name of equality and tolerance. You are damn right people are afraid! Its time to stop living in fear and take back society. We are suppose to be The Church Militant, not The Church Yellow! This sin cries out for God’s justice, and society (christian) indifference will bring the wrath of God down. God will never bless this nation as long as we sit around, and pontificate about how we should be more accepting of this scourge.

Pax,
Tarpeian

I’m not afraid of a gay scout - I’d be much more afraid of a Priest taking an interest in my child. The stories of all those molested by Priests is enough to make me learly of a any sort of relationship a Priest would have with my children outside of mass.

Talk about a sin crying out for God’s justice…

You are right - those parents should have suspected something strange with Michael Jackson. Pity the thousands of parents who mistakenly thought they could trust their Priest.

 

[Monkey1976]

Everything isn’t about sex you know.

But the policy change is explicitly about sex. How would you feel about it if your daughter’s friend introduced himself to you like this: “Hi, my name’s Bobby, and I enjoy sex with sheep.” This is exactly what the policy does by specifying “avowed”. Instead of Bobby the Scout, we now have Bobby the Scout-Who-Introduces-Himself-by-Stating-What-He-Likes-to-do-with-His-Genitals. Stop introducing yourselves with your penises.

 

[gracepoole]

Please identify the specific post in this thread in which I referenced gay marriage.

See post 181.

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/)

Ah, I see! I didn’t include that quote to emphasize gay marriage – or even introduce it into the conversation – but to point out that a majority of Catholics don’t believe that homosexuality is a choice. Which is why I prefaced the quote with, “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?”

 

[shocktrooper]

I’m not afraid of a gay scout - I’d be much more afraid of a Priest taking an interest in my child. The stories of all those molested by Priests is enough to make me learly of a any sort of relationship a Priest would have with my children outside of mass.

Talk about a sin crying out for God’s justice…

You are right - those parents should have suspected something strange with Michael Jackson. Pity the thousands of parents who mistakenly thought they could trust their Priest.

The “funny” thing about this comment of yours is that the the majority (and I mean the large majority) of priests accused of molesting young children had/have SSA, since their target/victim was male.

 

[gracepoole]

The “funny” thing about this comment of yours is that the the majority (and I mean the large majority) of priests accused of molesting young children had/have SSA, since their target/victim was male.

Is there a difference between “SSA” and pedophilia for you?

 

[shocktrooper]

Ah, I see! I didn’t include that quote to emphasize gay marriage – or even introduce it into the conversation – but to point out that a majority of Catholics don’t believe that homosexuality is a choice. Which is why I prefaced the quote with, “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?”

So where do you stand on “gay marriage”? I think it is relevant and may help explain why you take the position you do when discussing those with SSA. Or it may not!

 

[HaveCourage]

As far as your statement above is concerned, the Catholic Church doesn’t “allow” people by category to join the Church. She welcomes people, period. .

AMEN! That’s exactly what it is about:
youtube.com/watch?v=YI3H3z2CKIQ

Be careful what label you ascribe to people.

 

[shocktrooper]

Is there a difference between “SSA” and pedophilia for you?

Yes, pedophiles that target those of the opposite sex are pedophiles. Those that target children of the same sex are pedophiles with SSA.