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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
shocktrooper said:
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!
Click to expand...
Can you explain its relevance in conjunction with the conversation about the BSA’s policy change?
 
shocktrooper said:
Yes, pedophiles that target those of the opposite sex are pedophiles. Those that target children of the same sex are pedophiles with SSA.
Click to expand...
Is there a source outside of the Church that you’re using for this definition?
 
gracepoole said:
Can you explain its relevance in conjunction with the conversation about the BSA’s policy change?
Click to expand...
Forget it. It is obvious you don’t want to answer. As a Catholic, if someone (anyone) asked me that simple question, regardless of context and setting, I would answer…“gay marriage is impossible in the eyes of God, so I stand with God. I do not support such blasphemy”. Or something very similar.
 
shocktrooper said:
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.
Click to expand...
They are pedophiles, NOT typical gay people. The latter do not, as a rule, molest children. The vast majority of child molesters for either boys or girls are straight men, taking into account the numbers of straight and gay males. Some of these priests may also have been gay, but that is more the exception than the rule.
 
shocktrooper said:
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!
Click to expand...
This frustrates me to no end (but I have to let it go … after this response).

We have a choice to speak to this topic in a prudent - non-political way, or not.
If we de-politicize it, and call it for what it is, it is a union between two persons of the same-sex,in contemporary terms, is referred to a marriage.
TWO HUGE THINGS need to be clarified before you will ever get into the real kernel of Catholic truth;
a) using the word “gay” without clarifying wither you are speaking towards that which is not specifically chosen (attractions) and that which is specifically chosen (embraced identity)
and
b) using the word “marriage” without first clarifying whether you are using it in a historical/Catholic sense, or a contemporary sense.

As well, the conversations seems to be locked in this cycle of a non-advancement into the realm of the role and significance of embraced identity.

I guarantee you one thing - if persons do not embrace the falsehood that being gay/straight is “who they are” (really our sexuality is only one facet of our beings, and thus an embraced identity centered on our sexuality (distinct from “sex”) cannot, cannot reflect the fullness of who we are as persons), then pursuing relationships in order to fulfill themselves within that identity will not occur - because those types of relationships will fall outside the set of what that persons deems to be fulfilling for their own life.

It’s a run on sentence, but sorry that’s all the gas in the tank I have for editing right now.

Anyway, the real issue to focus on when talking about “gay marriage” (which should really be phrased as " 'gay ‘marriage’ " because it contains TWO terms that mean different things to different people), is not the “‘gay’ ‘marriage’” itself, but the reasons why persons decide to pursue any form of relationship - specifically one that is designed to be a means of fulfillment AHEAD of a relationship with Christ (namely one that serves to validate a person in the gay OR straight identity - BOTH being identities centered on sexuality).

The Church sees us **all **as persons - actually persons who are beloved by our Creator God. If we were to elevate ourselves above the labels of LGBTQTS, then the horrifically dangerous and life-influencing ascribed labels like “gay boys” would not be used towards boys who experience same-sex attractions, and thus would not serve to form their self-concept and potential future embraced identity. The Church invites us to elevate the language - the secular world does not.

Until the conversation is elevated to contain a disclosure of the differences between non-specifically chosen and specifically chosen, and “marriage” (historical) and “marriage” (contemporary), these dialogues will never be able to potentially reflect the fullness of Catholic teaching on this matter. It is really that simple. however, that means essentially an overhaul of the way we commonly speak towards this topic. An overhaul such that the truths that non-specifically chosen attractions do not necessitate any particular embraced identity, AND that persons who experience attractions xyz, CAN be honest about with themselves about the existence of those attractions without choosing to embrace the LGBTQ labels - which is what forms self-concept again and motivates persons to fulfill what they understand to be their sense of purpose in their lives on account of embracing those types of identities.

In English: being gay is not “who I am”, unless I choose that to BE who I am, and as a person who has been permitted the experience of same-sex attractions, I choose to not self identify according to my sexuality because I recognize that we are more than that. It is really that simple. Oh and by the way - I harbor no shame for the existence of my attractions - because I didn’t specifically choose my attractions anyway. That’s just in case anyone was going to accuse me of living in fear or self-pity or guilt. Life is quite joyful as a chaste celibate who knows that my identity needs to be rooted in Jesus Christ first and foremost. 🙂

Peace!

youtube.com/watch?v=YI3H3z2CKIQ
A bit of what I am saying is explained in this TWO minute video - please check it out!
 
shocktrooper said:
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.
Click to expand...
shocktrooper, Isn’t it true that the largest number of sexual molestations by priests were involving children too old for the behavior to be called pedophilia? That’s what I have read anyway. A molestation of a child at puberty or post-puberty does not qualify for the pedophile label. Those cases would be better described as homosexual molestations. But there are many homosexuals who are quick to refute this because they don’t like the association of homosexuals and children. Still, if it’s true, it must be reckoned with. James
 
meltzerboy said:
They are pedophiles, NOT typical gay people. The latter do not, as a rule, molest children. The vast majority of child molesters for either boys or girls are straight men, taking into account the numbers of straight and gay males. Some of these priests may also have been gay, but that is more the exception than the rule.
Click to expand...
Straight men that molest those of the same sex are not gay? Are you serious? If one is not attracted to them, then what is the point? We are talking about sexual advances and improper touches, not throwing the baseball in the church parking lot.

Please provide numbers to support your claims.
 
meltzerboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I actually do watch Voris but more of Ann Barnhardt:) Also Bishop Fulton Sheen and Father Corapi before he went off the reservation. He made Pat look like a ***** cat:thumbsup: And if I really get radical I read St. John Chrysostom, who would probably be defrocked today for being a zealot. What would you call this scourge that has snowballed at an accelerated pace the past 5-10 years? God’s Blessing?

I will go on the empirical evidence that is indisputable. We have a grown man who went out of his way to cosmetically look more feminine. He was a grown man who slept with children that were not his own, and not out of necessity! He was a known drug addict. Statistics show drugs lower inhibition. Statistics also show, in some cases drug use is a coping mechanism for a disorder.Finally statistics show drugs are rampant among homosexuals. Now anyone with average comprehension skills (5th grade level for high schoolers, and 8th grade level for adults) armed with these facts should understand that this mans elevator didn’t go to the top floor. We would be derelict in your duty as parents or citizens, to allow any child to have a sleep over in the same bed for pillow talk with any man let alone someone exhibiting these disorders.

Pax,
Tarpeian
 
JamesCaruso said:
shocktrooper, Isn’t it true that the largest number of sexual molestations by priests were involving children too old for the behavior to be called pedophilia? That’s what I have read anyway. A molestation of a child at puberty or post-puberty does not qualify for the pedophile label. Those cases would be better described as homosexual molestations. But there are many homosexuals who are quick to refute this because they don’t like the association of homosexuals and children. Still, if it’s true, it must be reckoned with. James
Click to expand...
Yes, I have read the same thing.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the sexual interest in prepubescent children. For the sexual act, see Child sexual abuse. For the primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents, see Hebephilia. For mid-to-late adolescents (15–19), see Ephebophilia.

familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/child-molestation-and-homosexuality-2/
 
shocktrooper said:
Straight men that molest those of the same sex are not gay? Are you serious? If one is not attracted to them, then what is the point? We are talking about sexual advances and improper touches, not throwing the baseball in the church parking lot.

Please provide numbers to support your claims.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am serious. Molestation, like rape, is not an act of love or attraction; it is an act of violence, domination, and power. The gender of the target is less important so long as that target is perceived to be powerless and vulnerable.
 
shocktrooper said:
Forget it. It is obvious you don’t want to answer. As a Catholic, if someone (anyone) asked me that simple question, regardless of context and setting, I would answer…“gay marriage is impossible in the eyes of God, so I stand with God. I do not support such blasphemy”. Or something very similar.
Click to expand...
You may entertain red herrings but I sort of dislike that practice as a rule. Why not ask me what I think about the death penalty? Or torture? Or abortion? These are all unrelated topics, as well. If you want to chat about gay marriage, private message me. This thread isn’t about that topic.
 
shocktrooper said:
Yes, I have read the same thing.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the sexual interest in prepubescent children. For the sexual act, see Child sexual abuse. For the primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents, see Hebephilia. For mid-to-late adolescents (15–19), see Ephebophilia.

familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/child-molestation-and-homosexuality-2/
Click to expand...
shocktrooper,

These two designations fall broadly under the umbrella of homosexuality, even though homosexuals argue that they are seldom interested in young boys. Truth is, many homosexuals have had their first sexual encounter in this manner. I am just stating what I have read. I can understand why homosexuals would like to dissociate themselves from this phenomenon, but it appears to be true, just not clear to what extent the problem exists. James
 
meltzerboy said:
Yes, I am serious. Molestation, like rape, is not an act of love or attraction; it is an act of violence, domination, and power. The gender of the target is less important so long as that target is perceived to be powerless and vulnerable.
Click to expand...
I think you would be hard pressed to prove this in the cases with priests. You just don’t want to admit the obvious because it blows your whole defense of gays out the water. There was once a time when evil was forced to stay in the closet, now it is welcomed everywhere, and Christ (or any faith that acknowledges the natural law) is forced into the closet. The best and quickest way to make an institution irrelevant is to open the ranks up to open homosexuals. Just look at how this has affected the Catholic Church after throwing the doors open to them in the 60s and 70s. How much credibility does the Church have in America today? Most Catholics have left for other churches and those that have stayed don’t abide by Church teaching. Would you call this a blessing or a curse?
 
shocktrooper said:
I think you would be hard pressed to prove this in the cases with priests. You just don’t want to admit the obvious because it blows your whole defense of gays out the water. There was once a time when evil was forced to stay in the closet, now it is welcomed everywhere, and Christ (or any faith that acknowledges the natural law) is forced into the closet. The best and quickest way to make an institution irrelevant is to open the ranks up to open homosexuals. Just look at how this has affected the Catholic Church after throwing the doors open to them in the 60s and 70s. How much credibility does the Church have in America today? Most Catholics have left for other churches and those that have stayed don’t abide by Church teaching. Would you call this a blessing or a curse?
Click to expand...
shocktrooper,

I may be naive or uninformed, but just how did the church open the door to homosexuals in the 60’s and 70’s? The church has always had a policy of loving the sinner while hating the sin, and this predates the Second Vatican Council. A sexual revolution took place in the 60’s and 70’s, but that was a secular event, not related to the Church as far as I can see. I lived through that period. Peace. James
 
shocktrooper said:
I think you would be hard pressed to prove this in the cases with priests. You just don’t want to admit the obvious because it blows your whole defense of gays out the water. There was once a time when evil was forced to stay in the closet, now it is welcomed everywhere, and Christ (or any faith that acknowledges the natural law) is forced into the closet. The best and quickest way to make an institution irrelevant is to open the ranks up to open homosexuals. Just look at how this has affected the Catholic Church after throwing the doors open to them in the 60s and 70s. How much credibility does the Church have in America today? Most Catholics have left for other churches and those that have stayed don’t abide by Church teaching. Would you call this a blessing or a curse?
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Wow! What power those homosexual have. They’ve taken down the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top