moosetracker

Wow, well lets just ban heterosexual behavior also while we are at it.. From now on, no more sex for anybody, we all have to live celibate lives.. Does not matter what your religion believes.. You can not argue that my religious beliefs are wrong based on the fact they are not your religious beliefs.. If there is a religion out there that accepts polygamy (I am sure there are, don't some Arab countries still allow multiple wives.) then it does not matter if either of our religious beliefs are against it.. US laws may care, but from a religious point of view, it is not up to you to convert them.. Same goes for any religion that believes in adultery.. In order for me to believe that a homosexual has the right to live a fulfilling life, sorry, but, no I do not have to believe in polygamy, adultery, child molestation, bestiality or any other thing you can think up that you feel should be repugnant.. I do not have to adapt to an all or nothing belief in order for you to condemn my beliefs.. But if it is to be an all or nothing belief, then I think if fair to expect you to give up heterosexual relationships, because you must conform to the nothing belief.. So says I... I am stating the beliefs of MY religion and all the other religions that have now accepted gays and are either now performing same-sex marriages or considering it, or may not yet perform them, but can in some way support the family members belonging to a same-sex couple.. I attempted it in a way that should get through to you, that you absolutely do not have the one and only way to view the world.. I am responding to this statement.. I am saying "No, Stosh, No", Everybody in the world, even those who disagree with you do not deep down inside really believe in everything you believe in and are rationalizing it... Sorry.. So let's look at that last line of yours Stosh "Just don't try and impose those justifications on others"... Yet here you are with your own religious bent, trying to justify your own beliefs, trying to rationalize your own beliefs, trying to impose your own beliefs on others... Why is this just fine for you??.... Oh yeah, that's right.. Because yours is the only religious view that should be respected and followed and imposed on all others... Including making rules in the BSA which is suppose to be non-denominational.. In order to force others to not be able to follow their own religious beliefs, but to follow yours even if they think yours are archaic, unintelligent and inhumane.. Does not matter that you agree with my religious beliefs or the religious beliefs of others who are not of your religion.. What matters is that you need to accept that religious freedom is not just for you and your religion..

Sorry - Stosh - but no.. We are sexual beings.. What you propose is similar to asking a child born with a serious curvature of the spine to ignore it and stand up straight.. If God creates all humans then he created the homosexual. Why should they have to deny themselves a fulfilling meaningful life in order to make you feel comfortable or fulfill your religious beliefs especially when they don't share in the same religious beliefs as you? God did not design the Kleptomaniac and to steal from others you are infringing or hurting someone else.. Also since a lot of pedophiles claim something in their childhood (mother, victim of another pedophile etc.) I have yet to see anything that can persuade me that you are born as pedophiles.. Again with a pedophile, you are hurting others, the victim being an innocent child just makes it all the more worse.

Stosh - I wasn't quite sure your point in this post.. Seemed more like musing rather then trying to make a point.. The only thing I wanted to comment on was "Somewhere deep inside of me says that I really don't think murder, pedophilia, homosexuality, adultery, gossip, lying, kleptomania or any other types of vices are "okay". " As for the adultery, gossip, lying people,kleptomania.. Maybe not the preferred leader so if you had people standing in line waiting for a troop position and you had your choice, you could refuse them.. Otherwise, they are problems you can overlook.. We had someone who either lied or was delusional not sure which.. She could say something in front of 20 of us, and then with a straight face deny she ever said it.. We just learned that anything she said, you doubled checked with someone else if possible.. She was troop outdoor leader, Venture leader and then later became the COR for the church of the Cub Scouts & Boy Scouts.. There was someone in the troop that there was something in her past with the cub scouts that we were told in the troop we could use her in leadership for anything that did not involve money.. As for Homosexuality - you again have to understand the different points of view.. For your religious belief it is a sin.. For ours it is something they are born with.. So it is something similar to in the past when religious people considered anyone born with a serious debilitating birth defect was either a witch or a demon child, verses now understanding it is nothing more then a birth defect.. That is the difference between the conservative religious point of view vs the liberal religious point of view on the subject of homosexuality.. So there is nothing that is deep within saying a homosexual is not OK.. For us a homosexual is absolute no problem at all.. But, in order to be able to not break rules in order to put them in leadership roles, we need BSA to endorse the local option.. Until then, we can simply continue to break the rules.

AZMike - he was mid-40's.. But l agree with Stosh, what does age have to do with a higher ruling from some sort of area (sorry, I was so happy with the answer itself, I really didn't pay attention to what level this decision was made, but it was higher then his church itself.. Stosh - I didn't go from Catholic Church to Catholic Church until I found a priest that gave me the answer I wanted to hear.. I was the UC for units that belonged to a Catholic church.. The priest of that church was the one and only person I could go to in order to get an answer of if I had to look for a new CO for these units.. I do know the priest was personally happy with the ruling.. Now does that mean the church would accept a homosexual as a leader? I didn't really ask that, but I would guess not, or if they did it would just be with the committee for something like Popcorn Kernel or something.. I think more that they were fine with it going to local option.. They were not in the need to deny other religions the right to practice their religious beliefs.. I do know this priest was fine if a homosexual youth was in his unit.. We had leaders from the troop at the meeting and they were a little shaken with the decision... The Discussion went something like this : Troop leader : So what do we do if we get a homosexual youth. Me: With most kids they do not figure out their sexual attraction until they reach puberty or after, by then they will already have been in your troop for a few years.. After working with them for years, would you really feel comfortable kicking them out? Priest : That's correct.. They will already be a member, and we will have working relationship with them.. Troop leader : Well that's true, we can shape their attitude.. Me: Oh, no the BSA does not get involved in any of our scouts sex lives.. You can't use BSA to try to change their sexual orientation.. Priest: Correct, the church would not approve of you doing anything like that either.. Troop leader: No, No, I didn't quite mean that.. More like they will know how the troop operates, and since we do not discuss sexual issues and never have, either they will know and understand that, or they can be taken aside and reminded it is not an appropriate topic.. This should be fine.. But I don't know if I could accept a homosexual as a troop leader.. Me: You have always had the right to decide the best troop leaders and what is the best person for which position.. The church also has to sign off on the leadership choice. It is just that some other troops in the area may accept homosexuals in positions of leadership.. Priest: This is correct. The church and you still have the freedom to choose our leadership.. Troop leader: Then I don't see this being any problem.. (Can't say this was it word for word.. The discussion was over a year ago.. But, this is close to what it was..) Anyway I will note that this Priest and I have always gotten along famously, and have never been in disagreement on anything, even though you and I can't agree on much.. I know there are conservative Catholics and liberal Catholics.. All I can say is luckily being in the North even the Catholics seem to be more liberal, so I haven't knocked many of their heads together..

PS. AZMike, since it seems by the way you talk that you are Catholic, I was a UC for a Catholic church, just after the vote to allow in gay youth passed, I had a talk with the church's pastor... I do not know if this decision was regional or national but he assured me that the Catholic church had already discussed this issue at a conference.. Not only did the church have no issue with the homosexual youth, but WHEN the BSA passed the local option the church would have no issue with that either.. And that is how he worded it, emphasis on WHEN..

AZ Mike - I will break up you comments in unnamed quotes as otherwise, it gets really messy.. I have been dumped out and had to start over twice now. If the VFW, American Legion and others are private organizations who disfranchise homosexuals already based on religion, then this will fall under the umbrella of their private organization.. If they are funded with tax dollars, offer a public service, or are a business that offers services to the general public, then the general public has a right to weigh in.. I love how you are all concerned about being forced to act against religious principles if it apply to YOUR religious beliefs.. But don't give a darn about forcing other religions to act against their religious principles if they follow BSA rules, or act against other religious principles of not following the rules because human treatment of people is considered the more important principle.. Also for some reason you think forcing all of us to follow your religious principles somehow gives you more strength to fend off an attack, when that is the untrue, because with the current situation you have to fight off external & internal attacks, and the external/internal groups working together against you. If the local option is given, then we are more apt to defend your right to religious freedom if you in turn respected ours.. Until then, you know what they say about a house divided.. Yes, I do.. Churches especially. You are in the murky waters where religion collides with businesses that serve the public and take tax dollars.. Again when that happens the public has the right to weigh in, but as we have seen in some cases the religious organization win, and sometimes they loose.. Simply muddy waters, personally sometimes I back the religion and sometimes I do not.. Yes, you will have to provide more, because although I see that my readings were condensed.. I see from what you had provided I did bold underline on the passage that shows the Pope was off the subject of the Monsignor Ricca, and basically dealing with the general question of gays.. I also don't see the Pope stating what you added for him, that a homosexual must be celibate or the church will shun them.. Fine, I am fine with treating the homosexual as a drunk.. So that means we get local option on deciding if a homosexual makes a good scout leader, same as with a drunk.. I am not looking for your religion to celebrate their problems.. Just treat the sin the same as any other sin rather then escalating it to being worse then any other sin.. Liar, cheater, thief, living out of wedlock, conceited,, jealous, disobedient, drunk etc..

No, but that is why it is in the "News & politics" area..

Sigh, and all this angst because this comment I made: Which never interpreted what it is you think is so meaningful of the verse, it just states this verse in other religions is not the important point of the story at all.. The do not judge others is.. You have me totally confused now.. Didn't you say : And then when I pointed out that Tyke mentioned no bible passage let alone John 8 but rather he asked as simple straight forward question.. Was not your reply: Now with this statement, are you saying that it is in answer to Tyke's question, and does need interpretation in order to make sense of it in light of the question? By the way, most of the Maine people I have met are very nice... I am in good company, so whoever told you that, you can thank them from me for the complement.. So, sure, if it will make you feel better you can interpret this passage for us.. After all, I didn't attempt to.. I just pointed to how it is escalated as more important then the rest of the story.. Then maybe we can put this to bed seeing that it has been carried over since page 2 of the thread. Considering your total huffing and puffing over this fairly minor statement which you misinterpreted to begin with.. I think I should escalate my being insulted over your totally deceptive and condescending and inaccurate statement that my religious belief boils down to planning to be forgiven for all my sins when I die..

Not without trying to figure out what your interpretation of that saying means, because Jesus did not say "Go and sin no more, for if you do not you will be demonized by society and me and we will shun you, judge you, and condemn you, especially if you become a homosexual.." "Go and sin no more" in and of itself, does not explain a) Why homosexuality is considered an unforgivable sin that makes a person unqualified to be a leader, while others are no longer even considered sinful.. "Go and sin no more" in and of itself, does not explain b) Why if Jesus hung around with the sinners, a homosexual is to be shunned unless he converts to being straight or promises to spend his life celibate..

Whatever the link was it comes up with an "HTTP 404 Not Found" error. Let me ask you, Why do you think members of the church do not have the right to pressure change within their own churches? Why do you think churches have yearly or bi-yearly conferences to propose changes? How do you think churches changed their position towards blacks, women or inter-racial marriages over the years? My answer is simple, it is healthy for churches to make changes in their policies, but the changes should not come from any outside influence but through what the members of the church want.. You have totally and purposefully misquoted both Packsaddle and I in this comment (should I accuse you of doing so to advance your personal agenda?) I stated that CO's that are businesses would be pressured to change, but not "ALL" COs... I think Packsaddle is similar, but I know it also is not "ALL" COs.. I in fact stated that their would be no pressure from outside to get involved a churches youth organization, just as there is no outside pressure to force churches to perform same-sex marriages.. As for Pope Francis, from all I read that was not a response to a question about a specific priest.. That last one was taken from "The Catholic World Report".. So now you misquote the Pope?.. (again I ask, personal agenda?) Also the Pope actions other actions toward homosexuals since then has spoke volumes.. I do not see the Catholic church performing same-sex weddings in my lifetime, I am sure it is still a considered a sin in the church.. What is refreshing about the Popes attitude is just that... His attitude.. He does not raise homosexual sin as something worse then any other sin, and he knows all humans have sin.. Therefore he can treat homosexuals with the respect that they deserve. "Who am I to judge", is basically a take away from the John chapter 8 (as we have discussed).. Seems the Pope understands this story the same as I do..

I disagree.. One pamphlet does not a war make.. Holding rosary vigils is pretty much stating it is not open to anyone else but Catholics. Come back when it is a serious pressure from non-Catholics.

I knew there was going to be a replacement for Stewardt, I didn't know that Colbert got a replacement.. What is that show called? I will check it out.. I have never done the type of show Colbert is moving to, but I will check it out a few times when he starts.. I know it will not be political satire, but I really liked his humor, and it might be good even if it is about different subjects.. Of course the interviews both Stewardt & Colbert did at the end was my least favorite.. A lot of times I didn't watch that whole piece if the person they were interviewing held no interest for me.

Ahhh-Ha... I found the piece about the LGBT PAMPLET... I looked again after Merlyn pulled something I did not see.. I see nothing in it about forcing Catholics to accept same-sex marriages.. I believe it is similar to basically what the Catholics and LGBT are cordially talking about currently, A GREATER ACCEPTANCE of GAYS IN THE CHURCH.. Outsiders may be working with Catholic homosexuals (I don't know from the pamphlet if it was created due to catholic homosexuals asking for the help of the HRC, or even who in the HRC put the pamphlet together, or who the pamphlet is for the Catholic Clergy or the LGBT community), but from what I read the meetings are pleasant and the only people who are talking with the Bishops and the Pope are Catholic homosexuals.. So far from what I see of this movement, if the Catholic church changes then it will still be Catholic LGBT church members talking to Catholic clergy... And since I don't see any "Force the Catholic Church to marry the Gays" in the pamphlet, I will read it as intended.. The Pope says "Who am I to judge".. But some of the Bishops are actively judging and condemning.. (AZ Mike - We crossed posts.)

Title "Here is New fun one to us up"... So, are we all cheerful yet??? How about Now?? Skeptic - I will miss Stewardt also, especially since Colbert is gone too.. Well I will give the new guy a try and hope he is decent.. And "NO" it is not where I get my serious news.. But, it's great to have something to lighten things up rather then always focusing on the negative.

The passage of Tykes you quoted had no scripture at all.. tyke, on 03 May 2015 - 5:39 PM, said: There is no bible passage in that.. He makes no hint at any verse from John 8 verses 1 - 11.. He asks as simple straight forward question.. It would be like you son "Asking you "Dad, can I go to Sam's party tonight.. George, will be there".. (And your son knows you admire and respect George..). And your answer to your son's question is "Go, and sin no more John 8:11" ... "Ok, Dad.. What does that mean?" OK Eagledad - What makes you think you are even close to my beliefs??? You accuse me of reading your answer to Tyke, and pulling from it a satisfactory answer which now you say was not an answer to Tyke at all (even though you quoted him before you wrote it), and it was a completion of the of the scripture he was using for an example (When he wasn't using any scripture and just asking a simple question) .. Yet you seem to deem yourself capable to sum up the entirety of my religious beliefs to being that of only one scripture, because I (like many other fellow Christians) have been taught that we all have sin, and that it is not my place (or anyones place but God himself) to judge other peoples sins.. And because I believe that religious groups with the same conviction, should be free to practice their faith and teach the youth in their BSA units their beliefs and not be forced by your conservative religious groups into following your religious beliefs which go totally against own beliefs.. AZMike - You will have to point out the news article on the LGBT pressure group which is not affiliated with the Catholic Church, nor is it made up primarily of Catholics, which is pressuring bishops to accept same-sex marriage. I returned to your original list and I don't see it listed.. Justice Alito, Cake shop, Cake Cottage, Fleur Cakes, A farm, A party place, Gortz Haus, a campground, Photography, Flower shop and an Inn... This may be the reason I skipped over it.. It is not listed.. Anyway, I surfed the net with "LGBT group Catholic churches same-sex weddings"... I got nothing you described, and the type of large protest you describe should have news articles from both sides of the issue.. I did find some bishops discussing being more welcoming to homosexual families (not weddings), and the Pope giving an LGBT group the VIP treatment etc.. All respectful discussions being had by all..

AZMike - I will study your examples.. The second one (the school) may be run by a church, but it is not a church.. As for CO's who are a business or preform a public service I have no issue with the public pressuring them into opening it's scouting units to gays.. I'm sure you're right, but somewhere during his time with them he would say, "go and sin no more" (That's from John 8:11). Barry Well if your use of "go and sin no more" is not based on your interpretation of the meaning of the phrase, then it makes no sense for you to use it to answer tyke's question.. Basically everything in the Bible is based on someone's interpretation of it.. As for you one gay who turned straight, therefore all gays can be straight example.. I can regale you with a story of a gay man and lesbian women who married (in order to give the woman US citizenship) and loved and treated each other very close to man and wife, except for in one respect.. The man died of aids and the women cared for him until the end, and was in tears that regardless of their feelings for each other it could never translate over to a sexual attraction for each other so that they could have had a normal relationship.. Some people who are not gay still in their youth have sexual experimentation.. Perhaps your friends friend was experimenting in her youth and never really gay.. Perhaps she is currently lying to herself now, and is still attracted to women... But, no a homosexual doesn't just turn straight, as has been proven throughout history with failed psycotheropy, or brainwashing experiments..

Everyone else has done my work for me nicely.. Thanks guys.. And that is exactly how I stated it.. "To prove this you will need to point out to me the public pressure (outside of their own church membership) that have been all over churches to force them to perform homosexual marriages.. For this same prediction was raised by conservatives over the legalization of Gay marriages.. Your predictions have been wrong.. The only time you get in trouble is when you try to enforce your viewpoint on the public who do not hold your same belief .." You did not name churches.. You named businesses.. And businesses are fair game.. I do not think I have trouble with what I say, you seem to have trouble interpreting what I say.. I have not stated otherwise anywhere.. I have stated at least twice now that CO's that are a business will be pressured to be open to the public (including gays), or they will have to drop their charter..

To prove this you will need to point out to me the public pressure (outside of their own church membership) that have been all over churches to force them to perform homosexual marraiges.. For this same prediction was raised by conservatives over the legalization of Gay marriages.. Your predictions have been wrong.. The only time you get in trouble is when you try to enforce your viewpoint on the public who do not hold your same belief ..

Same thing I already said.. Church CO's are not on the agenda.. The Pizza joint is a place of business open to the public not a church, therefore if they sponsored a BSA unit, when it goes to local option, they will probably be pressured to change.. What a bummer... But, I would imagine they have learned a lesson and will not see an angry mob and cheerfully welcome them to direct all their anger at them.. Unless of course they believe they might get another great payday out of it.

Depends on how old they are.. This membership policy was implemented in the mid 1990's.. Until then homosexual leaders were local option. And "NO" Rick-in-CA would not remind them of that even if it had been true. Anyone who does not agree with this policy, will agree with these comments 100%.. Even our DE's and other council leadership will agree that their opinion is valid and assure them that they are working as hard as they can to change this policy, then just put them on a list as someone they can contact when the policy does change.

Eagledad - So where did tar and feather ALL religious people with what I said.. It would only apply to religious people with that point of view, which I can assure you is not ALL religious people.. Also why is it condescending to point out their point of view if that is their point of view and they happily state it is.. Also no one follows everything in the bible, it you did you would be arrested.. My example did not state your viewpoint is wrong, it pointed out that different religions highlight different parts of a scripture giving their followers totally different interpretations of the meaning within the pages of the bible.. "Here is an example of what I was saying about what your religion chooses to highlight.. ". Now since you added to it, I will point out another difference between religious interpretation.. You state the story's moral is pointing out the hypocrisy of the accusers pretending to want to learn from Jesus when what they really wanted to do was trap him.. Ok, I can see this a form of hypocrisy, but for us it is simply showing the Jesus was very clever and no ones fool.. The answer Jesus gave still applies even if the accusers were not trying to trick Jesus, the hypocrisy is in the fact that you are not in a position to judge and condemn others of their sins when you have sins of your own.. I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying different religions interpret things differently.. And one religion (or it's members) is not in the position to call another religion wrong due to differing viewpoints. First off your statement of the situation is simplified to your point of view.. It leaves out the law the governor was passing which was the cause for the anger, it also makes the pizza joint seem like they did nothing to cause the angry mob to turn their attention on them.. It also leaves out that with some alterations to the law most of the anger dissipated.. Did it get carried too far, yes.. People are in their rights not to patronize an establishment they choose not to based on principle, they have a right to voice their opinion about the law.. But, they did go too far.. Unfortunately not any different then any other angry mob, plenty of gun advocates have threatened the lives of plenty of people who oppose them, even those who advocate for gun control due to being a surviving victim or loosing a child or spouse to guns.. Now does that apply to BSA when local option is implemented.. Perhaps to organizations who CO's are not a religion.. But, those whose CO is a religion will be left alone.. This was the same argument used when same-sex marriages were implemented.. That religions would be forced to perform the marriages.. Yet religions are left alone and are only being pressured to change by their own members.. Stosh - WE are already hanging separately... This statement makes as much sense as being in a war and deciding to put guns into the hands of your Prisoner of War and putting them on the front line expecting them to fight for your side, rather then turn the gun on their captors and helping their side out.. As long as we are forced by rules we can not abide by, we will agree with those who are applying outside pressure.. As soon as we all get local option, then we will side with you in your right to follow your religious principles.. But, I doubt we will need to side with you at all on this issue, as once the BSA is open to homosexuals in all units run outside of the religious institutions with these beliefs..

Mozart - I can tell you as fact, at the last vote my DE as well as other DE's in our council had a list of promised donations if the vote was against homosexuals and another list equal if not greater of promised donations if the vote was to allow homosexuals (both youth & adult).. He had another decent list of new CO's interested if the policy was changed.. When the council changed the vote to only allow in homosexual youth even though it passed none of the lists panned out.. In order for those who will not donate or host a BSA unit until the discrimination stops it has to be a full change in policy.. As far as donations and membership goes the half a$$ed change was the worst choice for BSA.. As for your poll the way you ask the question skews the response, because the majority of scouts and scouters are for local options.. But if you word it if they are for BSA forcing CO's to accept homosexuals, then you can get the response you want.. I also remember with the last vote the conservatives so positive they had the vote in their favor.. They were very wrong.. Conservatives are poor at getting accurate polls due to how they ask the questions and who they poll.. It makes them feel good, but in the end they are left with very rude awakenings.. Or as in the case of the last BSA vote I recall plenty protesting they were robbed, and the vote was rigged.. The United Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Episcopalian and several more will gladly support BSA if they will change their policy to allow homosexual gay leaders..

Mozart - I can also state that the decline in numbers were on going before the vote, and that the numbers would increase if BSA stopped sitting on the fence and finish the move, thus opening the doors to parents who would let their kids do scouting if they did not discriminate and also it would open their doors to more donor funding.. Can I prove it "No" but neither can you, you are just pulling facts out and putting your own interpretation on them to suit your viewpoint.. But, 70% walking due to a policy of local option.. Hardly.. As NJ & I have pointed out a few times the adulterer is OK to be a BSA adult leader and role model... And can you name for me the females that were chosen by Jesus to be his disciples.. For some reason their names seem to elude me at this moment. Might have not been a sexist thing, but Jesus had none... If we are going to simply name church leaders I am positive I can find a few who were sinners, even ones who were (or are) homosexuals.. But to state that there are female church leaders, so why didn't Jesus make this specific lady a disciple and to point to her having been a sinner is a ludicrous comparison. I am sure that all of Jesus's disciples were sinners, as we are all sinners.. He did not pluck out the 12 saints, the 12 human examples of perfection and due to their perfection make them him disciples.. He wanted to walk among the people not float above them with his merry band of angels..

Mozart - although I agree that they would need way more then $50,000 to buy BSA.. The statement that BSA would lose 70% of their membership is way out of touch also.. This was what was predicted with the last vote to include homosexual youth.. Lost some CO's but most the units just found new CO's to sponsor them and continued on.. I would imagine those CO's accepted sponsorship with the knowledge of which direction BSA will be moving in, in the future.. So with the loss of those CO's against homosexuals and the gain of new CO's who are not bothered by the inclusion of homosexuals, you are now in a weaker position with that threat..

Rick - This I am aware of.. It was funny when earlier this year the Presbyterians voted to allow same-sex marriage, and the conservative religious stated they were no longer considered Christian. Like they have the right to kick another denomination out over a difference of religious view-point, and an issue the Jesus never even weighed in on.. Still no reason not to school the conservative on why they are on the wrong side of the issue.. Here is an example of what I was saying about what your religion chooses to highlight.. Eagledad quoted on line from John 8 as if this is the main point of the story.. Another religion would look at the whole story in it's entirety. The moral of the entire story being that we are all sinners and are not in the position to judge others for their sins.. Something the conservative religious chooses to ignore, while they only choose to highlight the last statement "go and sin no more.".. But since we are all sinners this is more like patting a mischievous child on the head and saying "Try to be good"..