Scouting's Real Gay Policy

[jmcquillan]

OGE

 

My Question is, does anybody know if there has been a study on the sexual orientation of the children of gay couples? And next, depending on the outcome would that prove/disprove the inborn trait/consious choice argument?

 

Did you have a chance to watch the entire show with Rosie O'Donnell, et al? During that show, the couple you refer to was interviewed, as were the children they've adopted (outside of Florida) and the foster care children they have, including the one the state is trying to take away. A couple of "experts" interviewed during that program stated quite unequivocally, that studies they were aware of showed that children of gay couples showed no overwhelming propensity for growing up gay. If I remember correctly, the studies they referred to showed that only 5%, or so, of the children studied went on to a gay lifestyle. The others grew up heterosexual.

 

Diane Sawyer was quite good, I thought, in her fairly intense questioning. When this subject was discussed, she repeatedly beat the trail to the "wouldn't children of gay parents have a greater likelyhood of growing up gay?" question. The answer seemed to bear out the results of the studies. One might suppose that there are studies out there that may say just the opposite, but they were not presented. So, the answer to your second question may be a big....dunno??

 

One interesting point that was made by Rosie O'Donnell was when she said, "I grew up in a heterosexual family. My parents were heterosexual." That may attend more to your second question, but perhaps not. Until this day and age, few children have grown up in a gay family, at least, few that we know of. Back in the 40's, 50's, and 60's, we didn't really discuss this stuff, so who knew? Now it's in the papers and in our faces daily. Gay parents can't have children of their own (without outside help), so a major factor that would seem to lead to a child growing up gay would be the environment. Genes from the parents would not play a part, right? In a heterosexual relationship, genes may very well play a part, and the environment would seem to play a very different part. Follow me? Does that make the case for learned vs. inherited? Who knows? I don't.

 

I will say this one thing, though. I have long stood for the BSA and it's freedom of association and choice. And unless some bonehead does something to make the BSA stance more than that, I probably always will. But on the other hand, the gay parents issue, I will side with the gay parents. (This probably makes me a target and more of a hypocrite than I think I am.) Why will I stand there. Probably only for one reason...the children.

 

I think of the number of children out there in foster care or institutions, for whom parents aren't there. I think of the number of HIV positive children out there who had no choice in their condition and future. Then I think of all the adults across this country, even many within the BSA, who would not do what these two gentlemen in Florida are doing. They're giving these kids a home that seems loving, nuturing, and one full of hope for the future. Lord knows, I don't know if I'd have the strength of character to do that. So I give them a huge amount of credit. Without adults like that, straight or gay, what would become of the children? I fear the answer to that question. I'd rather the answer be that any adult, gay or straight, willing to take on the roll of loving, nuturing, and raising a child who might otherwise fall between the systems and societies cracks, be congratulated for their efforts and choice in that matter, but I know better. A lot of us don't think that way. While this may disqualify the adult for service in the BSA, I would hope that it does not disqualify the child by itself. If it did, I would walk, and very quickly change sides. Were the child to declare a gay lifestyle at some point down the road, well, I don't know.....that's a difficult question for me, it seems, and I know that seems at odds with my support of the BSA. But on this one, I seem to be finding myself more on the side of having every child live in a home that can provide for them, love them, nuture them, and raise them to adulthood as valuable members of society. Without parents, straight or gay, that isn't going to happen for a lot of kids.

 

I know this will be heresy, here, but kids don't need scouting. It's not a required life experience, as valuable as we all know the program is, it's not a required endeavor like school, church, and family. Kids can add greatly to their life experience and future by the adventure of Scouting, but they can also do just fine without it. If parentless and sick children can only be given a chance at a future by those that the BSA rules prohibit as members and leaders, then I'd side against the state of Florida, with the gay parents, but still, for the moment, with the BSA and the program they maintain, and rules they set.

 

Inborn trait or consious choice, I think the issue isn't one the BSA should attend to, unless the BSA is prepared to help all the orphans and foster children, healthy or sick, across the country, find loving parents and homes. The goals we share as Scouters all include seeing each succeeding generation become the best they can be as they grow, and as adults. If we share part of that experience with young men as Scouts, we do our part. But we should not, as as adults, leaders, an organization, or just plain good folks, seek to stymie the efforts of those our organization excludes, to help other children reach the same goals. In many discussions here, and elsewhere, there appears the notion that the gay lifestyle is inherently evil. My own take is that, while there are bad examples out there, there are probably 100 fold heterosexual bad examples for every gay bad example. We don't discuss those, do we? There are far too many heterosexual adults having kids that end up in foster homes or orphanages or wandering the streets. Gay parents don't create these kids. So if gay adults, like the two gentlemen in Florida, want to spend their lives raising and caring for those children cast off by their heterosexual parents, then I'd say let it be so.

 

[Rooster7]

My own take is that, while there are bad examples out there, there are probably 100 fold heterosexual bad examples for every gay bad example. We don't discuss those, do we?

 

No, we don't.

 

1) Your "100 fold" statement isn't very factual.

 

2) While you and others can point to various case studies and make claims about the homosexual community, only those specific families know what is going on in their own homes. We can only guess.

 

3) If every example provided was conclusive evidence regarding a particular person or trait, then nearly all things can be proven as good or bad (depending one's perspective). As TJ would surely point out, all of morality becomes relative.

 

4) The debate is not about parenting skills; it's about the morality of being homosexual. While I will not make graphic statements about homosexuals (as Dedicated Dad so aptly did), I do encourage you to think about their behavior. Do you really believe this what God wants?

 

5) I don't place much stock in the opinion of Rosie O'Donnell. Nice face. Nice personality. Can't say too much about her beyond that. I know she doesn't claim to be a journalist so I guess we shouldn't judge her by that standard. Know this though: She invited Tom Selleck to be a celebrity guest on her show and then attacked him on the air for being a member of the NRA. I never heard her apologize for that so I must assume she feels pretty righteous about her causes. Would it be assuming too much to think she views homosexual rights as one of her causes?

 

6) I don't place much stock in Diane Sawyer as a journalist. She has all the appearances of being impartial (initially), but she will never ask the tough follow up question unless she's interviewing a conservative. How many examples of child molestation was she able to provide in this story? Maybe, zero. I guess that doesn't happen with homosexual couples? All of their motives are pure, right? How many Scouters really believe that is reflective of the reality? If God asked you to make sure a particular child was given a loving and protective home, would you place that child in the care of two homosexuals? Afterwards, would you ask God to search your heart and judge you on your efforts?

 

[jmcquillan]

Rooster,

 

1) Your "100 fold" statement isn't very factual.

 

You're absolutely correct, it's merely a guess on my part. And that guess is based on the local and national news I read everyday. And that news contains far more crimes against children and adults by heterosexuals than gays. Lately it even contains more crimes against children by priests than by gays. But you right, I have no facts to back up my 100 fold guess.

 

2) While you and others can point to various case studies and make claims about the homosexual community, only those specific families know what is going on in their own homes. We can only guess.

 

I didn't point to any studies, and I can't remember their names. I only said that certain studies were referred to in the program to support the position that children growing up in a home where the parental adults are gay do not show a propensity for becoming gay themselves. Personally, I don't find that to be an unreasonable assumption. If it is backed up by facts from studies, fine.

 

3) If every example provided was conclusive evidence regarding a particular person or trait, then nearly all things can be proven as good or bad (depending one's perspective). As TJ would surely point out, all of morality becomes relative.

 

You lost me there...huh?

 

4) The debate is not about parenting skills; it's about the morality of being homosexual. While I will not make graphic statements about homosexuals (as Dedicated Dad so aptly did), I do encourage you to think about their behavior. Do you really believe this what God wants?

 

I'm not the same God-fearing individual that you are. And I respect you for who and what you appear to be. I also expect that you will respect me for the same. We'll leave the other guy out of this, as he's history.

 

And I do think about behavior and gays. And my wife and I have known quite a few, personally and professionally. We've never known any to take the path of attempting to raise children, but that does not take away from our collective respect for those who do. I'll leave God out of this discussion, for he does not "tell" me that this behavior is right or wrong. He and I have a relationship that goes back a long way, and culminated with some rather heated discussions as I lay in the jungle just north of LZ English. There's a mutual respect there, but we still don't totally agree on things. Maybe we never will. As to your question about what God wants, I'd rather hear from you what you think God wants for the kids who lie dying and orphaned from HIV of their heterosexual parents designs, or all the others for whom heterosexual parents can't or won't appear. Do we just leave them? Were there sufficient heterosexual adults willing to take these children and raise them, there would be no orphanages, or foster children. I'd rather that some willing and able adult take them and raise them. I don't fear the gay community as do some, perhaps yourself included. But that aside, what would you do for these kids? Our God leaves us to our own devices to solve the problem. He will not provide parents, only we will.

 

5) I don't place much stock in the opinion of Rosie O'Donnell. Nice face. Nice personality. Can't say too much about her beyond that. I know she doesn't claim to be a journalist so I guess we shouldn't judge her by that standard. Know this though: She invited Tom Selleck to be a celebrity guest on her show and then attacked him on the air for being a member of the NRA. I never heard her apologize for that so I must assume she feels pretty righteous about her causes. Would it be assuming too much to think she views homosexual rights as one of her causes?

 

I don't have much respect for her as an entertainer. Never have. But I won't sit in judgement of her personal life other than to say that her lifestyle is not mine. But her apparent concern for children is one I would share.

 

6) I don't place much stock in Diane Sawyer as a journalist. She has all the appearances of being impartial (initially), but she will never ask the tough follow up question unless she's interviewing a conservative. How many examples of child molestation was she able to provide in this story? Maybe, zero. I guess that doesn't happen with homosexual couples? All of their motives are pure, right? How many Scouters really believe that is reflective of the reality? If God asked you to make sure a particular child was given a loving and protective home, would you place that child in the care of two homosexuals? Afterwards, would you ask God to search your heart and judge you on your efforts?

 

I would refer you to my query above. What would you propose for all the children without parents otherwise? Did Diane Sawyer provide examples of child molestation in this story? I really can't remember, but I think it was discussed. I also think that for every example of child molestation one could dig up where a member of the gay community was held accountable, one would be able to find two where a heterosexual pervert was held accountable. The news is sadly full of those stories...witness the terrible news from Texas recently. There was no homosexuality in that house that we know of, yet the deeds were horrible. Are the motives of the folks interviewed in the story pure? I'd be more than willing to bet they are. If God asked me to make sure a particular child was given a loving and protective home, would I place that child in the care of two homosexuals? If the only people to come forward were gay and had the interest and desire and wherewithall to do the job? Yes. If there were heterosexual candidates? I don't know. I can't say for sure. But I'd be more than willing to review the qualifications of all of them, regardless of sexual preference. Afterwards, would I ask God to search my heart and judge me on my efforts? No. I wouldn't look for his blessings or a pat on the back. I'd know whether or not I did my level best for the children.

[Rooster7]

JM,

 

Your "100 fold" statement isn't very factual. You're absolutely correct, it's merely a guess on my part.

 

Which was merely my point. It's purely based on your impression via the news.

 

And that news contains far more crimes against children and adults by heterosexuals than gays. Lately it even contains more crimes against children by priests than by gays.

 

So, we are to assume that a pedophile priest is a heterosexual? If we were going to assume anything about his "orientation", it seems to me it would be he is a homosexual. These guys are molesting boys not girls. Regardless, if my presumption is unfair, your presumption is doubly unfair.

 

I only said that certain studies were referred to in the program to support the position that children growing up in a home where the parental adults are gay do not show a propensity for becoming gay themselves.

 

Which television program was that, the Rosie O'Donnell show (self professed homosexual and champion of liberal causes) or the Diane Sawyer news special (another champion of liberal causes). You don't see the bias in their "reporting"? Alas, maybe I am in a minority, but I see a strong bias by these two.

 

If every example provided was conclusive evidence regarding a particular person or trait, then nearly all things can be proven as good or bad (depending one's perspective). As TJ would surely point out, all of morality becomes relative. --- You lost me there...huh?

 

More simply said, one can find a good or bad example for almost every political cause. Finding supposed good examples of parents, does not prove anything about the morality of homosexuality.

 

I'm not the same God-fearing individual that you are. And I respect you for who and what you appear to be. I also expect that you will respect me for the same.

 

I can appreciate that.

 

We'll leave the other guy out of this, as he's history.

 

Gone, but not forgotten. While many did not appreciate his bluntness, his graphic statements made a point. Unfortunately, it was so graphic; nobody really addressed the point he made. Their sexual behavior, which is appalling and perverted, is glossed over with words such as "choice", "lifestyle", "alternative", and the like. He simply made folks look beyond those glossy words and see the behavior for what it is.

 

There's a mutual respect there, but we still don't totally agree on things.

 

No offense intended, but I find it difficult to believe that God (omnipotent and all knowing) would have a "mutual respect" with a created being. Obviously, we do not share the same understanding of who God is, and what our relationship with Him should be. Fearing a righteous God does not mean one cannot love him.

 

As to your question about what God wants, I'd rather hear from you what you think God wants for the kids who lie dying and orphaned from HIV of their heterosexual parents designs, or all the others for whom heterosexual parents can't or won't appear.

 

Interesting example. I wonder how many of these heterosexual parents pursued a homosexual relationship outside of their marriage? Of course, no matter how they contracted it, the child is still a victim and I will answer your question.

 

Do we just leave them? Were there sufficient heterosexual adults willing to take these children and raise them, there would be no orphanages, or foster children. I'd rather that some willing and able adult take them and raise them.

 

So, am I to presume that the homosexual community is filling this void? Some how, as selfish and depraved their behavior is, I don't envision them seeking out the sickly and infected. Nevertheless, even if this were true, I don't see how putting them under their care is a good answer. If given enough time, perhaps I could come up with some plausible solutions. Still, I'm sure a new set of facts and circumstances could be created to nullify any answer I might offer. I don't mean to insinuate that you would do so purposefully to be stubborn. The fact is I am admitting that there are many difficult circumstances and sometimes there doesn't seem to be any good answers. Yet, as you observed, I do believe in a righteous God and I would never do anything knowingly against his will and teachings.

 

I don't fear the gay community as do some, perhaps yourself included. But that aside, what would you do for these kids? Our God leaves us to our own devices to solve the problem. He will not provide parents, only we will.

 

No. I don't fear the gay community. This is, as many should know by now, the mantra used by the gay community whenever folks challenge their agenda. BTW, I am NOT accusing you of being gayI am accusing you of echoing their mantra.

 

What would you propose for all the children without parents otherwise?

 

There are solutions. I'm not claiming to know themI just know that there are plenty of organizations that are seeking to place these children into loving homes. It's not like the homosexual community provided the answer to this question. Yes, they're willing to take some of these kids. But I maintain, to what end? Based on your exposure to the gay community, you're willing to "take that risk". Based on my exposure to the gay community, I would not be willing to take that risk (and I would say that without my religious convictions). You claim to see a lot in the news about heterosexual adults doing harm to children. I'm not denying your observation. However, certainly that same news source has shown many examples of the decadent behavior of homosexuals. By the way, when you're comparing heterosexual and homosexual adult wrongdoings, I hope you take into account their numbers. Homosexuals only account for about 2 percent of the U.S. population. Although, I imagine this will only become another point of contention.

 

Did Diane Sawyer provide examples of child molestation in this story? I really can't remember, but I think it was discussed.

 

I'm sure it was brief, incomplete, and to some degree inaccurate (having never seen the special myself). You can beat me up on that one, but I'm fairly confident I know how Diane Sawyer portrayed the story.

 

I also think that for every example of child molestation one could dig up where a member of the gay community was held accountable, one would be able to find two where a heterosexual pervert was held accountable. The news is sadly full of those stories...witness the terrible news from Texas recently. There was no homosexuality in that house that we know of, yet the deeds were horrible. Are the motives of the folks interviewed in the story pure? I'd be more than willing to bet they are.

 

I have no doubt that this story is true. Nevertheless, I refer you back to a previous statement - when you're comparing heterosexual and homosexual adult wrongdoings, I hope you take into account their numbers. Homosexuals only account for about 2 percent of the U.S. population.

 

If the only people to come forward were gay and had the interest and desire and where with all to do the job? Yes.

 

Sorry to hear that, but it is consistent with your stance.

 

Afterwards, would I ask God to search my heart and judge me on my efforts? No. I wouldn't look for his blessings or a pat on the back. I'd know whether or not I did my level best for the children.

 

Here is where we have a serious disagreement. I wouldn't mind a pat on the back from God. My ultimate goal in life is to do his will. I want his approval. I often fail, but I like to think that I'm still striving. Perhaps you are frustrated by the limitations placed on us. Mankind cannot provide the answers for all of our problems. We think we have solved one, then we turn around and another pops up. Of course, the next question is, then "Where is God?" God can fix whatever he so chooses. Why he allows some things to happen I don't know. The fact is we won't know all of the answers unless God reveals them. I accept that. For others, that is extremely difficult to accept. This is especially true when those folks experience the harshest realities that this world can inflict. I've been more fortunate then some. I stand by faith, and I pray God will not allow me to wander from it. Okay, I didn't mean to preachI'm just giving you my perspective.

 

[jmcquillan]

Rooster,

 

So, we are to assume that a pedophile priest is a heterosexual? If we were going to assume anything about his "orientation", it seems to me it would be he is a homosexual. These guys are molesting boys not girls. Regardless, if my presumption is unfair, your presumption is doubly unfair.

 

My point, if made badly, I apologize, if made well, then....was to illustrate that painting the gay community by virtue of the wrongs done by a few is not acceptable, just as painting the Catholic Church by virtue of the wrongs done by a few would be wrong. You have already made the choice that being gay is wrong, and that's your right. I have made the assumption that it's no more wrong than being blue.

 

Which television program was that, the Rosie O'Donnell show (self professed homosexual and champion of liberal causes) or the Diane Sawyer news special (another champion of liberal causes). You don't see the bias in their "reporting"? Alas, maybe I am in a minority, but I see a strong bias by these two.

 

I thought I made that rather clear. It was, of course the Diane Sawyer special. O'Donnell was only a part of the story. But, your comment here only serves to bolster my supposition stated above that being gay is truly evil and abhorent to you. It would also seem fair to say that you might not believe either one of these folks if they told you the earth was round.(?)

 

Finding supposed good examples of parents, does not prove anything about the morality of homosexuality.

 

And there, we're on different pages altogether. For I do not look upon the issue of being gay as one of morality or immorality. Such is life....

 

And as for the rest of the post, Rooster, it's all too apparent to me that you and I are in very different places on the subject. I won't try to argue my point further with you, for I don't really want to follow the trail that would make this a more of a religious debate than it may have already become. On the religious end, you'd likely carry the day. Your beliefs and convictions as far deeper than mine ever were, or may ever be. I repsect your convictions. But I respect my own more, be they less than yours, or just different. You and I have seen the world through very different glasses. But, such is life. And without that variety, we'd be rather boring. I could say the same about gay vs. straight....but...I won't. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rooster7]

It would also seem fair to say that you might not believe either one of these folks if they told you the earth was round.

 

Now that's just not fair...I would double-check my geography and science books, but I would believe them eventually!

 

You and I have seen the world through very different glasses. But, such is life. And without that variety, we'd be rather boring.

 

You know, I think we are in agreement on this point. I thank you for recognizing our differences without portraying me as a redneck, Klansman, or some other unintelligent bigot. Typically, that is the response by the gay community and many of their supporters.

 

JM, I've read many of your posts. I don't think we are as different as you might think. I pray God will reveal himself to you (You can do the same for me)...Either way, neither one of us can lose. Peace.

 

[happyhappyjoyjoy]

Let's face it, none of us folow the scout laws. If we/you did we would be walking on water. If you believe that homosexuality is a choice, shouldn't you as a leader, molder of youth, work with that youth to see the light? If a scout lies, we don't kick him out of the scouting, we point out why he should change his evil ways.

Have any of you ever kicked out a scout because he was/is gay? I think I would have a hard time doing it if I had to. I hope I'm never confronted by that situation.

[red feather]

What a debate. I have had to read the postings several times to get the issues proposed straight. Of all the posted phrases and words one stands out.

 

"By plurality and relative perspective or mores. And by mutual respect for each other, toleance and standing on common ground."

 

Sounds to me like the formula that has made America the nation that it is. My understanding of the legal battles is that BSA is saying that they (BSA) have the right to set their own standards and not have standards forced upon them. On that issue I agree completely. As a simple adult volunteer I tend to stay away from the 'bigger picture' that is discussed in the media. My bigger picture is the young scouts that I have the privelege to work with.

 

Morality that is dictated is not morality, it is the views of a select group that wants me to believe as they do whether I do or not. Personally I have morals that I have chosen and they are ones that have developed throughout my life. Not others.

 

Years ago in my youth i tended to be a right/wrong sort of person. While in the military , serving in Germany, sitting in a brew house with the german unit we were stationed with it suddenly come to me that 30 years before that day I would have been required to try to kill the men I was sitting with. Because they had been declared evil, bad people not worth associationg with. On that day I learned that there is perspective to every issue and I learned to get along to get along.

 

I don't have the literary styles of this thread or the indepth knowledge and learning that some have demonstrated, but, as a respecter of each opinion I thank you for passing on the information.

 

YIS

[Rooster7]

While in the military , serving in Germany, sitting in a brew house with the German unit we were stationed with it suddenly come to me that 30 years before that day I would have been required to try to kill the men I was sitting with. Because they had been declared evil, bad people not worth associating with.

 

WWII was not fought because some countries arbitrarily declared the German people to be evil. We fought to destroy NAZI Germany, a nation headed by a truly evil man, because that country demonstrated its evil desires over and over again. Perhaps individual German solders should not be judged for those evils. Yet, these men wore their country's uniform and chose to fight for it. If your country was intentionally killing civilians (because of their religion) and conquering nations without provocation, would you wear it's uniform. I suppose a good argument can be made that many solders were unaware of the genocide and/or were ignorant of the political situation. Regardless, if you fought in WWII, it wasn't because you viewed individual solders as evil. It was their country that was judged to be evil. Based on the evidence (of crimes committed by NAZI Germany), I don't most people would argue that notion.

 

I understand your point though. It's possible for good-hearted individuals to become enveloped and dragged into something that they'd rather not be a part of. Nevertheless, I don't think WWII can be portrayed as anything but "good verses evil". NAZI Germany was not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Venturer2002]

Just as a little note to all on this thread:

 

Pedophilia has little if anything to do with being a fruit or not. Pedophilia is an unnatural attraction to children of either sex, the fact that boys tend to be molested more often than girls is just a sad bit of coincidence, according to psychologists. In fact, many pedophiles appear to be heterosexuals and are respected members of their community.

 

Homosexual men and women are attracted to people of their gender and legal age. Even though I personally feel homosexuality is an abomination, I don't want to lump all perverts in one category.

[slontwovvy]

Although Venturer2002's point is correct, I find it interesting that during the whole Catholic priest scandal, most priests were accused of molesting teenage or older boys, not 7-year-olds. Amazing how the media had everyone believing that the problem was pedophilia, not homosexuality.

[RobK]

"Pedophilia has little if anything to do with being a fruit or not."

 

Unfortuneately, this is simply not true. Most convicted pedophiles self-identify as homosexual, and in fact, most homosexuals were sexually molested as a child or had their first sexual encounter (a homosexual one) with an adult during their teens. Psychology in this area is so heavily politicized that you won't get a straight answer (pardon the pun) from almost any psychologist about it. If the data in a study showed that every single homosexual studied was a self-avowed axe-murderer, you'd be told, at best, that the data was inconclusive.

[red feather]

Rooster 7, I agree with you in the root cause/reason of WW2. The people I was with would not have been my enemy as individuals but as a group--soldiers. It is easy to mark a 'type' of people as bad or wrong or whatever the label would be. That is, to me, one of the easiest ways out for some people. Instead of looking into the situation or issue it is easier to mentally lump the bad guy into a category, Jews, Arabs, blacks, wasps etc., etc., etc. As scout leaders have to look deeper into situations than the average person might. We have volunteered to assist in the molding, training, raising of young men as scouts.

 

Soap box is getting creaky. Thanks for the chance.

 

YIS

[CubScouterFather]

What a complicated thread. I am Gay. Never knew what Gay was but struggled with the attraction/unattraction. Married my best friend (after 10 years) had children and as I grew to realize how important integrity was as a Father, I crashed and burned under the pain of being "someone else". As I recovered from my mental breakdown, I Came Out.

 

Intergrity. Hmmm. My oldest son is 8 and tonight I am bringing him to the general Cub Scout recruiting meeting. What do I do? I loved Cub Scouts. It's not the need to have Scouting "embrace" homosexuality as it is the BSA's stance to exclude even their finest when they come out. The Courts ruled that the BSA

had a right" but it's clearly evident that few felt they were "doing what was right".

 

I respect what has been said but, as I searched for a reason for my homosexuality, I was left with no reason other than it "just is". My wife suffered most inspite of my attentiveness, compliments, fresh flowers and thoughtful gifts in spite of my attentions, she never felt desired. I could paid attention to her every need...I was doing it for her and it left me lost.

 

I won't go on but I challenge you to move out of judgement and into curiousity.

 

American Psychologists removed homosexuality from their list of psychological illness because it was sufficiently proven. Please check with them at:

 

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

 

We come from all cultures and all walks of life and, like all people, we cannot and should not be lumped together. The reason behind the "rainbow flag" is diversity. You would be downright shocked to know how many of us work side by side with you - but are afraid to let you know.

 

Learn the difference between Pedophilia and Homosexuality. Peds are more typically attracted to all children and less often toward those of a particular sex. They are opportunistic and boys are most trusted alone.

 

When a Gay person "Comes Out" they are being honest - I understand that I find fullfilment in the company of someone of my own sex. It's weird - YES! There are few examples to feel normal about.

 

My point being this. I am Gay and I am Good. My children are in a well adjusted household with me and my life partner - much more so than when I was with their Mom. Our involvement in their lives and our community rivals most "straight" parents and yet, we are a bad example.

 

It doesn't take long to create a list of people who where, in recent times, once "honestly" discriminated against. Less than 100 years ago women were unfit to be near the altar or allowed to vote or drive or hold jobs, etc...

 

Thanks for listening - Phil

[acco40]

Welcome to the forum CubScoutFather. Glad to hear that you enrolled your son in Cub Scouts. It was and still if a wonderful program, delivered by fallible people. I hope he has a wonderful experience.

 

As you read through this thread, I'm sure you found a very diverse bunch of opinions! Scouters come from all backgrounds and we don't all think alike.

 

As for being gay due to "just is" who really knows why we are what we are. Personally, I believe what many prominant psychologists believe. That people fall into a spectrum on the sexuality scale. No one is really 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual. Yes, society does place many expectations on us. With all of the bagage that goes with it, who in their right mind would choose to be gay? Maybe only Spartans in Greece many many years ago!

 

Well, I can no sleep better knowing that my county government made a proclamation about gay marriage. That is really what I elected them for, not for balancing a budget, providing education, maintaining the roads, etc.(This message has been edited by acco40)