Calif. Judges Possibly Banned from Scouting Activity

[Rooster7]

kwc57,

 

There is no easy answer to the problem of homosexuality. All I can come up with is....walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you criticize them. Hence, my suggestion that for all of those people who think abstinence is the answer......give it a try yourself (for the rest of your life) before you so boldly tell someone else that it is the only answer for them.

 

So, from these comments, am I to presume that you believe that there are no single people who believe and/or are capable of remaining celibate until marriage, or until death if marriage is not in their future? Are overpowering urges an excuse or justification for behavior? You know, while I realize that rape is a crime of violence, some rapists actually rape to satisfy an overpowering urge to quench a sexual desire (i.e., date rape). Does this mean we should not criticize them for their lack of restraint? What about a pedophile? Do we ask too much of them to remain abstinent?

 

NJ,

 

Rooster, when you respond, I wouldn't bother referring to the Bible. Since I have shown that your hypothesis (gays are born gay) means that God doesn't have a problem with them being gay, then the Word of God can't possibly declare that homosexuality is a sin. God wouldn't declare his own work to be a sin, right?

 

As ScoutParent has already pointed out, your logic is very flawed. In fact, lets carry it all the way through, just to illustrate how flawed it truly is. So, if what you say is true for sexual orientation, it must be true for all human desires and behaviors right? It wouldnt make sense to say God creates homosexuals and heterosexuals, but he doesnt have a hand in the makeup of others. Consequently, we must also assume that God creates pedophiles. But why limit this premise to sexuality? God also created every person who ever raped, murdered, or stole. Why do we judge and point an accusing finger at these individuals? How can we call these things sins? After all, God created them. He must have known that they were going to have a propensity to do those behaviors. Are you proposing that we close all prisons? Are you suggesting that society should point its collective finger at God? Where does this nonsense end?

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

Of course single people can abstain. I abstained until I was out of college and got married. I'm assuming from your viewpoints that you did to. But at some point, you and I chose to quit abstaining and got married didn't we? Why? It certainly wasn't in our plans to abstain for the rest of our lives, was it? We were just following the rules. No sex before marriage and no sex with another woman after marriage. We get married for many reasons, but it is the sexual side of marriage that makes it unique to any other partner relationship we can have with another person. The Bible even tells us that we should only abstain from sex inside a marriage for a short period of time to keep things from getting too rocky. You see, while we tout celibacy and abstinance for others, we have chosen a different path for ourselves. My point is that if you think abstinance is such a wonderful and easy thing to do, give it another try for a year or so and see how it goes. It is easy to tell someone else what they must do when you yourself don't have to do it. If you'll recall, the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians, chapter 7 that it was better to not marry so you could better serve God without the burden of a wife and family taking away from your full attention. He then goes on to say that it would be better to marry for those who have trouble exercising self control. God's word recognizes that the God given sex drive is so strong that some people will have great difficulty in exercising self control and abstaining. For those of us who are heterosexual, we have an "easy" outlet....marriage (if you want to call that easy). For those who are homosexual, we tell them that abstinance is their only answer, even as the Word of God recognizes that this is a very difficult choice to live with.

 

As I said, there is no easy answer to homosexuality. I do believe that they are born that way and I do believe that same gender sex is sinful in God's eyes. I know that God creates us with a strong instinctual sex drive and that many many people have done really really stupid stuff to fulfill it.....homosexual, heterosexual, male, female, Christian, non-Christian alike.

[Rooster7]

kwc57,

 

Okay...Perhaps we agree more than we disagree. However, while I understand your point that the sex drive is very strong (whether it is perverted or not), it should not be lost that heterosexuality (in and of itself) is not sinful. In short, it would be ridiculous for a married man to abstain from sex with his wife for a lifetime just to prove a point. As for my own sexual behavior (before my marriage), I am not as innocent as I would like to claim. Regardless, this does not nullify the wrongness of it. When I was ten or eleven years old, I use to tell a few lies too. Even so, I feel fully qualified and justified to speak out against its malevolence. God calls us to speak out against evil (sin) when we see it. He did not demand moral perfection as a perquisite. But, he does demand that we repent of own sins. In the final analysis, this is what I am suggesting - that homosexuals reject their behavior and seek a righteous life. For some reason, you seem to think I am asking too much. Yet, I am merely the messenger. Does your bible tell you to do differently or to refrain from delivering the message?

 

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

I do think we pretty much agree. No, I don't think you are asking too much. Just don't be surprised when a human stumbles and falls and fails to live up to the Biblical standard. We all do it everyday, regardless of how hard we try not to most of the time. Remember, in God's eyes a sin is a sin is a sin. There is no degree in sin except in what our society decides. Obviously, a murder is worse than telling a white lie to spare someone's feelings. But to God, they are both sins! He treats them no differently. Each seperates us from God equally. That a gay person gives into temptation is no greater sin than the teenager having sex in the backseat of his car in God's view. While we may condemn both, we tend to blame raging hormones in the teenagers case and we tend to discuss abominations in the case of the gay. While both are wrong, we see one as "normal" and the other as "abnormal" and attach a degree of sinfullness to it from a human perspective. God sees both as sin period.

[Rooster7]

While we may condemn both, we tend to blame raging hormones in the teenagers case and we tend to discuss abominations in the case of the gay. While both are wrong, we see one as "normal" and the other as "abnormal" and attach a degree of sinfulness to it from a human perspective. God sees both as sin period.

 

In the teenagers case, the sin is due to the fact that the couple is not bound by marriage. In the homosexuals case, there are actually two sins being committed first, as was true for the teenagers, they are not bound by marriage, at least not one that would be recognized by God. Second, their sexual behavior is a perversity of nature and God goes so far as to declare their acts as an abomination through His Word, in both the new and old testaments.

 

In the end, I agree sin is sin. All sin separates us from God. I also agree it is highly probable that we all sin everyday, despite our best efforts. However, if we repent and accept Jesus into our hearts, if we accept His sacrifice on the cross - to atone for our sins, we are forgiven. Yet, if homosexuals proclaim their sexuality as natural (I was born this way) and refute any notion that their behavior is sinful, how can they be repentant? I would not want to encourage them in this line of thinking I was born this way. My urges are every bit as natural as any heterosexuals. The bible clearly rejects that claim.

 

[littlebillie]

"The bible clearly rejects that claim."

 

Rooster, don't know if you've ever been one of those who advises us just to look around us to see proof of God and the Bible, but certainly Baden-Powell was (God, anyway).

 

Yet in nature we see homosexuality. God put it in nature, so - why? If not that it IS natural, at least for some...?

[Twocubdad]

I usually stay out of these threads on homosexuality. In fact, when a thread degenerates into the same old discussion on gays and Scouting, I'd like to see Scouter.com mark the thread so those of us not interested can avoid it. Maybe a little lavender triangle in the subject line.....

 

But although Rooster and I come to different conclusion on the subject, he has very eloquently stated my main objection to the BSA policy. "In the end, I agree sin is sin. All sin separates us from God," Rooster very accurately writes.

 

My objection is that BSA is shopping its sins. Being homosexual has become the third rail of Scouting. Save child abuse or a conviction for violent crime, we can forgive just about anything else.

 

As the chairman of a Pack committee, if a den leader shows up for den meeting with his 21-year-old boyfriend wearing leather pants and a dog collar, I've got a problem with that. I have the same problem if he shows up with his similarly-dressed 21-year-old GIRLFRIEND. But National, apparently, does not. Why is there a blanket ban on one but not the other?

 

True, local units and COs have the ability to disqualify individual as they see fit. But where is the national policy against adulters serving as leaders? Heterosexual Scouters shacking up is okay? How about people who cheat on their taxes or illegally copy CDs for their friends? How about abandoning one's marriage vows? Are not these evidence of a lack of character? Are these sinners the kind of people we want leading our children?

 

The answer is politics. BSA strokes one of its largest constituancy groups by banning gays. What do you think happens if they ban divorced leaders?

 

I'm obviously being sarcastic -- I don't wish Scouting to become the Inquisition. But is it not a more rational policy to say that the local leaders -- the folks who know the adults in questions, who know the beliefs and feelings of the families in their unit, and who know the desires of their CO -- are best qualified to make these decisions? If a LDS-sponsored unit wants to boot a leader for drinking coffee on a campout, that's their business. But if a unit sponsored by a San Francisco neighborhood co-op has a great SM who happens to be gay, why can't that be their business too?

 

[evmori]

twocubdad,

The answer is very simple. Homosexuality is immoral & not consistent with the values of the BSA.

 

Easy, huh?

 

A joyous New Year to all!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[littlebillie]

evmori, you can expand your statement to be a little more in keeping with the overall position...

 

overt sexuality - staight or gay - is ... not consistent with the values of the BSA.

 

this statement actually covers more of TwoCubDad's post.

[pfann]

I am new to this forum so forgive me for butting in.

 

Perhaps we could look at this issue not from a moral standpoint but from a standpoint of practicality when it comes youth protection.

 

For the past 30-40 years the Catholic Church (for which I am a member) has had a lax attitude when it has come to admitting homosexual priests. Unfortunately the Church is now paying the price for that attitude in the form of a national crisis. If he had it to do over again, do you think Berbnard Cardinal Law might do things differently? I think so.

 

I am relatively new as a scouter (2 years) but the BSA also has guidleines to prevent heterosexual problems as well, to the best of my knowledge. For example Venture crews are not allowed to have different genders sleep in the same tents, and no scouts are allowed to sleep in the same tent with an adult other than their parents.

 

That is not to say that EVERY gay scouter would victimize children just as not EVERY gay priest victimized young children, but there were enough incidents to make it a huge safety issue.

 

It seems to me that in regards to youth protection, the BSA got it right. I just wish my Church had the same foresight to prevent the problems we have today.

 

-pfannman

[Rooster7]

TwoCubDad,

 

My objection is that BSA is shopping its sins. Being homosexual has become the third rail of Scouting. Save child abuse or a conviction for violent crime, we can forgive just about anything else.

 

I dont think youre being fair to BSA and their policy makers. Heres why Homosexuals do not recognize their behavior as being wrong. That is why there is an explicit policy. Look at other immoral behavior (for which there is no policy). Take lying for example. What if a pathological liar presented himself to your troop leadership, stating Yes, I lie. Theres nothing wrong with it. If you cant accept me, then its your problem. - OR, an adulterer imagine these statements, Yes, I like sleeping around on my wife. What business is it of yours? I can be just as good of a role model as the next guy, so take your prejudices and leave me alone. As I said, the short of this debate for BSA (I believe) is that homosexuals refuse to acknowledge their behavior as immoral and will not turn from it. It is not that their sins are worse than everybody elses. However, for those who believe that God see all sin exactly the same, I point them to their Bible (Old and New Testaments). While all sin separates us from Him, God condemns homosexuality in the harshest language.

 

Littlebillie,

 

If homosexuality is natural and acceptable because one can find it in nature, then pedophilia and bestiality is natural well. For that matter, so is murder and lust. Just because its in the world that does not mean God wanted it to be that way.

 

pfann,

 

I agree.

[evmori]

Rooster7,

Excellent answer! Also, I think what littlebillie is refering to is animals not humans. We as humans were given free will by God, animals weren't. This free will gives us the option to choose our path. Animals can't do this since they don't have free will!

 

littlebillie,

Gotta disagree. While overt hertosexuality might not be appropriate, it is in no way the same as any type of homosexuality!

 

A joyous New Year to all!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[littlebillie]

"no way the same as any type of homosexuality!"

 

ANY type? I guess that's where you and the BSA diverge, eh? The only type they rally against is the "avowed" type. Which of course puts us in the don't-ask-don't-tell camp. Which is how ALL sexuality should be handled in Scouting (Cub and Boy - L4L and V'ing are different).

 

 

[Twocubdad]

Rooster -- If a new leader walks in and says, Yes, I lie. Theres nothing wrong with it," I think they should be denied membership on account of being incredibly stupid, any questions of character aside.

 

Reality is always a little more grey that the stark examples you cite. More likely is someone who says, "I always tell the truth. It just depends on what your definition of 'is' is," to use a example near and dear to your heart.

 

Or a guy I know -- true story -- who constantly cheated on his wife and bragged about it. He always had some excuse as to why it was okay. He was either "in love" or "it was just a one-night fling and didn't mean anything" or "his wife was a b----". But HE never did anything wrong and I'm sure he considers himself an upstanding, moral person. But with ten bucks and an adult application signed by our COR and me (that will be a cold day), he's in. Where is the outrage, the indignation and the national policy against bums like this?

 

Don't get me wrong. I think the Supreme Court got it exactly right and I think BSA does have an obligation to provide moral leadership. Two guys wearing Queer Nation t-shirts wanting to be ASMs so they can "work with boys who may be having homosexual feelings" have the same chance of getting me to sign their application as the above guy who cheated on his wife.

 

Where I disagree is with the blanket statement that all homosexuality is immoral. While I don't personally believe that, I understand you do and I respect those beliefs. Assuming that your CO agrees, I have no problem with your unit making membership decisions based on that belief.

 

In contrast to the above examples, take the hypothetical of a father who after several years of marriage comes to the conclusion that he is gay. He is a great dad to his sons, attends church, works well with the other boys and leaders, lives alone and keeps his social life to himself. I think it is the height of hypocrisy that there is an iron-clad, national policy that this dad cannot be a Scout leader, while the low-life who flagrantly breaks his marriage vows may.

 

[Rooster7]

TwoCubDad,

 

While there is no explicit policy, I'm fairly confident that the adulterer is just as unwelcome. As I tried to say before - there's a reason why there is no written policy. There is no national movement for adulterers. They don't have a lobby working for them attempting to justify and normalize their immoral behavior. The same cannot be said of homosexuals. Consequently, BSA has a written policy to prevent sympathizers from opening their doors on a local level. BSA does not need such a policy for adulterers because it is highly unlikely that folks will perceive their behavior as anything but immoral. When they get their own lobby - When they start having their own parades, then perhaps BSA will create a policy against them as well.