Calif. Judges Possibly Banned from Scouting Activity

[packsaddle]

"Smart money says God was omniscient enough to foresee it!" Thanks PFANN, should I add gambling to my list? I personally try to avoid wagers(maybe because I tend to pick losers).

 

[pfann]

packsaddle,

 

if you pick losers, don't stop gambling just let me know who you pick so I can pick the opposite!

 

I understand your point about the other vices to be excluded from leadership. I was recently at a patch collecting event (in another council) with my sons and was very irritated to see several scouters outside the exit smoking in full uniform.

 

All this within 3 months after my father died,partially from smoking,and my kids see this example from scouters.

 

I am not sure you could easily enforce exclusion of scouters who smoke or drink, but at least a ban on these activities at scout events is prudent.

 

I do agree that violence has no place in scouting.

[dan]

pfann

I have some really bad news for you!

The BSA does not ban smoking! it is up to the COR to decide if it is okay to smoke with scouts present. I thought the same as you but if you read the GTSS it says that smoking may be banned, not is banned!!

[pfann]

I know that smoking is not banned outright but I still think it is a good idea, Dan.

 

 

[ScoutParent]

Cloning is not necessary to study individuals of the same genetic makeup. Identical twin studies have been used for years to determine nature vs nurture. These studies have been unable to deliver a concordance rate above 52 % for identical twins when one is a homosexual. If it were a genetic trait only; then there would be high 90's or 100% concordance rate.

 

 

 

[dan]

pfann

Agreed!

dan

[packsaddle]

ScoutParent mentioned the twin studies and it is true that twins have been extensively studied for nature vs nurture insights as well as other interesting comparisons. The specific study mentioned is found as: A genetic study of male sexual orientation, Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.

The results of comparisons of monozygotic (identical) twin males showed that where one was known to be homosexual, approximately 52% of the brothers were also homosexual. ScoutParent did not mention that for the associated study of dizygotic (fraternal) twins, where one was known to be homosexual, approximately 22% of the brothers were also homosexual. Even the 22% frequency was significantly greater than the background rate of occurrence of homosexuality in the population. The 52% and 22% figures are generally accepted as evidence for a genetic role (though not the sole determinant). However, the studies only employed 110 pairs of twins. Later studies with females showed comparable results and a more recent study using 5000 participants (1800 of which were matched pairs) essentially confirmed the results of the first study.

ScoutParent makes a good point, however, in that such studies indicate that homosexuality is not simply genetic, but is is clear that there is a genetic component that is not yet understood. One of the weaknesses is that there were only two clones (twins) in each comparison. My point is that a larger number of monozygotic clones will allow further elaboration of factors outside genetics that influence all sorts of expression, homosexuality included. My sympathies to Harvey Mudd, compliments to Stella.

Pfann, if I pick a lottery number, you will have to explain just what 'opposite' means in that case. Besides I've already tried the single and double reverse tricks and I conclude that a higher force has determined that I should not engage in such behavior, at least not to expect a win.

 

[pfann]

packsaddle,

 

I was referring to opposites as in sports betting. You pick one team and I'll pick the other.

 

 

If genetics plays A part, then the implication is that environment plays A part also. I believe some previous posts touched on this.

 

I may have a family history of heart disease, that plays A part. All of those big macs play A part also.

 

Genetics help us define probabilities not certainties. In the end some way or antoher it comes down to choice whether we realize it or not.

[littlebillie]

well, I suppose environment MIGHT have an impact on my eye color - say, if eagles plucked them out, or if their environment included colored contact lenses...

 

and i might have been taller if I exercised more and drank more milk - but not much.

 

to infer that for EVERY genetic influence there is a corresponding environmental factor would be misguided.

 

that aside, however - there are certainly genetically determined gays, just as there are gays by nurture, gays by choice, and gays by various combos of the foregoing. so what? would the anti-gay faction here make any distinction between or among ANY possible cause?

 

in nature, homosexuality can be seen in increasing incidence as population pressures increase or available mates decrease and plays an important role. and indeed, in human socity, it could as well.

 

altogether too many kids needing families are passed over by childless mainstream couples - too old, too challenged, to sick - but these same kids can and do find homes with gay couples. We had two such boys in our Cub den. There is a social need and a biological function to be served by gay Americans, and I think it's time for us all to realize that.

 

Regardless of what ONE or 2 or 20 religions say about gays, others are accepting of gays. and if Caesar (as civil authority) says no big deal, then render let those others render unto Caesar...

 

prejudice that finds its root in a supposed Word of God had better be darn sure of what God actually said. (Say, was it REALLY an apple in Eden?)

 

ow, wait - that's not the thread, is it? Well, I think that the judges should be able to maintain their Scouting affiliations - without prejudice.

 

 

[evmori]

littlebillie,

 

Ceasar also said no big deal to murder & mayhem! According to you we should embrase these, too!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Rooster7]

Littlebillie,

 

anti-gay faction

 

I am curious as to how you define "anti-gay". I suspect that you're including a whole lot more than what most of us are willing to accept. If believing the behavior is immoral or sinful, then I am "anti-gay". If you are implying hatred for individuals, then you're way off base.

 

There is a social need and a biological function to be served by gay Americans, and I think it's time for us all to realize that.

 

Social need? Please explain.

 

Biological function? Now that should be an interesting explanation. This truly befuddles me. What biological function does the homosexual serve?

 

Regardless of what ONE or 2 or 20 religions say about gays, others are accepting of gays. and if Caesar (as civil authority) says no big deal, then render let those others render unto Caesar...

 

Do you regularly read the Bible or is this a quote that you like to reference because it serves your purposes? I ask, because if you do regularly read the Bible, you would know that no matter what "Caesar" asks, we are not to relinquish our allegiance to God or His Word. God tells us to be bold in our faith. We are to renounce sin whenever we see it.

 

prejudice that finds its root in a supposed Word of God had better be darn sure of what God actually said. (Say, was it REALLY an apple in Eden?)

 

"Prejudice"? As I suspected, you're not listening to the arguments being presented. Regardless, those who claim that God's Word does not say something, better be darn sure it doesn't say it.

 

[packsaddle]

Littlebillie, I think a better term than 'anti-gay' is 'homophobic' which I think better applies to BSA because it implies more fear than hatred (it still is prejudicial). BSA only excludes or rejects homosexuals that are not willing to lie about themselves. This policy is not so 'anti-gay' as it is 'anti-truth', is more about appearance than about honesty. The policy is not particularly BRAVE.

Rooster, You must already know about the numerous denominations that accept homosexuals. Would you really have us adhere strictly to all the laws set forth in Leviticus (Vayikra)?

I, for one, am not willing to give up pork barbecue. I like oysters too, and clams. The Italian in me likes squid and octopus. I poke fun at others who don't eat these things and I laugh along with them if they try to beat me with the Torah. I guess I engage in an abomination. But I lose more sleep from indigestion than from guilt.

[Rooster7]

packsaddle,

 

As a believer, certainly you know the difference between dietary laws, ritualistic laws (derived from the Messianic Priesthood), and moral laws. Christ freed us from those dietary and ritualistic laws. We are still bound by moral laws.

 

Near as I can tell, the term "abomination" is reserved in Bible for those transgressions, which reject God as Holy and Righteous - in particular, in regard to the Hebrews when they did not make sacrifices properly and/or reverently. Perhaps the word you are looking for is detestable. As in Leviticus 18:22 - 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.' But since you have an aversion for Old Testament law (even though, in this case, we are referring to a moral law), I recommend that you look in your New Testament. Here's what you'll find -

 

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:18-32

 

I cannot conceive how a self-professed believer can label homosexuality as anything but a perversion. Before you rebut that, I recommend, as a self-professed believer, that you re-read the above very carefully. It has ramifications not only for the homosexual but also for those that deny God's truth.

 

BTW, I don't fear homosexuality or the homosexual. I fear God.

 

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 1:7

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[packsaddle]

Hello Rooster, Thanks for the explanation. Even many homosexuals agree with me that homosexuality is evolutionarily maladapted. But I try not to judge things I don't understand (homosexuality in this case), especially if I am not affected by them. I view God with love, not fear of His hate or jealousy. Just a difference in point-of-view. But unless my eyes deceive me, my KJV Bible says:

Leviticus 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

and later in 20:13,

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

And getting back to diet,

Leviticus 11:10, "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11, They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12, Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

 

My read of the OT shows promiscuous use of the word 'abomination', probably more than 100 times here and there but mainly in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. You may be right that all abominations are not equal but it seems that nearly all the ones you think are most important are punishable by death. Maybe we have different versions (mine has different NT text from yours as well). Your Romans passages also mention that transgressors 'deserve death'. Is this what you would advocate for homosexuals? The likes of Falwell and Robertson employ this and related texts extensively for their positions but they are the same guys that said we 'deserved' the 9/11 attacks (see the 'deserve death' similarity?). Do you agree with that as well? I consider their views as the perversion and as an abomination.

As for being set free from certain of the laws, I will take your word for that as I don't remember where it occurs and I am probably already at risk of a good stoning. Maryland oystermen can breathe easy for now.

[Rooster7]

Even many homosexuals agree with me that homosexuality is evolutionarily maladapted. But I try not to judge things I don't understand (homosexuality in this case), especially if I'm not affected by them.

 

I don't understand bestiality, but I still find it detestable.

 

I view God with love, not fear of His hate or jealousy. Just a difference in point-of-view.

 

While I agree that God is to be loved, His Word clearly states that fearing the Lord is a prerequisite to wisdom and knowledge. I believe this to be true. For only after one fully realizes his own wretchedness; and conversely, comprehends the restraint God has shown in not exercising His wrath, do I believe - can one fully appreciate and love Him.

 

But unless my eyes deceive me, my KJV Bible says: Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

 

In regard the OT use of the word "abomination", my translation (NIV) uses the word "detestable" in most of the incidences that you noted. So, it may just be a minor difference in translations.

 

Your Romans passages also mention that transgressors 'deserve death'. Is this what you would advocate for homosexuals?

 

It's not "my version" of Romans. It's simply a NIV translation of the book of Romans. What does the KJV translation say? I seriously doubt if much of the meaning is lost between the two translations. My point is - Do you believe it be God's Word or not? As for what I advocate for homosexuals - again, it's God's Word, not mine. God says these transgressors deserve death, not me. Interestingly, among the transgressions listed are gossipers and those who "disobey their parents". As you know, all sin separates us from God. Christ's atoning sacrifice (a free gift, for those who will accept it, for all time) is what makes us acceptable before God.

 

The likes of Falwell and Robertson employ this and related texts extensively for their positions but they are the same guys that said we 'deserved' the 9/11 attacks (see the 'deserve death' similarity?). Do you agree with that as well?

 

I don't believe that Robertson said it quite the way that you are inferring. If you provided some verbatim quotes, I'd be willing to say whether I agreed or not. Otherwise, I refuse to comment on their purported statements.

 

As for being set free from certain of the laws, I will take your word for that as I don't remember where it occurs and I am probably already at risk of a good stoning.

 

If you have to take my word for it, then I think you're missing a critical piece of the Christian faith. The entire Old Testament speaks to God's Righteousness. While His love is also demonstrated, the OT reinforces His Righteousness, time and time again. As one makes his way through these books, it becomes increasing evident that no man can stand become God and claim to be a worthy child. Because of this, the Hebrew people were forced to observe and worship God from afar. Their relationship with God was strictly regulated. Those who failed to follow these regulations often died (by God's hand). Christ has torn the curtain between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. His obedience to the cross not only paid for our sins (past, present, and future), but it also enabled us to have a more intimate relationship with God the Father (without ritualistic sacrifices or the need of the Messianic Priesthood).

 

Maryland oystermen can breathe easy for now.

 

Likewise, so can the Chesapeake crabbers.