Should not even be debated

[britag]

People are not born with a sexual preferance. The act of homosexuality is not morally straight ( ever notice the word straight is used to define someone who is not gay?). The debate of this topic is a waste of BSA resources and taxpayers money in the court system. BSA is a PRIVATE org. and if you do not agree with its policy on gays because that is your lifestyle choice you are free to start your own organization . The more the gay community tries to cram its agenda down our throats , the more people will take a stand against it. I'm proud to be an ohioan and proud of our stand on this issue here.

[Sturgen]

Although I agree with you in general, let me play the devils advocate, as I stated in some of the creation vs. evolution posts: Can you prove it? Hard, scientific evidence, and please dont use your interpretation of the Bible, since anyone can find support for both sides if they look hard enough.

[NJCubScouter]

Britag, since your statements are just your own opinions, I hope you won't mind if some of us choose to "debate" them anyway.

[britag]

Without trying to look at the biblical perspective the term "homosexual" describes an act that one participates in sexually. Without ever participating in such an act , how can a person ever honestly ever declare him/herself to be "homosexual". The participation in such an act is a choice that one makes on thier own. Why all of a sudden does there have to be scientific evidence to prove otherwise? There are several scientific studies out there that tried to prove this theory that you can be born a homosexual. It was only ever stated that it could be possible that one could be born with homosexuality. This has never been actually proven, but it was immediatly adopted by the gay community as factual. Just another excuse to justify this lifestyle and advance the gay agenda.

[Sturgen]

If sexuality is determined by the act, i.e. a homosexual is any individual who participates in same sex sexual relations. Then to be heterosexual one must have participated in male-female sexual relations. By this definition, I would have no sexuality, being as I am not married, hence have yet to have sexual relations with any woman. However I am solely attracted to members of the female sex, would not that make me heterosexual? Hence any individual who is attracted to a member of the same sex would be homosexual, regardless of whether they had done the deed or not. There is no definitive evidence proving either nature or nurture, science can be used to support both, and there has not been enough time or interest to determine a exact answer, however quoting a book, or an old dead guy isnt proof, it is barely evidence. The simple fact is that any book can be misconstrued and used to support any argument, the bible is especially prone to this as that there are only half a dozen people in the world that can read the original texts, and there are so many translations, interpretations and scholars on the subject that the true meaning has been lost and will most likely never be found by man until the apocalypse when only 1% of those claiming to be faithful shall be saved, because the others are to busy fighting over who is god, and who is the messiah, and who or what created the world.

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

When the Catholic Church professed its' stand on homosexual relations with minors, the stand prior to the law of the land catching up with them, they believed that man makes his/her amends to other men, thus absolving them of any wrong doing. It allowed men to be judged by other men for their acts against God's laws. The Catholic Church did not find reason to set these priests outside the Church and did not feel that there was any danger in allowing them back, clearly an unwise stand that has cost many a great deal of harm.

 

When a couple of well known Protestant ministers that were heterosexuals had sex outside of marriage, one of God's rules that depended on God's judgment, was not brought to a court of law and was not sanctioned by organizational prohibition. They simply were brought before the boards of their respective churches and were given absolution and both were allowed to return to their pastoral duties.

 

It now appears that where the law of the land is concerned that judgment and punishment is relegated to the civil courts. The churches now feel that when the God's laws do not conflict with the law of the land, then it is a matter between that person and the way that their respective church deals with violations of God's laws.

 

Scouting policy may be attempting to walk a fine line between trying to protect young people and taking part in defending and or teaching God's laws. I personally believe that it cannot do either very well with a prohibition against homosexuals. I understand and appreciate the proactive approach but it denies due process and is making rules that are not against the law of the land. The act may fail to promote good citizenship and duty to God as I understand it.

 

It might be a better approach to protect when it becomes apparent that somebody needs protecting. It might be better to prosecute when an accusation has been made and brought before a civil court. It might be best to allow the churches to teach their ethic and responsibility to God and for each person to follow the dictates of their faith. I t might be best to remain neutral when there are other processes in place and can do it more effectively.