Homosexuals in Scouting

[packsaddle]

Rooster7, ...which is similar to the way I reacted to your sarcastic comment to Acco40. If I was wrong about that, I apologize. BTW, I just noticed that I have an Acco20 on my desk, now I'm going to have to make a comparison.

 

johndaigler, you seek fairness. I agree. As for the last part, I am sitting here tickling the cat's hind foot until it bites me. It's exciting to tickle the tail of the dragon, but you have to expect to get singed once in a while.

But it is still exciting.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Fuzzy Bear]

 

"Now is the time for our esteemed Mr. Baggins, who has proved himself a good companion on our long road, and a hobbitt full of courage and resource far exceeding his size, and if I may say so possessed of good luck far exceeding the usual allowance, now is the time for him to perform the service for which he was included in our Company: now is the time for him to earn his Reward."

 

Although, it appears that one is sneaking into the cave to see about the dragon, it is really only an argument properlly known as a boondoggle.

 

 

FB

[Rooster7]

Packsaddle,

 

No - my comment to Acco40 was not meant to be sarcasm. While, I may have been a little less than direct, I meant it to be taken literally. Here was my intended message for Acco40:

 

ONE - A God fearing man cannot honestly expect to escape judgment if his attitude is: "Sin is in the eye of the beholder." I especially would not want to stand before God and make that proclamation.

 

TWO - If he seriously embraces that attitude for life, I truly expect that he will discover it to be his undoing - Yet, I still hope the best for him.

 

If in my attempt to be creative in my writing, I did not communicate that message - then I apologize.

 

[packsaddle]

Fuzzy, having evidently misinterpreted Rooster7, you must forgive me for being somewhat confused by your message. What did that mean?

[bluegoose]

During my time in Scouting I have encountered various people with various opinions of homosexuals in the program. I have seen the spectrum from people who believe that all homosexuality is wrong, and homosexuals should be banned from scouting, to homosexual Scouts and Scouters who do not see a problem with it. My personal opinion is that Scouting is about providing boys with positive influences so that they may uphold the tenants of the scouting movement immortalized in the scout oath and law. I feel that an integral part of being a 'positive influence' includes showing boys that there are multiple views on any given issue, and that they (not anyone else) need to develop their own opinion based on what they believe to be right and wrong.

A Scouts personal views of right and wrong may be influenced by many things including religion/faith/spirituality, society, family, literature, music, etc. My faith (liberal Quaker, in case you were wondering) and life experiences have taught me that homosexuality is not wrong, and is in fact, morally right. Based on those ideals I believe that homosexuals should be welcomed into Scouting, not because they are homosexual, but because they are people who are in need of positive influences or may be a positive influence as well as any heterosexual person.

That being said, the last thing I have to say is to those who feel that their religion/faith/spiritual beliefs tell them that homosexuality is wrong. To those of you out there, I am not saying you are wrong in your beliefs, but am asking if your beliefs teach you that all people should be treated with respect and love, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc. and if not, why?

The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, and as such is allowed to create whatever membership requirements they desire. However, as a member of this organization I urge others to work to change the system, instead of condemning it. In the timeless words of Bob Dylan and his song "The Times They Are A-Changin:

"Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pens

And keep your eyes Wide, the chance won't come again

And don't speak too soon, for the wheel's still in spin

And there's no telling who that it's naming

For the loser will be later to win

For the times, they are a changing"

 

Yes the Boy Scouts is changing, and hopefully it is for the better. For this to come true, we must all work for it though. Amidst all the changes, the one thing that remains constant is our purpose: to provide positive influences so that the youth of tomorrow will grow up to be "trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent" and will "...do their best to do their duty to God and their country, to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep themselves physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

 

-Peace always

 

[BSA_Bugler]

bluegoose:

 

I had promised myself I was not coming back to this subject, alas....

 

You quote Bob Dylan and his song "The Times They Are A-Changin:" to, I suppose, indicating that we should now accept homosexuality as we previously did not. I disagree. You profess your faith a as Quaker, which I understand is Christian, so I will address you as such. Everyone may want to freak out over this, but if you can quote a "Rock Star" to support you, I am going to quote "The Rock" to support me. "Times [may be] A-Changin" for Bob but not for God! God does not change.

 

Malachi 3:6

"I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.

 

1 Samuel 15:29

He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."

 

Numbers 23:19

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

 

Hebrews 13:8

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

 

Seeing that Scripture clearly professes that God does not change, why are we now to believe that homosexuality has become okay?

 

Leviticus 18:22

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

 

1 Corinthians 6

8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

Romans 1:27

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.

28Furthermore, 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.

 

My faith does not allow me to accept homosexuality as a 'good thing", further it does not allow "me" to condemn any sinner, but to witness that through faith and repentance, forgiveness is available through Jesus Christ. Modern society keeps watering down God's precepts so that everyone "feels good" and all behavior is "normal"! Brother, I offer you the passage below, you decide if when Jesus comes back, whether or not He would be happy with the BSA abandoning "morally straight".

 

Revelation 19

 

11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."[1] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

 

 

 

[acco40]

Rooster, please try and think for once. When I stated that sin is in the eye of the beholder, I was not trying to make a case for what is "right and wrong" but that not everyone (I'm speaking of humans now, not deities), agrees exactly what is sinful.

 

Neither a borrower, nor a lender be; for loan oft loses both itself and friend, and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. That comes straight form the bible {or is it Shakespeare? }. Many believers of Islam believe that it is immoral (i.e. sinful) to borrow money or pay for money - better known as interest. However, I'm paying for the National Jamboree on the installment plan and nobody is making noise about it. Should the BSA bar anyone who takes out a home mortgage because those individuals are not morally straight? You may find that a ludicrous opinion; just as I find the same decision about the BSA stance on homosexuality. See we have a difference of opinion on what may be sinful - i.e. sin IS in the eye of the beholder. The $64 question is what should the BSA do? Poll the memebers? I hope not. Poll the COs? I hope not too. Try and make informed decisions, all the while listening to their members and the public at large? God, I hope so.

 

The BSA should not hide behind such pablum as "traditional values." Heck, one of the methods of Scouting used to be adult male association. Now it is just adult association. Yes, Virginia, the BSA can change.

[johndaigler]

 

Quoting Revelations??? That's hard to do - since there are MANY scholarly interpretations of what John's visions truly mean . . .

 

And, without too much trouble, it's possible to find Verses that could be used to argue either side of just about any point --- Thanks, for that reminder, Acco. Not to mention, that we don't all use the same Bible . . .

 

We can believe, but we can not KNOW God and his truths. I, just for me, believe God to be strong enough and gentle enough to find more room in his embrace than is currently found in BSA policy. And, even if in the end, I'm wrong -- MY God will find it in himself to free me from my ignorance, while judging me for my intent, not my errors. God and I will both survive the judgement, either way.

 

Fiat justitia; ruat coelum.

 

jd

 

For those of you who find my Latin challenging (or perhaps Sacreligious {sp?}) -- Know that it speaks to a Faith in the infinite strength of God's Truth, not humanity's weakness.

[Rooster7]

Acco40,

 

Rooster, please try and think for once. When I stated that sin is in the eye of the beholder, I was not trying to make a case for what is "right and wrong" but that not everyone (I'm speaking of humans now, not deities), agrees exactly what is sinful.

 

True enoughor rather, not everyone is willing to recognize what is sinful.

 

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. Romans 1:18-20

 

John,

 

And, without too much trouble, it's possible to find Verses that could be used to argue either side of just about any point --- Thanks, for that reminder, Acco. Not to mention, that we don't all use the same Bible.

 

Those that interpret the Bible as specifically endorsing homosexuality - truly, they have taken Scripture twisting to a new art form. Without a doubt, the Bible clearly condemns the sin of homosexuality.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[johndaigler]

Hey, Rooster,

 

Even I wouldn't step out onto THAT ice. That's not what I said, and certainly not what I meant. I was thinking (and hoping to write) about the truth that Bible verses can be used for various sides of various arguments.

 

I was hoping to point out that on the one hand condemnation of sin can be supported, on the other, forgiveness of sin and sinners -- judgement of wickedness, and a prohibition against judging -- the value of the accumulation of wealth, and an admonition against wealth -- Faith, and Good Works -- humility, and confidence (pride) -- pork, and Kosher -- etc., etc. (I hope I don't need to go get verse numbers, I think you can see the truth of what I say.) God's True Will is unknowable. We act only on what we can understand and/or believe. Justice and generosity towards others is not that hard to fathom, or difficult to justify using Verses.

 

Previously, you've spoken against the concept of picking and choosing which aspects of the Bible we hold dear, and how that philosophy won't stand the Test. I suggest that no matter what you believe, you need to "ignore" Verses that might lead you to believe otherwise. At the least, you need to prioritize Lessons, and choose which you hold most dear. I believe God will understand ("forgive", if you like) those of us who choose to treat his other children with gentleness and generosity. I understand people who will choose judgement of sin as a greater responsibility. I just don't agree. My Faith in the infinite wisdom and strength of Heaven lead me to "know" that, how I treat others is more important than how I judge them. They have to face the Test, as well, they'll pass or they'll fail. I won't be the one to fail them, then, or now.

 

I know you won't agree with my thinking, or where it leads me. I know better than to try to convince you I'm right. I wasn't saying I could justify homosexuality using different Verses, but, other Verses lead me to other, more important, Truths.

 

Be Well,

 

jd

[Rooster7]

 

To hear various forum members tell it, I enjoy the idea of Gods judgment and its implications for others. I dont.

 

I understand and embrace the truth of Gods love. Yet, Gods Word clearly instructs us to warn others of His forthcoming judgment for those who embrace sin. Alas, many reject Christ because they refuse to see their need for a savior.

 

If you want to be led to a more important truth, look up John 3:16-21.

 

[BSA_Bugler]

johndaigler: "God and I will both survive the judgement, either way."

 

Facilis descensus Averno!

 

So, Be of careful of: Praesumptio salutis sine meritis consequendae, Impugnatio agnitae veritatis, Obstinatio in peccatis, Impaenitentia finalis, and lastly: Peccatum Sodomitarum!

 

You said; "Fiat justitia; ruat coelum."

 

No jd! Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei!

 

So.....Fiat justitia et pereat mundus.

 

I find your Latin challenging and I enjoy it! I wish I was fluent. It's not Sacrilegious, after all it "is" "The Language of God" and "The Official Language of The Vatican", RESPECTIVELY!

 

Dominus vobiscum,

 

+Jim

 

[planoscout]

Doesn't the very idea of discrimination go against, what the BSA stands for. America has always been a promoter of equality, and doesn't the BSA try to folow that model. By telling homosexuals that they cannot participate we are are easily discriminationg against them. Also, if people use the Bible to back up why homosexuality is wrong, aren't they FORCING their religion on others. Again that seems to not be following the scout teachings. Christianity is not the only religion recognized by BSA, as you can see by the many religous awards. If that is the case, then why do we enforce a Christian mentality on others. Just one more thing, what does homosexuality have anything to do with how scouting is run? It doesn't, espcially since BSA stays away from all topics regaring sex in the first place.

[LovetoCamp]

Priest Scandal. Maybe that's while all these activist are all fired up, they need somewhere else to go for a "Target Rich Environment" since the Church abuse was exposed.

[Rooster7]

Planoscout,

 

I have to ask. Do you analyze your own words before you speak them? In reference to American government, do you fully understand words like discrimination and equality?

 

Doesn't the very idea of discrimination go against, what the BSA stands for. America has always been a promoter of equality, and doesn't the BSA try to folow that model. By telling homosexuals that they cannot participate we are are easily discriminationg against them.

 

America, through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, demands that its citizens have equal opportunity to pursue their own interest, unhindered by government. However, nowhere in those documents did our founding fathers ever appoint and direct the federal government to be the guardian and protector of all interests and standards of morality. Our government does not compel us to universally accept one another without regard to interest or morality. That is to say, we (the citizens of this country) are free to pursue our own interests, to embrace our own standards of morality, and to seek affiliations that serve and promote the same. In America, so long as our interests and the morality that we practice are legal, we can demand that our government not obstruct our efforts. This is - or at least once was - the freedom and equality that our forefathers promoted. Quite contrary to your idea of equality, America does not demand that its citizens or the organizations that they create, to accept one another regardless of their interests and standards of morality. As of this writing, public accommodations are protected from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and national origin. Some judges have taken the text in Title 7 and have twisted it to include sexual preference vice gender. Regardless, even with this bastardization of the law, the government only compels those public accommodations, not its citizens and/or private organizations, to refrain from this kind of discrimination.

 

Lets talk about discrimination. Are you guilty of discrimination if/when you decide to help a young lady with a flat tire, yet refuse to give a ride to a middle-aged man just five miles down the same road? By dictionary definition Yes, you chose to trust one person vice another. Yet, most people (though many would not admit this) would do exactly the same without hesitation or guilt. Now, I know that there are many high-minded liberal thinkers, who are chomping at the bit to chastise me. How dare I assume that a young lady is trustworthy and a non-threat? Or just as bad, how can I be so narrow-minded as to deem a middle-aged man as untrustworthy and a potential threat? Nevertheless, my interests (self-preservation) and my standards of morality (helping those in needed) are my own. Furthermore, audacious as it may be to you, I say that the aforementioned example illustrates that not all discrimination is inherently bad. Personally, Im happy that there is one public restroom for men and another for ladies (at least in America). I prefer to see women modeling bikinis. And I would be very upset if the next pastor of my church turned out to be an atheist. In short, there is good discrimination and there is bad discrimination. Bad discrimination is born from hate. But lets not label all discrimination as bad. Too many people embrace opinionated emotion (i.e., political correctness) over the objective meanings of words. This is a sure fire way to guarantee continual miscommunication and mistrust.

 

The government does not compel individuals and private organizations to do certain things, just because certain people demand that they be treated exactly like someone else. No America, or rather our government, recognizes our freedom to associate with whom we like. So, by legal definition, the BSA does not discriminate. That is to say, they are not in violation of Title 7 or any other law. Morally, they are simply upholding a standard that they have long embraced and publicly acknowledged.

 

Also, if people use the Bible to back up why homosexuality is wrong, aren't they FORCING their religion on others. Again that seems to not be following the scout teachings. Christianity is not the only religion recognized by BSA, as you can see by the many religous awards. If that is the case, then why do we enforce a Christian mentality on others.

 

What is the origin of your morals? For the sake of argument, assume that you claim some unnamed non-religious source as being the root of your moral foundation, while I claim mine to be the God of the Bible. Does that make your standards more valid? Because of your non-religious foundation, are you free to discuss your values and to seek their incorporation in an organization such as the BSA? Because of my religious foundation, should I be prohibited from discussing my morals and restrained from seeking their incorporation in such an organization as the BSA? By default, should the BSA discard my moral beliefs?

 

For the sake of argument, lets say the BSA should accept only non-religious values. What are non-religious values? Do you take a poll? Whose to say which non-religious values are to be accepted? Or, are you suggesting the only values that an organization such as the BSA should accept are those that are supported by US law? If so, would that be federal law, state law, county law, or all of the above? And if no specific law addresses a particular behavior, would I (as a BSA member) be free to interpret and act upon this void according to my own choosing?

 

Why cant the BSA pick and choose? Why cant they do both - endorse Judeo-Christian values and embrace an open armed policy towards other faiths that recognize the existence of God? Why cant they refuse to accept faiths that they feel are contrary to their moral values? The organization was founded by people, and is currently being shepherd by other people who have been entrusted by the previous leadership. Why shouldnt they be able to impose their values? Are they not supposed to be leading the organization? What moral precept do you perceive as being broken here? Cannot a person or an organization fully embrace the values of a faith (if not the faith itself) and still be open-minded towards others (i.e., welcome and accept their company)?

 

I realize that I just presented a litany of questions. But your previous post implies many things. Im just wandering if you intended to imply them all. If so, I am greatly interested in seeing your response.

 

Just one more thing, what does homosexuality have anything to do with how scouting is run? It doesn't, espcially since BSA stays away from all topics regaring sex in the first place.

 

Would you be opposed to a policy that said that bestiality is not acceptable and those that practice it cannot join the BSA? Im going to presume that if such a policy existed, you would not feel compelled to fight it. And even if you objected to such a stated policy, I have to assume that if you became aware that someone was practicing such a deviate behavior, youd make the leadership within your troop aware and seek his/her removal. Or, are you open-minded that youd defend their right as well? If not, lets examine the differences between these two policies (current ban on homosexuals vice my hypothetical ban against those who practice bestiality).

 

1) They both deal will sexual behavior.

2) By definition, no boy would be directly threatened. Although, some would argue [myself included] that one perversity could well lead to another but lets forget for the moment.

3) In both cases, one could argue if it does not become a topic of discussion with the boys, then its a private matter and no cause for alarm.

 

So whats the problem? You and I both know that bestiality is a perversity. And hopefully, you and I both understand and agree that anyone that is willing to break these laws of nature is apt to do even more sick and vile things. Because the aforementioned are givens, you do not demand that I refrain from imposing my Christian values on the BSA. Yet, we do not have this same understand or agreement when discussing homosexuality. And when you get done to brass tacks, this is the only difference between the two stated policies. Which brings me to this question If its okay for me (a BSA member) to seek the disenfranchising of those practicing bestiality, what makes homosexuality any different? And whatever criterion you use to separate the two, please explain how it applies to one but not the other.

 

Okay, here is all of the above in two sentences:

 

Values (such as those promoted by the BSA) derived from a faith in God are valid; In fact, they are the only ones that we should trust. Everything else is just popular opinion, if that.

 

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)