So, What's so bad about being gay?

[Snake Eater]

The OT says that men who have sexual relations with one another should be put to death. To say that the bible does anything less than condemn homosexuality is ignorance at least and deceit at worst.

 

The Quran has little to say about homosexuality but in the Hadith Mohamed says that you should kill the one that does it and the one it is done to. It is difficult for me to understand how one can interpret this as anything but a condemnation of homosexuality.

 

So much for "interpreting the Bible in ways that are favorable to their views".

 

I don't have any statistics on it but I would suppose that easily better than 90% of scouts are Christian, Jewish, or Islamic. So we should change a policy to allow people that the three major sects consider immoral to please the tiny minority of sects that say its OK? Give me a break.

 

What you are really saying in your post Prairie is that you wish that the BSA could be divorced from religion so that homosexuals could paricipate.

 

Let's ask ourselves why homosexuals want to have access to other people's children.

[fgoodwin]

Snake Eater asks:

 

"Let's ask ourselves why homosexuals want to have access to other people's children."

 

Good question -- I'll let a homosexual answer it himself:

 

=================

 

http://216.220.97.17/pederasty.htm

 

Pederasty and Homosexuality

by David Thorstad

 

Pederasty - that is, love between a man and a youth of 12 to 18 years of age - say middle-class homosexuals, lesbians, and feminists, has nothing to do with gay liberation. Some go so far as to claim, absurdly, that it is a heterosexual phenomenon, or even "sexual abuse." What a travesty!

 

Pederasty is the main form that male homosexuality has acquired throughout Western civilization - and not only in the West! Pederasty is inseparable from the high points of Western culture - ancient Greece and the Renaissance.

 

Pederasty, like homosexuality, has existed, and exists, in all societies that have ever been studied. Homoeroticism is a ubiquitous feature of human experience, as even efforts to repress it confirm. Men and youths have always been attracted to each other, and, like homosexuality in general, their love is irrepressible.

[packsaddle]

Regarding the don't ask, don't tell aspect. If an organization decides to discriminate against persons who, say, ascribe to a certain idea, there is no way to detect those persons unless they openly admit to having those thoughts. No matter how much the organization might want to exclude persons with those thoughts, if there is never an open admission, persons with those thoughts may populate the organization.

It is this logical conflict that makes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy inevitable. And why, evmori, gays are currently in BSA and always will be.

 

The conflict is also present when, say, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Bill Clinton, or the two most recent scout leaders in the news, were discovered to have aspects of their personal lives that seemed to conflict with their creeds.

The more an organization attempts to control thought, the claim of success will be that much greater a self-deception.

 

[tjhammer]

Good question -- I'll let a homosexual answer it himself:

Now see, for a second I thought he might be ready to quote from one of my previous posts. Like this one or this one.

"Let's ask ourselves why homosexuals want to have access to other people's children."

Why are you in Scouting with access to other people's children? That's an absurd insinuation.

BTW, more than 3.4 million children live with gay and lesbian parents in the United States today, and the number is rapidly increasing.

I'm in Scouting mostly because I owe a greater debt to the movement thanI will ever be able to repay, for shaping me into the man I am today.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Prairie_Scouter]

Remember, my original question wasn't whether or not gays should be in Scouting. My question posed that if BSA is a non-sectarian organization, should its policies be base on non-sectarian views, and if that's the case, is it possible to make a non-sectarian case against participation of gays.

 

Snake Eater...

The comment in the op-ed piece about the Bible being interpreted to fit particular view wasn't make specifically about gays. It was a general view that probably has some validity to it. Slavery was justified, in part, by qouting the Bible.

 

The question also wasn't whether BSA should change its policies based on minority religious views. The question was whether BSA is non-sectarian, and if so, should non-sectarian views be used to establish policy, rather than religious views? Whether any particular religions have a majority of BSA membership is really not part of the discussion. If I'm reading your comment correctly, you take the view that BSA is a religious organization that is decidedly sectarian in its views, and those views are based on the majority of the membership, correct?

 

Lastly, I "said" nothing like that at all. I'm asking a question. I'm not saying that BSA should divorce itself from religion. My original post says nothing like that. I'm asking the question of whether or not BSA is a non-sectarian organization, and if it's policies should be based on non-sectarian views.

 

Lastly (again), I wasn't aware that homosexuals wanted access to other people's children. Not germaine to my question, really, but that's the first I've heard of that. I'm sure that there are some, but like heterosexuals who would desire the same thing, they fall under the category of "child abusers".

 

kenk,

"Homosexuality is immoral" is really an opinion. It's true that some homosexuals participate in immoral acts (or all, depending on your point of view); so do some heterosexuals. Whether homosexuals are, by their nature, immoral, is outside the realm of this particular thread, and gets us away from the original question, which is....is BSA non-sectarian, and if so, should its policies be based on non-sectarian views?

 

Trevorum and Fuzzy Bear, et al..

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

[Rooster7]

Homosexuality - it is what it is. Men do not belong with other men. We all know this...just as we understand other perversities to be what they are.

 

When each of us come before God, I wonder how many will stake claim to such lofty and progressive ideas? How many of us will stand before God and act as if he's blind to the notion that homosexuality is a complete perversion of His plan. I dare say - none. The mere glint of this idea will be promptly and vigorously rejected. When that day arrives, such thoughts will cause us to fall on our knees before a holy and righteous God. But today, we boldly debate the merits of same sex love.

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Rooster,

Thanks for you heartfelt comments, but this thread isn't a "debate about the merits of same sex love". This thread was started to discuss whether or not BSA is a non-sectarian organization, and if so, should its policies be based on non-sectarian views, rather than religious views.

 

fgoodwin,

Sorry I misinterpreted your comment. I agree that pederasts are a subset of homosexuals. They are a subset of heterosexuals as well.

 

 

[tjhammer]

Rooster, I rather expect God will judge us not on who we loved, but how we loved. Don't you think the Bible supports this notion? Regardless, I do wish you mercy when they day comes for you.

 

PScouter, sorry for diverging from your specific thread. I'm not sure much can really be said about the very specific question you've raised: it's obvious, as NJCub has said, that the BSA's "gay policy" is in direct violation to its Declaration of Religous Principles. Can any person defend the honesty of both at the same time?

[DugNevius]

Snake: how many times must it be pointed out that there is a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia? Pedophiles are both homo and heterosexual. Quit using false premises.

 

also, in the OT, when some children call a prophet "Baldy" two bears are sent by god to kill them all. Are yu saying Homosexuals should be killed?

 

Prairie: I think its pretty clear that religion is the main driving force behind scouters here on why homosexuals are not allowed in the BSA. It may therefore be induced that if the majorty of anti-homosexual scouters here are so because of religious reasons, therefore the higher up decision-makers in Texas would also be so inclined.

 

Trevorum: Well good list!

[packsaddle]

Trevorum, your list just reminded me of a conversation my father had with one of his friends back when I was a boy. They had both fought in the war. Had similar education. The friend was a mason and had a nice family and a thriving business. He and my father were taking a break one day and the conversation went to something like, "what would you change in your life if you could?". My father's friend said, after some reflection, that all in all, he would rather not have been born a black man.

 

For many similar reasons to those in your list.

Prejudice and hate doesn't merely harm the object of prejudice and hate - it harms us all.

[evmori]

Actually, tj, God will judge us on every aspect of our lives! The bible does support that. As to how vs who we love is just a way to spin the bible to fit your needs.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[cajuncody]

I don't think that the BSA is just using religion to support the exclusion of homosexuals. I think public opinion also is a big factor. To explain my opinion let me offer this:

When I was in middle school we had a female gym teacher who was always "checking" on us girls in the locker room. Now keep in mind that all young people go through shy stages and changing clothes in public isn't very comfortable during those times. After many years of this teacher at the same school it was found out that she was a homosexual. Parents were angry, girls were upset. I for one would not be comfortable sending my son on a trip with a man who has said he likes other men because my son is just a "young" man growing up all too quickly.

I for one totaly support the BSA taking my comfort zone into consideration.

Kristi

This post is my opinion only, if you don't agree with it that is your right just as it is my right to have my own opinion.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Well, first, I want to thank everyone for their comments to this point.

 

I don't know that there are any conclusions to be made, but here are a couple of observations.....

 

There seem to be opinions on a variety of reasons why BSA excludes homosexuals. A few feel it is a YP issue, and support this for differing reasons. YP, I believe, deals mostly with objective physical danger (or the psychological dangers in child abuse) to the Scout; I don't know that homosexuals have been shown to be any more a physical danger to Scouts than anyone else. That remains to be seen, I guess.

 

There is, I suppose, a more subjective view that having gays in BSA represents a bad influence or possibly a psychological danger to our Scouts. I guess we could say the same thing about Libertarians or Democrats or liberals in general. I meant that in a humorous way, but on the other hand, leaders of the Republican party have accused Democrats of being anti-religion, so I suppose that the more extreme conservative elements could see some real danger in having their Scouts associate with "avowed liberals".

 

There were many opinions that this is mainly a religious issue, and within the BSA environment, these folks seem fine with creating policy based on religious beliefs. I believe one poster said that this represents the majority opinion of the religions represented in Scouting, and therefore their views should be reflected in policy. That is, I think, problematic if you present yourself as being a nonsectarian organization.

 

As you might expect, it's been very difficult for posters to separate the question of nonsectarian policy from whether homosexuality is immoral, or dangerous, or what have you. That's to be expected, I suppose.

 

So, just a couple of observations, not an attempt to categorize the responses, since they are fairly diverse.

 

My own 2 cents, for what's worth, in regard to my original question....

I think BSA isn't as nonsectarian as they say they are or would like to be. In a very small number of policy areas, this has led to policies being formulated which seem to represent the views of particular religious elements within the organization.

 

You know, I think that being the Boy Scouts of AMERICA is a pretty tough thing to be, anyway. How can you hope to represent the diversity that makes this country, for all its foibles, the shining example of how a diverse people can live together? The debate on homosexuality currently raging across the country is a good example of how our country works. Yes, in rare cases, there are extremists who have gone to violence as their contribution to the debate, but in most cases, the rule of law prevails, and the rules we've set up for ourselves to manage this debate do work. In the end, the will of the people will prevail, although it usually takes a long time to determine what the will of the people really is. It's unfortunate, I think, that by declaring itself a "private club", BSA has effectively removed itself from the debate, and has chosen to go its own way, regardless of what America decides.

[OldGreyEagle]

Sorry PS, I tried, but I couldnt let that crack go by. After spending plenty of time trying to keep this thread on line, you make that comment about how the republicans characterize the democrats, I thought this thread was on the BSA and whether it's ban on gay members was sectarian or non sectarian.

 

I would ask how the democrats characterize the republicans, wait I know, I have heard its leader Howard Dean talk and he always is 100 accurate and never tries to misrepresent the republicans in anyway, right?

 

Both parties are a good reason why so many people just dont care about politics anymore (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Cubmaster Bill]

I've always seen this issue this way:

 

I wouldn't let a heterosexual male take my daughter camping (youth protection rules aside for the moment) because he is naturally attracted to females.

 

I would also not allow a homosexual male to take my son camping because he is naturally (that is what I think anyway) attracted to other males.

 

Neither scenario to me is appropriate because of the sexual attraction issue. Just remove the temptation and keep everyone safe.