What about gay parents?

[Prairie_Scouter]

Well, gays trying to "legitimize their sin" is a view based on your particular religious beliefs. Gays, and others, might see their actions somewhat differently.

 

stls, no need to apologize. Some issues come up here fairly regularly, and this gives old, and new, members an opportunity to discuss the issue anew, perhaps with a new slant.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

Homosexuals are trying to legitimize their sin. They are not trying to changetheyre embracing their sin.

 

I think that may be because they don't consider it a sin. Many heterosexuals (including me)don't consider homosexuality to be a sin either. As for trying to "legitimize" it, I think what they are trying to do is not be discriminated against. They have had some success at that, and I hope they have more.

[stlscouter]

Thanks p-s

 

Just like a lot other ideas I thought the original "Family Leave Act" was a good idea that being that a new mother could take time off to be with her new born child and not loose her job. Somewhere along the line .."and new fathers too." was added. Then came adoptive parents. Then came Gay adoptive parents. Then came staying home with as sick reative. Then a sick significant other. Then someimes I think that the "amendments" that are added clarify something do more to cloud the original premise. That is to say; separating the "sin from the sinner" in this case. Or the concept of "I love kids" from the NAMBLA "I love kids". Or even the use of the rainbow (God's sign that he would not destroy by flood again) to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow coalition to the symbol for gay pride. The more we try to define the less we communicate. Example: Have I ever kissed a man? Yes-My father on his deathbed.

 

(This message has been edited by stlscouter)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Rooster, Yes, I do miss the point, many times but nobody lets me get away with it, not here at home or at the office.

 

I had to think about your 'legitimizing sin' approach to homosexuality. Yes, homosexuals do not want to believe that what they are doing is wrong. They want to believe that what they are doing is right. The explanation could be one of denial or perspective or a vain attempt at being happy. I don't know, nor is it in my job description to judge their choice for whatever their reasons. I would hope that they would not take up the robes of righteousness on me either. Getting me right has been a full-time job and I don't think it will be done in this lifetime. I have been wrong about too many things in my life and during those down times, it was not mankind that helped me. It was always God.

 

FB

 

 

[Rooster7]

Fuzzy Bear,

 

Gods Law, not to mention common sense, tells me that murder, lying, pedophilia, bestiality, and adultery is wrong. I dont pick and choose my heart, soul, and mind unequivocally tell me that these things are wrong. Thankfully, most men seem to be convicted by the wrongness of these activities as well. Up until 30 years ago, there was overwhelming agreement that homosexuality was just as sinful. A well organized effort among homosexual activists, and a coalition of special interest groups seeking support from others, has done much to badger and condition society into believing that they are mere victims of prejudice.

 

If you are truly trusting on the Lord, and not the influence of men, then Id like to present a challenge to you. Read the Gospels, pray about it, and then post here again tell me one more time that homosexuality is not a sin. If your pride doesnt trip you up, Im convinced that you will not be able to make such a post.

 

I believe most folks that argue against homosexuality, including the BSA, are not judging the behavior to be more worthy of condemnation than any other sinners. However, there is no alliance of murders, or liars, or adulterers, arguing that their sins should be accepted. In my mind, a Scout leader who is struggling with homosexuality but rejects it as immoral, is just as qualified to be a leader as a man who struggles with desires of adultery. I dont see one sin being better or worse than the other...but truly both are sins. We all struggle with sins. Its those who dont struggle that concern methose who accept their sin as righteousness.

 

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3

 

[tjhammer]

Rooster, I'm curious... Weren't you a student at Bob Jones University? How long ago did you study there? Was your moral perspective significantly forged by your education at Bob Jones University?

 

While you've made clear that your views on homosexuality parallel that of BJU, do you also share their views on race and other religions? Was it also "God's Law, not to mention common sense" that forged their stringent views on these issues?

 

How do you reconcile their decision to finally admit blacks in the 70s, and then their finally dropping a ban on interracial dating a couple of years ago? Were these moral positions the university changed? Did you share the opinions back when you were a student? Did your moral opinions change?

 

Did not Bob Jones Jr. also condemn Catholics as a "cult" (and once suggest he'd rather talk to the devil himself" than meet with the Pope)? Does your education form a moral perspective that considers the Pope not conservative enough?!? I read that Bob Jones III criticizes Billy Graham for reaching out to too many denominations in his crusades. Do you share that stringent view that all other denominations than your own are so flawed?

 

 

I do not dispute your assertion that there are activists that have pushed a "homosexual lobby". But in reality, that group is a fraction of the gay community that works, lives and loves among the population. I have several thoughts on why gay activism seems more loud lately, but that's probably the topic for another thread.

 

While I'm certainly not an "activist" (at least I wasn't in any sense before the BSA advanced this specific policy), I can appreciate the efforts of folks who are more vocally demanding an end to prejudice. I suspect we'll need a small group of extremists on "our" side until the small group of extremists from places like BJU get around to changing their rhetoric on this issue. (Of course, that's unlikely to happen soon, though I imagine people also thought the same thing before the prejudice of race and religion began to change.)

 

[Rooster7]

TJ,

 

No I have no affiliation whatsoever with Bob Jones University. While it has no relevance to me, it was an interesting rant. Interesting because you follow the same means and methods of many of the gay activists, which you claim to have no association. For example, rather than discussing the specific issue and debating the relative arguments, you attempt to smear me and/or draw me into a side debate, apparently hoping that I will offend some other group such as blacks or Catholics. Sorry to disappoint you, but while I have some doctrinal differences with Catholics, I love them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Similarly, I enjoy the company of other believers regardless of their color. Matter of fact, I use to share fellowship with a repentant homosexual in a church small group. I haven't seen him in awhile, but I truly appreciated his ability to share his heart.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[tjhammer]

My sincere apologies, Rooster, as I was certain your studying at BJU was a past topic of discussion here. I certainly wasn't trying to "smear you by association" with that fundamentalist Christian school, I was genuinely trying to understand how their (and wrongly I presumed your) opinions of morality could change.

 

I agree with you, though, it is bad form and unfair to label people based on stereotypes. :-))

 

 

EDITED PART: BTW, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest I'd "rather not discuss the specific issue and debating the relative arguments"... after two years and 200+ posts on this forum of almost NOTHING BUT thoroughly addressing every aspect of this issue and the arguments you've made. While on occasion (especially lately) I've allowed some emotion to creep in, have I ever ducked a single point you've asserted without trying to dispassionately respond with reason? (If so, maybe we should go through them all again. ;-)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[GernBlansten]

Well, since we are talking sins, let go the big ones. The 7 deadly sins.

(BTW, homosexuality is not listed in them)

 

Pride - well, I have to admit, I have shown pride when my son made Star last COH. So I have sinned. I've also displayed vanity making sure my uniform was pressed and perfect for that COH.

 

Envy - sorry, at the last scout camp, I was envious of the neighbor troops trailer. It was so nice, all the stuff neatly packed. I really wanted one for my troop. I have sinned.

 

Gluttony - lets just say the dutch oven peach cobbler was to die for.

 

Lust - Pretty good on this one. Married 20 years and the itch hasn't needed scratching.

 

Anger - sinned pretty good here when those dang christmas lights just wouldn't come untangled.

 

Greed - did I mention that dutch oven peach cobbler?

 

Sloth - after the cobbler, didn't feel like doing much. So call me a sinner here too.

 

So as sins go, I'm pretty far up the pole. Guess from a BSA standpoint, I still make the cut because I don't commit the BIG one.

 

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Rooster,

 

As an American:

The coalition of Homosexuals is trying to be accepted as Americans in a land of diversity and freedom and that appears to me as an acceptable action. They are not breaking the law of the land ,instead those in charge of the law of the land are trying to stop gays from living as they feel is right for them and that is prejudicial.

 

 

Your challenge:

If you are referring to any post that I have ever written here, then I have not said that homosexuality was right/not a sin. I personally believe that homosexuality is a sin and is wrong. I have read the same book (i.e, gospels, the Bible from page 1 to the end) as you have and on that count we agree but I do not condemn homosexuals because I see condemnation as a greater sin.

 

My personal reason for believing homosexuality is a sin:

A reciprocal love relationship with another human of the opposite sex makes ones heart full of joy. When there is an infant born from that union, then the love that one has goes beyond the universe and life itself. Missing that union and the results of that union is wrong because it is impractical. There are people that feel that they were born to be gay and for them it has to be confusing. There are people that cannot have babies and that is wrong but it is not a sin, just a tragedy.

 

Homosexuals are Americans and can and should live as they please. Religious arguments are a poor method to challenge or change anyone at anytime. A person changes only by having a relationship with God and that can only be accomplished by God and not by men. I attend a fellowship of sinners that welcomes homosexuals. I have now seen so many people mortally wounded by life and by church people that I it is overwhelmingly sad. Our fellowship is not a means to change any person for any reason but only a way to point people to God.

 

Its those who dont struggle that concern methose who accept their sin as righteousness.

 

Your concern is noted for those who accept their sin without struggle but to assume that people do not struggle in the midst of sin, is to give little credence to the impracticality of sin.

 

[Rooster7]

Fuzzy Bear,

 

If you read my posts carefully, I am not condemning homosexuals. I have no window into the soul of others. I am noting that homosexuality is a sinsomething that many on this board do not want to recognize.

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Once again, homosexuality may be a sin within the constructs of some religious beliefs, but that doesn't make it universal.

 

What is the difference, really, between what religious groups are doing now, acting against gays, and the actions of whites against blacks in history until some corrections were made starting in the 1960's? In the anti-black agenda, we had whites (and I think mostly Southern whites) acting to limit the freedoms of blacks. Some used the Bible to justify their actions. It took a long time, but this is gradually being fixed, although there are still some extremist groups who would like to return to the old ways. I don't see the history of discrimination against gays any differently. The people most adamant against gays are using the Bible as their basis. And once again, this is gradually being fixed, even as many fight against these corrections. It is really playing out quite similarly to the civil rights movement of the middle part of the last century. While some states are opening doors to gays, others are closing them. The final chapters to this story are far from being written.

 

How long BSA will be able to continue with their policies is open to debate, but I think it will eventually have to change if BSA wants to continue to be seen as "an American institution". My guess is that they will hold out as long as they can if the current leadership remains in place. The history of the U.S. is more about giving freedoms than taking them away. It's reasonable to expect that in the long run, gays will be afforded the same rights as everyone else. In the long run, I think BSA will have to change, or risk being marginalized. I hope this doesn't happen, and I'd like BSA to be seen as at the forefront of social change, opening it's doors, rather than going down the path of being "the private club". I just don't see this as good for BSA, or good for the youth of America, who we serve.

[tjhammer]

Rooster, it's a bit disingenuous for you to couch your criticisms to be "I just think it's a sin". Your condemnation has gone far, far beyond that, and you regularly have suggested gays are perverse, unclean, unnatural, insidious, etc etc etc. Reviewing your past posts reveal these and far more opinions that you've added on or "interpreted" from your religious context. Your view of this issue is certainly founded in your religion, but your religion's view is not the only perspective from which you advance your argument.

[Rooster7]

Prairie_Scouter,

 

Once again, homosexuality may be a sin within the constructs of some religious beliefs, but that doesn't make it universal.

 

What is true about homosexuality in regard to it being a moral construct, is true for every moral law including murder. Name one moral law that is universally accepted among men.

 

What is the difference, really, between what religious groups are doing now, acting against gays, and the actions of whites against blacks in history until some corrections were made starting in the 1960's?

 

The discrimination that homosexuals face is the result of their behavior, which is immoral. Obviously, inherit physical traits such as being black, does not make one immoral and is not a valid basis for discrimination. Furthermore, not all who believe homosexuality is wrong, are religious.

 

tjhammer,

 

Rooster, it's a bit disingenuous for you to couch your criticisms to be "I just think it's a sin". Your condemnation has gone far, far beyond that, and you regularly have suggested gays are perverse, unclean, unnatural, insidious, etc.

 

With in the context of various discussions, Im sure that I have said all things about the sin of homosexuality. However, the same can be said about all sins. We all need Gods mercy. Homosexuals have no greater need than anyone else. This I have said numerous times. Yet, if one is unrepentant, the bible clearly teaches that he will not find Gods mercy.

 

And yes, I have argued against homosexuality without respect to my faith. I think biologically, the most stubborn person can see that it does not make sense biologically. Similarly, despite the intellectual gymnastics of some others, I think the inborn argument is very weak.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[tjhammer]

Rooster, this really is not a complex debate construct:

 

1) I never chose to be gay, I just am. Nearly every homosexual on the planet will tell you the same thing. Either you believe you have some special insight into this that those who experience it first hand lack, or you believe I'm a liar (and masochist).

 

2) Your religious view is not a universal religious view, and the BSA "claims" you/they have no right to impose your religious view on others as a condition of membership. Of course they violate their own claim. You are an intelligent, articulate man, yet I realize now that you are not choosing to believe other religious views are heretic, you are incapable of seeing it otherwise.

 

3) Your other views of homosexuality (non-religious based) are based solely on conjecture and ignorance (i.e. lacking corroborative data). You ignore statistics and surveys that don't suit your preconceived agenda, and you extrapolate stereotypes to apply to an entire group. You suggest "the most stubborn person" can see it doesn't make biological sense with logic that condemns all but those who are able to procreate.

 

 

The convenience of your position is that you can bounce back and forth between using religious and non-religious arguments, and in the end dismiss your opponents as "devilish delusion", just like your Bible has predicted.

 

When my judgement comes, as you suggest it will, I take comfort in being judged for who and how I loved, and not the opposite. I do wish you well on that day, too.