Religion/Sexuality

[evmori]

Jesus never talked of homosexuality.

 

Maybe because that wasn't His mission here on earth.

 

 

But it is referenced in the Old Testament, along side damnation by eating pork and shrimp or blending the threads of linen and wool.

 

Did God destroy entire cities because people ate pork and shrimp or blending the threads of linen and wool? Nope. And let us not forget those were man's rules not those of God.

[packsaddle]

Ed, if someone made the claim that Jesus was gay (and I have heard this claim before), I could not find evidence to the contrary...not that it would matter to me anyway. Gotta be careful, I wouldn't want any shoes thrown at me. Oops, wrong fundamentalists.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle]

There is a story in the Bible that the Scribes and Pharises were out to trip Jesus up and asked him to tell them what was the most law of all. Jesus replied by giving them two:

 

You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all your mind This is the greatest and first commandment.

 

The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

 

 

[skeptic]

But you can love your neighbor, yet not love his choice in lifestyle. As usual, no one on either side of this, here on the boards, or elsewhere, is likely to change their minds. On the other hand, it does get tiresome to have a few individuals who feel the right to insult others because of interpretations of things.

 

BSA, almost all agree and understand, has the right to make these rules. They see them as reflective of the central ideas of the program. No where do they say these individuals are "bad" people, or should be ostracized from society; only that they are not examples of a style of living they wish to hold up on a daily basis to impressionable youth. Most of us understand there is really no difference between this and saying similar things about a chronic drunk, or a known abusive person, or someone that cannot be civil most of the time and control their emotions and language. The difference is that for some reason, these other life choices are not held up as PC issues. Few of us will have issues with Gays as long as they simply live their lives and do not make it something they need to "show off" for some reason. Those are the ones that likely have been around successfully in the program and could fall out of the tree, as someone noted. But why are you shaking the tree in the first place?

 

On the other hand, atheism and, to a lesser extent, agnosticism relate to specific elements of scouting. And those elements are not, nor should not be up for debate. With the "broad" definitions allowed within the program of religious issues, there is little room for complaint, other than to be obdurate and obstructionist. Those who insist BSA needs to change the core principle are simply out in left field. They need to find something better to worry about.

 

Unfortunately, this debate (or too often harangue) will continue unabated for a while longer, then get brought up again and again because for some reason people just have to try and make others believe as them, no matter how obvious it is it won't happen.

[Horizon]

Skeptic:

 

The BSA DOES say that gays are bad. They say that they are immoral, and therefore not welcome.

 

My concern for Scouting is our Chartered Organizations. We claim the the CO and the COR are the real boss. We have mainstream religious groups in America that disagree with BSA's interpretation of Moral in regards to gays and lesbians.

 

For example, the Episcopalian church is ordaining gays and lesbians plus performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. We could have a COR minister who is gay wanting to sponsor a Troop within their congregation. Will we respect their religion, as the Handbook says of "Reverent?"

 

 

[skeptic]

No Horizon, they do not; but you may interpret it as you choose. That is the real problem with this whole issue. There are "idiots" on both sides that say things, and do things that twist everything out of context. Just because someone, who says they represent a particular group or view says something that contradicts the actual statements does not change the actual statement.

 

Make your own choices and live with them. But please quit trying to force these choices on others with whom you disagree.

 

In regard to your comment about the Episcopalians. They have had a huge split in their group. And, I suspect that you are correct that a church that makes that particular choice may not be given a charter. Again, it is their choice. Whether that is good or bad, is not the point. They do have other options in the world. And the scouts would not be saying no due to religious factors; rather it would relate to the "Avowed" issue.

 

[Horizon]

Skeptic:

 

BSA legal says that gays are not morally straight, i.e. immoral.

 

"Q. Is Boy Scouts implying that homosexuals do not have good moral or emotional character? What about other types of sexual immorality?

 

A. Boy Scouts regards homosexual conduct as not morally straight as required in the Scout Oath. Morally straight is a broad term which includes all types of moral behavior. There are many persons who may be unsuitable role models of the Oath and Law for adolescent boys."

 

http://www.bsalegal.org/faqs-195.asp

 

Now - many agree with this. I used to as well. I even think that this belief can have grounding in someone's religion, and I respect their right to their belief.

 

However, I am pointing out that there is a growing movement in Christianity and Judaism (the predominant religions in America, and the most represented in Scouting in America) that does NOT consider homosexuality to be immoral. We are running into a conflict with our existing Chartered Organizations on this subject, the same Chartered Organizations that are the backbone of Scouting.

[Trevorum]

I've said it before. BSA is on the wrong side of history with regards to this issue. Unless it changes, within 30 years, BSA will be viewed as quaint and out of touch by the vast majority of Americans. Unless BSA is satisfied by an ever shrinking customer base, it will be forced to change.

[sherminator505]

OK. I'm signing in one more time. I am not signing on to address any one post, as this could go on forever. But I do wish to make a few observations, if I might:

 

1) There does not seem to be a consensus as to whether or not homosexuality is immoral, even amongst the major Christian demominations.

 

2) There does not seem to be a consensus as to whether or not homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

 

3) There does not seem to be clear evidence to support the assertion that open homosexuals would be any more of a detriment to Scouting than the closeted ones that are generally acknowledged to be there now.

 

Given the above observations, is seems that a clearly exclusionary and probably discriminatory policy is being pursued based on "maybes" and the discomfort of some. Legal rulings aside, does this seem like a solid rationale for such a policy?

(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[DanKroh]

Sorry for the delayed response; just got back from summer camp.

 

Mr. Boyce writes: "If you want to attack it, attack the argument being made, not the author."

 

Well, since all of Jeff Satinover's non-scientifically supported opinion piece is based on the incorrect premise that "In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior "homosexuality" is itself directly inherited," then I will just present this:

 

From twin studies (Bailey and Pillard, 1991):

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual

11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

 

If homosexuality had no genetic component, then the concordance among monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins would be the same. The 30% difference between the two indicate a genetic influence.

 

Other than that, Hal has the right of it:

 

"Where is the data? Where is the science to support his arguments? A well written narrative to be sure but lacking any scientific support it is just one man's opinion. For instance, how do we know that "Psychotherapeutic intervention at this point and earlier can be successful in preventing the development of later homosexuality"? He doesn't present any evidence to support this claim."

 

Hal then asks: "What do we know of the author and his expertise? We know his name and that he has an M.D. degree. What is his specialty?"

 

His M.D. is in psychiatry, and he also has a degree in clinical psychology. Hal, Jeff is a brilliant, highly qualified man, there is no arguing about that. However, unlike his quote about "Were we free to study homosexuality properly (uninfluenced by political agendas)" would lead you to believe, he is not free of agendas of his own. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

On the other hand, about that reparative therapy that Jeff advocates: "No peer-reviewed study has ever been published on reparative therapy. No longitudinal study has ever been conducted into its long-term effectiveness and hazards. Sufficient anecdotal evidence has surfaced to convince the large mental health professional societies, like the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. to condemn reparative therapy as ineffective, and warn of potentially dangerous side-effects." (from Religious Tolerance)

 

NARTH (the organization under which Jeff operates and publishes his opinion pieces) has self-published the only study supporting reparative therapy. This study has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal and never will be because the data appears to be entirely composed of subjective opinions ("success stories" of NARTH's "therapists").

 

Now, Mr. Boyce, please support this statement "This includes much more risky sexual behaviors, more drug abuse, more crime and violence" with scientific evidence from a non-biased source.

 

Vol-scouter, please similarly support this statement "Male homosexuality is typically a very unhealthy lifestyle even prior to AIDS" with scientific evidence from a non-biased source.

[evmori]

Well, sherm, since you don't seem to like the membership policy, why don't you just turn in your membership card?

[DanKroh]

I think we need something similar to Godwin's Law for scouting:

 

When your reach the point where your only response is to tell the person to quit scouting, then you have lost the debate.

[Hal_Crawford]

Dan:

I agree with your point about the corollary to Godwin's Law. I would add that when the discussion devolves to my God (or religion or interpretation of scriptures) better than yours then the conversation has also come to an end. I think we are pretty close to that in this debate.

 

With regard to Dr. Satinover and his thoughts on therapeutic intervention for homosexuals, the American Psychological Association yesterday repudiated the concept of reparative therapy saying that there was no evidence that it is generally effective.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/06/psychologists-dismiss-gay-straight-therapy/

 

The APA's position is based on a review of 83 studies conducted since 1960. As the article points out there are other points of view and there will be a study presented later this week saying that reparative therapy has worked some of the time. I doubt that this small (61 subjects) study will have much impact on the consensus.

 

Hal

 

 

[evmori]

When your reach the point where your only response is to tell the person to quit scouting, then you have lost the debate.

 

Disagree. When it is apparent you are dealing with a troll, end the debate.

[GernBlansten]

Ed,

Is the BSA perfect? Are you happy with all their policies? If not, why don't you turn in your membership card?