What Would it Take to Change your mind on ...

[NJCubScouter]

A troop I know has a Presbyterian Church as its CO. I do not know enough about that denomination to know which "organization" the local church is a part of, but based on what you are all saying it sounds like this church is probably part of the organization that has decided to allow local option (hmm, now there's a concept!) on the subject of openly gay clergy. In fact I would suspect that this church has been in favor of that move for a long time. After the Dale decision there was apparently some sentiment within the church to ask the troop to find another home, but that did not end up happening. The sign in front of the church includes the phrase "A Welcoming Community", which I have always assumed was a sort of code for "We won't throw you out for being gay."

 

neil says:

 

Okay, so what about the Episcopal priest who left his wife and family to go live with another guy after deciding he was gay. Do respectable people behave in that way? I don't think so. He then went on to become a bishop. Do I have to respect the people who voted him in as a bishop after they made their choice? They had my respect, but they lost it through their own actions.

 

I think this sort of depends on exactly what the priest actually did. The phrase "left his wife and family" makes it sounds like he just abruptly walked out on them in their time of need, sort of like Newt Gingrich did when his wife had cancer, so I guess there's someone you won't be voting for. Or, to be nonpartisan about this, former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey when he announced during his resignation news conference that he was gay, and his wife was sitting there and apparently knew nothing about it. (The difference is that I don't think Jim McGreevey will be running for president or anything else again.) If that's what the priest did, just walked out, no financial arrangements for his family, etc., then I would agree with you, making him a bishop would seem like a highly questionable move. On the other hand, a transition like that can be handled with sensitivity and concern for the well-being of his family. If he did that, maybe it's not so questionable.

[packsaddle]

NJ, as a former Presbyterian, to understand them it helps to think of Darth Vader, ...SCUBA breathing sounds...."Join with me Luke, it is your DESTINY".

 

BTW, Gingrich cheated on #2 as well. As I understand it, after he found out she had MS, he phoned her on Mother's Day to ask for a divorce. He is a lying snake.

 

Edit: OK, snakes are noble creatures in comparison, this is strictly metaphorical.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

We're talking about a personal choice. This isn't my cup of tea, but how can I justify judging another on his/her personal choices. Choices that impact me, or mine, are my business, others are not ... it's just that simple.

[Beavah]

Choices that impact me, or mine, are my business, others are not ... it's just that simple.

 

Yah, hmmmm....

 

So if I may ask, why are you a scouter?

 

That sounds a bit harsh, but it isnt meant to be. Here's what I mean. If a lad in your troop were to start smoking weed or having sex with multiple partners, would that not concern you? Would you not involve yourself in some way?

 

Judging acts is just justice, eh, and justice is necessary for love and compassion. We judge the acts of others in our mind and heart because we care about them, and want to help them learn and grow. That's a different thing than judging people, which is left to God alone.

 

B

[Horizon]

Beavah:

 

A lad smoking weed: As I have told my son: It is illegal, which makes it a foolish thing to do. If caught and convicted, you can no longer get Federally subsidized student loans or Pell grants. That makes it a monetary risk. Next, it is an unregulated product, that could have many effects that are not predictable. Excess intake can also lead to loss of control, which is a risk factor. The ONLY part of this I personally find immoral is the potential subsidy of a criminal class.

 

A lad sleeping around: As I have told my son: It is disrespectful to the woman and to yourself to have intimate relations with more than one person at a time. It is also medically risky due to STDs. It can also be fiscally risky (18-21 years of support). From a morality perspective, Sleeping around in secret is immoral, as it is a form of lying and spreading risk to those unwilling to openly undertake that risk. Sleeping around with everyone in the know is simply low class.

[evmori]

That doesn't justify it Biblically Horizon.

[Trevorum]

neil-b says, "If you believe in God, which presumably all the Scouters here do.."

 

umm... no. Some Scouters here are Buddhists, or UUs, or other faiths which do not necessarily invoke your God. Please see the ongoing thread at http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=315067

 

[Beavah]

Yah, Horizon, I agree with most of what you said. I'd just say that it's not wrong because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's wrong.

 

But the point is that we'd both act differently than Old_OX, eh? It is our business because we care about other people.

 

Beavah

 

[Horizon]

evmori:

 

The key point from the amendment, IMHO, is this one that I quoted "The PC(USA) has no consensus in the interpretation of Scripture on issues of same-sex practice."