Lgbt Group Will Pay Bsa $50,000 To Lift Ban On Gay Adult Leaders

[JoeBob]

LGBT follows the axiom: 'Give an inch, take a lightyear...'

[moosetracker]

LGBT follows the axiom: 'Give an inch, take a lightyear...'

I disagree.. One pamphlet does not a war make.. Holding rosary vigils is pretty much stating it is not open to anyone else but Catholics. Come back when it is a serious pressure from non-Catholics.

[NJCubScouter]

...I have signed off on a homosexual to get his Eagle before BSA said it was okay.

Just out of curiousity, was this young man an "avowed" homosexual? Or as the BSA now puts it for people under 18, "openly gay"?

[NJCubScouter]

They're suing the officially established, government-ruled, tax-supported, 26 reserved seats in the House of Lords Church of England, where the monarch is the Supreme Governor.  You're damn right they're suing.

Interesting. We in the U.S. tend to forget that the UK, which otherwise seems so much like "us", does not have an Establishment Clause, and it's not just a symbolic thing. They would have to make significant changes in their system if they had such a clause. For that matter, they don't have a Free Speech Clause either. (Or a "written constitution" at all, in the sense that we do, but I digress.)

[qwazse]

Just out of curiousity, was this young man an "avowed" homosexual? Or as the BSA now puts it for people under 18, "openly gay"?

9th point says we should all be openly gay ... no room in this organization for the publicly morose.

[NJCubScouter]

9th point says we should all be openly gay ... no room in this organization for the publicly morose.

I roll my eyes in your general direction.

[qwazse]

They're suing the officially established, government-ruled, tax-supported, 26 reserved seats in the House of Lords Church of England, where the monarch is the Supreme Governor.  ...

The only reason I'm not abandoning this thread on account of the incremental cussing, is that I have another tangent.

 

Back in the day, in the church I went to in London, on the wall there was a list outlining which cousins could and could not marry. I guess it was a cheat-sheet if somone actually wanted to announce a reason to object to a marriage (or forever hold his/her peace).

1. Are those restrictions still in effect?

2. If so, would openning the door to same-sex marriage allow for closely-related kin to wed? Or will it apply in the other direction, and are bubba and bobby gonna have to check that family tree?

3. How 'bout polygamists and polyandrists? 'Bout time the clergy be forced to keep up with the muslims!

4. The guy who trained his parrot to say "I do"?

 

The "Go Fund Me" sites are gonna be so much fun.

[qwazse]

Oops! 8th point. (Evidently I can't edit my post once it's been quoted.)

[AZMike]

Ahhh-Ha... I found the piece about the LGBT PAMPLET... I looked again after Merlyn pulled something I did not see.. 

 

I see nothing in it about forcing Catholics to accept same-sex marriages.. I believe it is similar to basically what the Catholics and LGBT are cordially talking about currently, A GREATER ACCEPTANCE of GAYS IN THE CHURCH.. Outsiders may be working with Catholic homosexuals (I don't know from the pamphlet if it was created due to catholic homosexuals asking for the help of the HRC, or even who in the HRC put the pamphlet together, or who the pamphlet is for the Catholic Clergy or the LGBT community), but from what I read the meetings are pleasant and the only people who are talking with the Bishops and the Pope are Catholic homosexuals..  So far from what I see of this movement, if the Catholic church changes then it will still be Catholic LGBT church members talking to Catholic clergy... And since I don't see any "Force the Catholic Church to marry the Gays" in the pamphlet, I will read it as intended.. The Pope says "Who am I to judge".. But some of the Bishops are actively judging and condemning..

 

(AZ Mike - We crossed posts.)

 

The HRC, which is the largest gay lobbying group, is a secular group that has consistently lobbied the the Catholic Church and the Knights of Columbus to stop using its funds to support traditional marriage initiatives (which have won in the majority of cases before being reversed by judges): http://www.hrc.org/nomexposed/section/the-catholic-hierarchys-devotion-to-fighting-marriage-equality http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/catholic-church-and-nom-responsible-for-60-of-anti-equality-funding-in-four https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1507.They are free to say such things and to use their funds to attack the Church, but the Church and the KoC are equally free to express their opinions and use their funds to support their views - just as they did with nuclear disarmament, just as they did against capital punishment, just as they do for protection of the rights of undocumented immigrants, just as they do against abortion.

 

Could you explain why you think the issue is only whether "churches aren't being asked to conduct gay marriages by outsiders," Moosetracker? I doubt that is a big priority for the LGBTs (yet, I suspect it will be as soon as other goals are secured). The reason I brought up the issue is the vulnerability to legal and extralegal harassment for any traditional CO that opposes gay leadership in the BSA, if BSA HQ allows the local option. You and Packsaddle have already agreed that such pressure will cause all COs to be subject to harassment that will make them change their beliefs, and that you feel this is acceptable and a good thing. So we seem to be in agreement on what the endgame of a local option is, we just disagree on whether that kind of social engineering / mob justice is an appropriate or a good thing to do to American citizens.

 

In context, Pope Francis's remark was concerning a priest who was reported to have a same sex attraction but who said he was living a celibate life, in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Pope Francis is a very compassionate man, but he was referring to that man's position, not stating a policy that he chose not to judge whether homosexual behavior was sinful. He has done just that, and has referred to same sex marriage laws in Buenos Aires as a product of the devil, so I would't over-interpret his remark.

[Cambridgeskip]

Simply put, 'skip, sacrificial laws about food, etc ... were replaced by the the celebration of the Eucharist. Laws of order were left largely unchanged. (E.g. Romans 1 includes approbations against homosexuality, and gossip. The Apocolypse asserts that the sexually promiscuous are not welcome in the kingdom of heaven.) Punishments of violations of law and order were reduced (e.g. "let him who stole steal no more" and Paul's letter to Philemon to not treat Onesemus, a runaway slave, harshly) until Christianity became the imperial religion. At that point, there was a little mixing of principles. The Day of Worship was moved from the 7th to the 1st, Passover was outlawed, punishments for violations of order became harsher in some circumstance, less so in others. Throughout this, the vision of how people should comport themselves sexually remained largely unchanged.

 

So, what we are trying to do with normalizing sexuality in this modern era is new, but calling it Christian is a bit of stretch to many.

 

If anyone really wants to read the rationale for the traditional Christian stance on the matter, I recommend the scholarly works Robert Gagnon. He does try to put the point-counterpoint of both sides in decent order.

 

Does this not take Paul's letter out of context?

 

It was written to the early church in Rome prior to Paul's planned visit. It was not intended for other people. And that has to be seen within the context of Roman culture. Rome didn't have a concept of homosexuality as we have it today, ie a loving relationship of equals between two people of the same sex. Instead it  was all about an expression of what they saw as masculinity. A man was allowed and indeed encouraged to have sex with younger men in order to show his dominance over them, specifically taking the dominant role. It was not about an expression of love but an expression of strength.

 

This is not that different to the whole Sodom and Gomorrah issue. There are an awful lot of theologians that will tell you that this was not about homosexuality but actually about gang rape.

 

Not only is this of course in itself something that I think anyone would oppose but needs to be seen in the context of the Roman empire being the enemy of the early church. Any actions that associated the early church with Roman culture would have to be opposed.

 

What people forget about the Bible in general is that with the exception of the first 5 books it was not ever conceived as one text. It is a series of books of history, of law, of letters, poetry and preaching all written seperately and every one of the texts has to be seen in the context of who wrote it and why.

[packsaddle]

So...if, hundreds of years from now, someone promotes an unpublished written manuscript by Jerry Falwell as being somehow profound, are we going to develop, in a thousand years more, some future social media (or maybe mental telepathy?) forum debating the fine points of what he meant in his original language (now nearly forgotten) and how it applies to a different time when technology has removed some more social barriers, etc.?

Jimmy Swaggart?

Reverend Moon?

Joel Osteen?

Can you imagine the time that would be wasted doing something like that?

[qwazse]

Does this not take Paul's letter out of context?

 

It was written to the early church in Rome prior to Paul's planned visit. It was not intended for other people. And that has to be seen within the context of Roman culture. Rome didn't have a concept of homosexuality as we have it today, ....

 

This is not that different to the whole Sodom and Gomorrah issue. There are an awful lot of theologians that will tell you that this was not about homosexuality but actually about gang rape.

 

Not only is this of course in itself something that I think anyone would oppose but needs to be seen in the context of the Roman empire being the enemy of the early church. Any actions that associated the early church with Roman culture would have to be opposed.

 

What people forget about the Bible in general is that with the exception of the first 5 books it was not ever conceived as one text. It is a series of books of history, of law, of letters, poetry and preaching all written seperately and every one of the texts has to be seen in the context of who wrote it and why.

Writings about sexual expression in ancient cultures always seem to come from writers from other cultures. I once read a Roman description of Eutruscia that was in exactly the violent terms that you describe. (Sorry, couldn't find the source at my fingertips, but it had to do with how an aristocrat would treat his slaves.) The scholar I mentioned earlier covered the panoply of homosexual expression recorded in Ancient Rome, and it wasn't just limited to expressions of conquest. Furthermore, Paul, in his several epistles, and John in his gospel as well as the Apocalypse, elevates two forms of sexual expression: celibacy and heterosexual monogamy. It is a stretch to say that Paul in the letter to Romans was treating male and female homosexuality in anything other than a relational form: "consumed with passion one for another".

 

The only effective arguments for requiring the Church to honor homosexual (or polyamourous or bestial) unions are ones that require the abandonment of two millennia of teaching for a new 5-decades-old orthodoxy. At which point one might ask, "So, now that we've concluded that everything was read out of context, do you mind if I hate on my neighbor?"

 

BTW. Absolutely right about Sodom and Gomorrah that same-sex dalliances were the least of their worries. Boiling thier actions down to one sin (even to attempting to assault Angels) is reading more into the text than what is actually there.

 

FWIW, I originally learned most of the Christian justification against homosexuality from a liberal pastor. Nice guy. Definitely one of those "It ain't necessarily so" types. But would bust a fella's chops if he found out the dude was shacking up with his gal.

Edited May 6, 2015 by qwazse

[Cambridgeskip]

So...if, hundreds of years from now, someone promotes an unpublished written manuscript by Jerry Falwell as being somehow profound, are we going to develop, in a thousand years more, some future social media (or maybe mental telepathy?) forum debating the fine points of what he meant in his original language (now nearly forgotten) and how it applies to a different time when technology has removed some more social barriers, etc.?

Jimmy Swaggart?

Reverend Moon?

Joel Osteen?

Can you imagine the time that would be wasted doing something like that?

 If that text was being used to justify the continuing exclusion of one group of people from some roles in society and indeed in some parts of the world to bully, imprison and even execute those people then yes, I hope that people would enter into debate on it.

[Sentinel947]

Trying to follow this thread but I got lost when the Pope got compared to David Koresh and Jim Jones. 

As far as the Old Testament/New Testament laws I think a few people have already covered that. 

That being said, I think I'm pretty well versed in my Catholicism, I don't see any reason why a homosexual leader couldn't be a Scout Leader. 

Sentinel947 

Edited May 6, 2015 by Sentinel947

[moosetracker]

The HRC, which is the largest gay lobbying group, is a secular group that has consistently lobbied the the Catholic Church and the Knights of Columbus to stop using its funds to support traditional marriage initiatives (which have won in the majority of cases before being reversed by judges): http://www.hrc.org/nomexposed/section/the-catholic-hierarchys-devotion-to-fighting-marriage-equality http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/catholic-church-and-nom-responsible-for-60-of-anti-equality-funding-in-four https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1507.They are free to say such things and to use their funds to attack the Church, but the Church and the KoC are equally free to express their opinions and use their funds to support their views - just as they did with nuclear disarmament, just as they did against capital punishment, just as they do for protection of the rights of undocumented immigrants, just as they do against abortion.

 

Could you explain why you think the issue is only whether "churches aren't being asked to conduct gay marriages by outsiders," Moosetracker? I doubt that is a big priority for the LGBTs (yet, I suspect it will be as soon as other goals are secured). The reason I brought up the issue is the vulnerability to legal and extralegal harassment for any traditional CO that opposes gay leadership in the BSA, if BSA HQ allows the local option. You and Packsaddle have already agreed that such pressure will cause all COs to be subject to harassment that will make them change their beliefs, and that you feel this is acceptable and a good thing. So we seem to be in agreement on what the endgame of a local option is, we just disagree on whether that kind of social engineering / mob justice is an appropriate or a good thing to do to American citizens.

 

In context, Pope Francis's remark was concerning a priest who was reported to have a same sex attraction but who said he was living a celibate life, in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Pope Francis is a very compassionate man, but he was referring to that man's position, not stating a policy that he chose not to judge whether homosexual behavior was sinful. He has done just that, and has referred to same sex marriage laws in Buenos Aires as a product of the devil, so I would't over-interpret his remark.

 

Whatever the link was it comes up with an "HTTP 404 Not Found" error.

 

Let me ask you, Why do you think members of the church do not have the right to pressure change within their own churches? Why do you think churches have yearly or bi-yearly conferences to propose changes? How do you think churches changed their position towards blacks, women or inter-racial marriages over the years? My answer is simple, it is healthy for churches to make changes in their policies, but the changes should not come from any outside influence but through what the members of the church want..

 

You have totally and purposefully misquoted both Packsaddle and I in this comment  (should I accuse you of doing so to advance your personal agenda?)

"You and Packsaddle have already agreed that such pressure will cause all COs to be subject to harassment that will make them change their beliefs, and that you feel this is acceptable and a good thing. So we seem to be in agreement on what the endgame of a local option is, we just disagree on whether that kind of social engineering / mob justice is an appropriate or a good thing to do to American citizens."

 

I stated that CO's that are businesses would be pressured to change, but not "ALL" COs... I think Packsaddle is similar, but I know it also is not "ALL" COs.. I in fact stated that their would be no pressure from outside to get involved a churches youth organization, just as there is no outside pressure to force churches to perform same-sex marriages.. 

 

As for Pope Francis, from all I read that was not a response to a question about a specific priest..

"Replied when asked about the Vatican's alleged "gay lobby" that while a lobby might be an issue, he doesn't have any problem with the inclination to homosexuality itself: "Who am I to judge them if they're seeking the Lord in good faith?" he said."

 

Speaking to reporters on a flight back from Brazil, he reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church's position that homosexual acts were sinful, but homosexual orientation was not.

He was responding to questions about whether there was a "gay lobby" in the Vatican.

"If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?"

 

“Judge not, lest ye be judged,†says Jesus Christ. “Who am I to judge?†says his Vicar on earth, Pope Francis. And the World, standing as it does under Satan’s domination, as the New Testament affirms, tends to twist any words of goodness, beauty, or truth offered it. And so when Pope Francis uttered “Who am I to judge?†in an informal interview on an airplane last summer when asked about a “gay lobby†in the Vatican, the World denuded his words, stripping them of context and finding there (if not outright affirmation of homosexual relations)

 

That last one was taken from "The Catholic World Report"..  So now you misquote the Pope?.. (again I ask, personal agenda?) Also the Pope actions other actions toward homosexuals since then has spoke volumes..  I do not see the Catholic church performing same-sex weddings in my lifetime, I am sure it is still a considered a sin in the church.. What is refreshing about the Popes attitude is just that... His attitude.. He does not raise homosexual sin as something worse then any other sin, and he knows all humans have sin.. Therefore he can treat homosexuals with the respect that they deserve. "Who am I to judge", is basically a take away from the John chapter 8 (as we have discussed).. Seems the Pope understands this story the same as I do..

Pope Francis warns, “We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.†This new balance does not entail an abandonment of church teaching on abortion, but a full embrace of the moral and social teachings of the Church, and a recognition that Catholicism is about more than a political agenda or even its understanding of justice in the contemporary world.

The elevation of abortion, gay marriage, religious liberty, and contraception into a special category of faith-defining, preeminently important teachings is a distortion of church teaching, undermining the unity of Catholic teaching. This is why Pope Francis has said, “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods†and when “we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context.â€

 

Following the recent synod, Pope Francis has again spoken out about homosexuals – as he said the Catholic Church must help parents to stand by their gay children.

But at the same time he maintained that gay marriage was still not on the Church’s agenda.