RobertNashville

That's your response; call me gay or a troll?  Is that how you typically respond to those who don't agree with you.   My "problem" is not with your opinion; my problem is that neither you or anyone else seems able to answer a simple, direct question which is "why, exactly, is someone who is attracted to the same sex, singled out for special exclusion from scouting"?  In your first reply to that question you said "because 99% of religions consider homosexuality immoral" I'm not even sure that assertion is actually accurate but whether it is or isn't, your reply would seem to imply that the other sins specifically mentioned were of no concern (because if they were they would receive similar preclusion as does a homosexual boy).   Homosexuality is nothing more than a way to describe someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex...heterosexuality is simply someone who is attracted to the opposite sex. So I ask, why should one be allowed but the other specifically excluded from scouting...how is it in any way relevant what sex any one is attracted to unless they are engaging in sex acts which is not allowed or tolerated in scouting in the first place?

It wasn't clear to me that you were referring to the entire internet.  As to TGO; I would suggest that you are incorrectly and inappropriately confusing animosity with disagreement about societal issues.  There are some here who keep talking about Christian values as if they are consistent within all Christendom when the truth is that how such policies are made and practiced aren't even consistent within a particular denomination or branch of Christianity.

Oh...I see...so lying, steeling, taking the Lord's name in vain, impure thoughts, adultery, gluttony, greed, envy, a male being sexually attracted to females (that's called heterosexuality) is perfectly okay or at least no big deal; it's only "homosexuality" (a male being sexually attracted to males) that's immoral and should be banned from scouting.  :rolleyes:   I'm glad we cleared that up.

My question is; what posts are you talking about - in what posts has this church been getting "mockery, hate speech, demonetization" because I must have missed them.   I've seen many posts disagreeing about the BSA's decision but I haven't seen anyone here suggest that this church or any other doesn't have the right to no longer support their particular BSA troop nor have I seen posts that are mocking, hateful or demonetizing this church for their decision.

So why, exactly, is someone who is attracted to the same sex, singled out for special exclusion?    I'm sure some folks here are saints and never engage in anything that others would call "sin" but I"m getting the feeling that there are more than a few here who are near hysteria about "gays" (someone attracted to the sex) being allowed in scouts but seem more than willing to turn a blind eye to other "sins".   I find that odd...and more than a bit hypocritical.

Yes we will and either way, it's totally immaterial how many people agree or don't agree with the BSA's decision.

Well, I suggest that for far more significant numbers of people, it won't matter.

Who's morals?  Not even all churches agree on the morality or lack of it when it comes to same sex attraction and/or what sexual acts are "moral" and which one's aren't.   The BSA has made it very clear that is asserts NO one particular religion or religious principles so.   I judge people's "morals" by what they do; not by which sex they are attracted to.

As well they should be allowed.   There is zero reason for barring participation by gay scout leaders just like there is zero reason for barring participation by gay scouts...as long as there is no sexual impropriety going on it doesn't and shouldn't matter.

Does what happened in Tennessee or Kansas City really matter here? Not only does every state have different laws but every single prosecutor's opinions/bias/education/community standards and a host of other things also come into play too.  :shrug:   I suspect in Texas this would have been a complete non-issue; you can kill people to protect property, sometimes even when it isn't your property and the thugs are running away (but I sure wouldn't try that in TN or most any other state for that matter). ;)

I would hope and I would suggest that our entire justice system rests on people on a jury being fair...looking at the evidence presented and making a judgment. It's not "easy" to be found guilty of a crime; especially a serious one so if 12 people truly believe this man is guilty I suspect he probably is; not because his jury wasn't stacked with 12 conservatives. I know that when I've been on a jury I wasn't making my decision based on being a "conservative"; I don't see why we should assume liberals are really that different in that regard. I think it also worth pointing out that if one is concerned about the philosophical leanings of a potential jury (should be ever be charged with a crime) then we should be considering that when we chose where to live...one of the reasons I'm in Tennessee (been here since '96) is because Tennessee is more inline with my personal principles and beliefs and how I view life. ;)

Well, no, actually they didn't. The policy they changed wasn't adopted until about 1980; at least for someone my age that's pretty recent history. How anyone feels about the change is completely up to them. At the same time, I would suggest that it would best to make sure we have our facts correct about the BSA's history before we go making claims about it. ;)

You certainly can do "whatever it takes" to protect your family; just be prepared for the consequences (also understand that different states have different standards).   Even with the different standards, in most states, before you can legally use deadly force, there must be an "imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury". Based on both the articles and the "warning shot" I think it's at least reasonable to conclude that the threat hadn't reached that plateau yet and it if hadn't, then it should be easy to understand why the "victim" is now the one facing a criminal charge.

Of course there are.  There are fewer now than 20 years ago but to deny that differences in rights exist is to chose to be uninformed.   One simple example...a homosexual couple that has been together for decades; one of the couple is suddenly taken ill and in intensive care.  Without an immediate family member to give "permission" or a hospital staffer willing to break the rules, the partner will have a hell of time getting in to see their partner. There are most certainly inheritance/financial/tax and other similar and significant difference between heterosexual and homosexual partners (even heterosexual partners that never actually married each other).   While many of the rights and privileges of "marriage" can be either duplicated or simulated through legal contracts, etc...much of the dichotomy between the two is a result of government inserting itself into the process; something that in my opinion, the government has no place inserting itself in the first place.

  I don't give a damn about "church doctrine"...I do care about what actual scripture says and "born that way" or not I see nothing in scripture that calls same sex attraction a sin any more than opposite sex attraction is a sin...I see it calling certain sex acts (including some preformed by heterosexuals) as sinful.

Of course the BSA has the right to exclude - the BSA chose not to do so. Regardless of they hype, no one forced the BSA to change its policy; a policy that was actually, adopted rather recently in its history. Certainly, pressure was brought to bear on the BSA, pressure form specific special interest groups as well as practicalities (meaning corporate sponsors, other organizations, etc) who would no longer support the BSA if it maintained its no gay boys policy. However, it WAS the BAS (and a majority of its membership) who DECIDED to change.   Some have claimed that with the policy change, the BSA has violated some closely held traditional moral value and/or core religious belief yet a review of the BSA's own documents and statements of principles doesn't bear that out. Moreover, if this moral principle against homosexual boys was truly some core value of the BSA then why change?  A person's or an organization's "core values" are pretty meaningless and I would suggest, never really a core value at all, if we succumb to pressure to abandon them.   This isn't about sex in the BSA as there should never be ANY sexual activity allowed or tolerated in the BSA in the first place regardless of whether it's same sex or opposite sex. This is about one group's feelings about homosexuality vs another groups feelings and the BSA in the middle of it.

I was fortunate enough to see him do that talk on TV when I was a child...I've never forgotten it and I never will.

I think it's easing...I'm finding it now which I wasn't finding any before.  Prices are high compared to historic amounts but my perception is that the prices are starting to come down too.   I suspect it's going to be quite a while, however, before we see any real return to what we consider "normal"....I'm thinking maybe late summer (assuming some nutcase doesn't shoot up a "gun free zone" and Congress gets a burr up their backside to "do something").

Colt Gold Cup National Match 1911 in 45ACP...1975   Still have it. :)

Of course the church has the right but I can't help but wonder, is this church going to kick out all the other sinners currently in the church???   I suspect the troop will find another location to meet.

If there is any one bright spot in the push toward registration and confiscation it's that it's the federal government doing it.     I have been told and have good reason to believe that the feds currently can't even keep accurate track of the 200,000 or so class 3 weapons...if than can't keep track of a couple hundred thousand how will they ever accurately keep track of 300 or 400 million???

Took the words right out of my mouth.

If I owned any firearms I would NOT register them and I would NOT turn them in.   Fortunately; I don't own any so i son't have to worry about it.

Darn...I didn't realize this has started...how many episodes have I missed?

As long as you make assertions about BSA's "values" and "morals" and how they are surrendering them while offering no evidence to support them then it is a waste of time.