Boy Scouts Allow Gays

[daddyo]

I used to think that the label "homophob" was just something made up by pro-homosexual lobbying groups to disparage those who don't agree with them.

 

However; with this thread I'm beginning to see that their may be some substance underlying the label.

 

Don't make the same mistake that they do and let your emotions take over. "Homophobe" is just that - a label born out of pure emotion to demonize those of us who don't think that the homosexual lifestyle is normal.

[RobertNashville]

Don't make the same mistake that they do and let your emotions take over. "Homophobe" is just that - a label born out of pure emotion to demonize those of us who don't think that the homosexual lifestyle is normal.

Its roots doesn't mean it can't be accurate or accurately applied.

 

I'm seeing at least some folks here who appear to have a significant problem, not with homosexual sex but just with "gays" period...just because they are gay. That seems a bit "homophobic" to me especially. I suppose what troubles me most is that I suspect that while condemning "gays"; other "sins" are casually overlooked or ignored (or even practiced) by some of those very same individuals to whom I think the term homophobe might actually apply.

 

I agree with you and others in that I don't think the "homosexual" lifestyle is "normal"; I find the idea of homosexual sex repugnant. However, I also don't give a rat's ass if someone is or isn't "gay".

Edited May 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[45guy]

How is my post from another thread about Trayvon Martin relavent here? Or relavent to religion?

Dave

My bad, half asleep typing..............not got this multi quote thing down yet. Edited May 26, 2013 by 45guy

[Chadastrophic]

Seems to me some have been pretty vocal here about speaking their mind; I don't think anyone has banned for stating what they believe.

I got 10 demerit points for stating what I believe. Lol.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Edited May 26, 2013 by Chadastrophic

[Guest 6.8 AR]

yeas I kind of think you do need to define it or I would not have requested it

By forcing their views on others, by legal means and politically correct thinking. They would be much more

accepted if they wouldn't have been so "in your face", if you will.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Is pushing for passage of a law "forcing" or is it just the way our government was set up to work?

 

No, no one is forced to go to church but I think there is evidence in this thread that there are some Christians who seem to think that a completely secular institution like the BSA is obligated to follow what they believe are "Christian" principles; frankly I find that a little offensive and un-American.

Pushing for a law that gives rights to those who already have rights, just that it doesn't cover their emotion circumstances,

is in my mind against what the Constitution gives all, already. Unless you want to consider gays as some kind of slave

issue. Sure I do.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Generally speaking, there is far more pressure from the right to end abortion. Also, generally speaking, the Right tends to base their opinions on religious beliefs. That's really the only point I was trying to make. 

 

As I stated before, I'm not gay or religious. Because of this, the gay issue couldn't mean less to me. My biggest problem, is the fact that we have so many on both sides who like to complain about some other group forcing their ideals, all while acting as if they don't do the very same thing. You can play semantics all day long, but as someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, I think both sides are full of crap, turning it into something it isn't.  

 

For whatever reasons, BSA enrollment has dropped nearly 50% in the last 30-40 years, almost 15% in the last 10 or so years. Unless there's a mass exodus — which I don't believe there will be — the loss of members won't be anything new to the organization. As difficult as it is for many to swallow, the times and society are constantly changing.

 

As I said before, there are battles and wars I'm willing to fight, but this ain't one of them. Some claim this issue is somehow a political ploy by the Left, but I think you're giving the opposition far too much credit. If it is a ploy, you just fell into their trap by taking your eye off the ball. If a ploy at all, it's nothing more than a distraction, and I'm not willing to give them that much credit. 

 

Sadly, much like the BSA, the right-leaning Republicans are a dying breed. If we push away the minorities, the gays, and anyone else we don't completely agree with, we are left all alone. If you wish to stand by your convictions, no matter the outcome, I'm all for that. On the flip-side, if this is the path you choose, be willing to accept the consequences. Personally, I think the Right could be a little more flexible on certain subjects. Let God sort them out.  

Without those "right leaning Republicans" you will see the 2nd Amendment die. Then you will see the 1st Amendment die, shortly after. Which battle do you intend to fight?

 

I see every little encroachment against the Constitution as just that: an encroachment. Your view that it is the fault of the right leaning Republican ,and evidently those are all the religious right, which it is not, are the problem. Try the history books about failed civilizations and what caused them. And then try delving into NAZI Germany's history and look for some parallels. They are all over the place.

 

This isn't about religion, as it is only dragged into it by the ones who wish to see institutions fall, but it is fault of those who allow those institutions to fall thinking they mean very little, one by one into the ash heap of history. We have never stared so close to being a communist state until now.

 

This is a much bigger problem than just your or my personal thoughts or mores.

Edited May 26, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[RobertNashville]

Pushing for a law that gives rights to those who already have rights, just that it doesn't cover their emotion circumstances,

is in my mind against what the Constitution gives all, already. Unless you want to consider gays as some kind of slave

issue. Sure I do.

What "rights" are they pushing for that they already have? 

 

If you mean marriage that's not a "right" to start with, isn't in the Constitution and really none of the government's business to be involved with in the first place.

[RobertNashville]

Without those "right leaning Republicans" you will see the 2nd Amendment die. Then you will see the 1st Amendment die, shortly after. Which battle do you intend to fight?

 

I see every little encroachment against the Constitution as just that: an encroachment. Your view that it is the fault of the right leaning Republican ,and evidently those are all the religious right, which it is not, are the problem. Try the history books about failed civilizations and what caused them. And then try delving into NAZI Germany's history and look for some parallels. They are all over the place.

 

This isn't about religion, as it is only dragged into it by the ones who wish to see institutions fall, but it is fault of those who allow those institutions to fall thinking they mean very little, one by one into the ash heap of history. We have never stared so close to being a communist state until now.

 

This is a much bigger problem than just your or my personal thoughts or mores.

Where is the Constitutional encroachment from the BSA changing its policy because I really don't see it.

 

If the BSA allowing gay boys into the scouts is an encroachment then not only should they not allow gay boys then, shouldn't they exclust not only gays but fat kids or kids who have lied or kids who have coveted something the belonged to someone else or who have ever taken the Lord's name in vain or had impure sexual heterosexual thoughst?

 

Why is homosexuality singled out as if it's a "worse" sin than, say, gluttony???

[RobertNashville]

The Scout Oath is: On my honor I will do my best, to do my duty to GOD and my country. To obey the scout law, to help other people at all times, and to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and MORALLY STRAIGHT.

Scouting was started in 1910 and it was certainly surrounded by Christian values. Society today is just corrupting every good thing there ever was.

It still isn't and never was a "Christian" organization nor does the word "god" have to mean a particular god no matter how many "Christian values" it was surrounded by (what does surrounded by Christian values even mean???).

 

In fact, the BSA has always gone out of its way to be a-religious and not specify any particular religion.

[TripleDigitRide]

Without those "right leaning Republicans" you will see the 2nd Amendment die. Then you will see the 1st Amendment die, shortly after. Which battle do you intend to fight?

 

I see every little encroachment against the Constitution as just that: an encroachment. Your view that it is the fault of the right leaning Republican ,and evidently those are all the religious right, which it is not, are the problem. Try the history books about failed civilizations and what caused them. And then try delving into NAZI Germany's history and look for some parallels. They are all over the place.

 

This isn't about religion, as it is only dragged into it by the ones who wish to see institutions fall, but it is fault of those who allow those institutions to fall thinking they mean very little, one by one into the ash heap of history. We have never stared so close to being a communist state until now.

 

This is a much bigger problem than just your or my personal thoughts or mores.

I am one of those right-leaning Republicans. Maybe I'm not leaning far enough, because I am not buying into the notion that gays wanting to be part of the Scouts is part of some evil conspiracy to rule the world and force me to dress like one of the Village People.  

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Where is the Constitutional encroachment from the BSA changing its policy because I really don't see it.

 

If the BSA allowing gay boys into the scouts is an encroachment then not only should they not allow gay boys then, shouldn't they exclust not only gays but fat kids or kids who have lied or kids who have coveted something the belonged to someone else or who have ever taken the Lord's name in vain or had impure sexual heterosexual thoughst?

 

Why is homosexuality singled out as if it's a "worse" sin than, say, gluttony???

I didn't even mention the BSA in my post.

[RobertNashville]

I didn't even mention the BSA in my post.

Sorry...I assumed that's what you were talking about since I thought that was the point of the thread. ;)

[daddyo]

In fact, the BSA has always gone out of its way to be a-religious and not specify any particular religion.

 

Then what about these?

 

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Awards/ReligiousAwards.aspx

 

"A Scout is reverent. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion."

Edited May 26, 2013 by daddyo

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Where is the Constitutional encroachment from the BSA changing its policy because I really don't see it.

 

If the BSA allowing gay boys into the scouts is an encroachment then not only should they not allow gay boys then, shouldn't they exclust not only gays but fat kids or kids who have lied or kids who have coveted something the belonged to someone else or who have ever taken the Lord's name in vain or had impure sexual heterosexual thoughst?

 

Why is homosexuality singled out as if it's a "worse" sin than, say, gluttony???

Alright. Specifying a sexual proclivity isn't a practice that should be introduced into an organization that had no such

specificity in it's membership, to begin with. What does sexual orientation have to do with being a Boy Scout? Is there

some kind of statement to the effect saying whether or not you are gay? It was fine before all this hoopla about being

gay was introduced. If one was called a "sissy", which I remember hearing that term used, even by me, big deal. Making

this into a class of people being inconclusive with a different lifestyle is nonsense.

 

It's only one more example of nothing needed but by political pressure from a political group to destroy an otherwise

functioning organization. Sexual orientation should have nothing to do with the Boy Scouts, unless you're somehow

telling me they are having sex at the time they are joining the Scouts. If that's the case, it's too late, and there are

much larger problems, like parenting, because kids at the age of twelve having any kind of sex is a problem.

 

Maybe I'm too old fashioned.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Damn! I thought Eagle Scouts were some people who grew up as leaders and something to be proud of.

 

All this moral relativism just makes me laugh and sad at the same time.

[RobertNashville]

Then what about these?

 

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Awards/ReligiousAwards.aspx

 

"A Scout is reverent. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion."

What about it...did you actually read the information before you posted a link to it?

"The religious emblems programs should be presented to youth members and their families as an optional program for them to complete through their religious organization. Religious instruction should always come from the religious organization, not from the unit leader. Parents need to be informed of these programs and told where to get the information for their particular faith."

 

They allow, even encourage "religious faith"...they absolutely DO NOT DICTATE any particular religious faith...I don't understand why that is difficult for some to grasp.

Edited May 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Ever heard that?

The moral relativism being thrown at us from the liberals mandates you pay attention to more than what

you think only affects you directly. The stuff that you think won't affect you, at this moment, will come

back to bite you in the ass.

 

I'm not necessarily speaking of the Boy Scouts decision, but of the things accumulative that we don't realize

for what it is. Add up the inclusion of marrying the gays up in an institution that was never meant to be, gays

claiming, or wanting to claim a particular right, or just forcing themselves in the front door, without the issue

ever being warranted, is the problem.

 

Instead of the gays wanting everything a married couple wants, or the improper use of some kind of class

structure, which eventually means they will be included in some kind of race delineation by our great government,

they should, instead, be wanting to be left alone, if they were not the bad actor by political forces using them as

"useful idiots". Rather, they want to be looked at as some kind of victim to get themselves in the front door with

some unknown purpose to many.

[TripleDigitRide]

If being gay didn't come with so many restrictions that us straights don't have to deal with, I'd be willing to bet we'd hear a lot less about the gays.

 

Some of the same arguments being used today regarding gays were once used to treat women and blacks as second-class citizens. When the Women's Rights Movement began in the mid-1800's, I'm sure there were plenty of men who thought the world as they knew it was coming to an end.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Sorry...I assumed that's what you were talking about since I thought that was the point of the thread. ;)

You tell me the point of this thread. I thought, by it's header, it was open for discussion, and not just what you

wanted to discuss.

[RobertNashville]

Alright. Specifying a sexual proclivity isn't a practice that should be introduced into an organization that had no such

specificity in it's membership, to begin with. What does sexual orientation have to do with being a Boy Scout? Is there

some kind of statement to the effect saying whether or not you are gay? It was fine before all this hoopla about being

gay was introduced. If one was called a "sissy", which I remember hearing that term used, even by me, big deal. Making

this into a class of people being inconclusive with a different lifestyle is nonsense.

 

It's only one more example of nothing needed but by political pressure from a political group to destroy an otherwise

functioning organization. Sexual orientation should have nothing to do with the Boy Scouts, unless you're somehow

telling me they are having sex at the time they are joining the Scouts. If that's the case, it's too late, and there are

much larger problems, like parenting, because kids at the age of twelve having any kind of sex is a problem.

 

Maybe I'm too old fashioned.

But that's just the point, the BSA did specify one particular sexual proclivity in its membership and specifically excluded boys who were gay...all they've done is remove the restriction.

 

The BSA isn't suddenly trying to promote gay sex or any other sex although to read some of the complaints posted in this thread that's what I think some believe!  ;)

Edited May 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If being gay didn't come with so many restrictions that us straights don't have to deal with, I'd be willing to bet we'd hear a lot less about the gays.

 

Some of the same arguments being used today regarding gays were once used to treat women and blacks as second-class citizens. When the Women's Rights Movement began in the mid-1800's, I'm sure there were plenty of men who thought the world as they knew it was coming to an end.

Ah, comparing "straights" to "gays". What is there to compare? I thought we were all humans. Sounds like that next

class is about to be codified.

[RobertNashville]

You tell me the point of this thread. I thought, by it's header, it was open for discussion, and not just what you

wanted to discuss.

Oh; it's open for discussion...I was just not following what you were discussing! :)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No, Robert, the Boy Scouts had nothing to do with promoting any kind of sexual proclivity. They were about taking

young men and preparing them to be responsible adults and leaders in their community, plus everything else in the

Boy Scout oath, and motto. If they put it in their charter to not allow gays, I still agree with them. You ain't supposed

to be having sex at twelve, Robert, at least in the Boy Scouts, I thought.

[daddyo]

What about it...did you actually read the information before you posted a link to it?

"The religious emblems programs should be presented to youth members and their families as an optional program for them to complete through their religious organization. Religious instruction should always come from the religious organization, not from the unit leader. Parents need to be informed of these programs and told where to get the information for their particular faith."

 

They allow, even encourage "religious faith"...they absolutely DO NOT DICTATE any particular religious faith...I don't understand why that is difficult for some to grasp.

 

Yes, I'm very familiar with it since I was a registered leader for 10 years. And no, they don't dictate it (that's never been the claim anyway), but they do encourage it, hence the religious awards.

 

And if they encourage it, then they aren't "a-religious", whatever that means.

Edited May 26, 2013 by daddyo