Boy Scouts Allow Gays

[45guy]

Absolutely correct.

 

I've been a Christian for over 45 years; I've taken classes on theology and I still cannot understand why some Christians seem to have a special burr up their backside about homosexuals nor why they seem incapable of divorcing themselves from being a homosexual (someone attracted to the same sex) and "unnatural acts" as described in the Bible and clearly identified as immoral.

 

 

The bible does not mention homosexuality at all. It mentions a acts that could be construed as homosexual acts, but never the word homosexual or homosexuality. The WORD homosexual is less than 100 years old, and started showing up in certain bibles in 1946.

 

I am of the belief that this is humans trying to impose their personal beliefs on what is supposed to be Gods words, and I am afraid that I simply can not accept that AND accept that I am supposed to follow those words as moral right or wrong. 

 

On this one we will simply have to agree to disagree and go merrily about our way.

Please explain the account of Sodom and Gomorrah then. When the men of the city surrounded Abrahams house and demanded he give up the men that had come into his house. What did they want those men for. I will not use the word homosexuality. Those men wanted to have sex with other men. Some would understand that to be a homosexual act, no matter when the word was created. 

It offended God so much that he destroyed a city because of it. Whatever word you want to use.

 

Are you of the opinion that God is in heaven and thinking to himself men having sex with men and women having sex with women is a good thing, yes that’s what the world needs more of?

Edited May 31, 2013 by 45guy

[45guy]

"On this one we will simply have to agree to disagree and go merrily about our way"

 

I have enjoyed the spirited debate. It is especially good that it did not turn personal.  It is good to show passion about our beliefs without attacking the belief of others.

[daddyo]

Race is more evident than feeling and belief, I do not believe that makes anything irrelevant, just easier for you to try and dismiss. I also do not believe that behaving as feels natural to you with another consenting adult is simply BEHAVIOR, it is who you are, or if you will, how God made you.

 

 

God abhors all sin, including homosexuality. He doesn't contradict Himself.

[c.a.willard]

Please explain the account of Sodom and Gomorrah then. When the men of the city surrounded Abrahams house and demanded he give up the men that had come into his house. What did they want those men for. I will not use the word homosexuality. Those men wanted to have sex with other men. Some would understand that to be a homosexual act, no matter when the word was created. 

It offended God so much that he destroyed a city because of it. Whatever word you want to use.

 

 

Are you of the opinion that God is in heaven and thinking to himself men having sex with men and women having sex with women is a good thing, yes that’s what the world needs more of?

I'm sure gods wrath had nothing to do with the fact that it would basically amount to raping the men(Angels).  God must have only been upset about the homosexuality.  Glad I understand your position better.

[chipperi]

I typed this up for facebook the day they announced, just thought I would throw it out there.:

 

My wife just asked me what I thought of today’s decision by the Boy Scouts of America to allow openly homosexual boys and still refuse adults.

Short answer: I am torn my mind is not made up.

Long answer:

I myself am an Eagle Scout I started in the Tiger Cubs, then Cub Scouts, Weblows, Boy Scouts, and achieved Eagle in November of 1994.

Though our Oath does include the words “Morally Straight”, we also follow a law: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent. We have a slogan “Do a good turn daily”

To not allow homosexuals child or adult is certainly not helpful, friendly, courteous, or kind to those individuals, nor is it doing a good turn. What of the boys who run the gauntlet and achieve the rank of Eagle and wish to continue as leaders? Is the BSA going to deny them, after proving themselves trustworthy, and loyal? The fear of homosexual adults being molesters, of being “turned on” by boys is also unfounded; the number of gay offenders is tiny compared to heterosexual offenders.

However, now that homosexual youth will be allowed, I can speak from experience, that the bullying and discrimination from the other youth would be severe. Kids at that age can be ruthless. Some adults are not much better. Regardless of their preference, no child should have to face that ridicule.

We may now see long time sponsors of troops pulling their support, these sponsors mostly churches would pull out for religious reasons.

You will have parents and others saying that their kids might get hit on by gay kids, or may “catch” gay, ridiculous but true.

What it boils down to is that Homosexuals are people to and deserve the same rights and opportunities as any one else, they are facing and fighting against fear discrimination, as well as an organization with deep religious and moral roots.

I am indifferent to and respect everyone’s religion and sexual preference. I generally like everyone. But there are two distinct sides to this equation; each has its merits, and downfalls. Therefore, I’m torn between agreeing and disagreeing.

 

[Guest Charis]

Moral relativism does not belong in Scouting, the two are diametrically opposed, or at least they used to be.

Of course folks who's moral compass is broken can't seem to (or simply refuse to) comprehend how/why traditional morality & family values are so important to our society, or why it is so important for us to teach them to each new generation.

Of course this is Amerika 2.0 & we do things differently now, don't we eh comrade?

 

Moral relativism does in fact belong in the scouts, as it in fact belongs in EVERYTHING that is, was, or will be American since they wrote that thing about freedom of religion and speech. You absolutely can not have those things without some sort of moral relativism, else the individual can not make their own decisions, instead large groups will be making them for you, no matter if you agree with them or not.. 

 

What you seem to be implying is that I have somehow given up God for country like a communist or liberal, and unfortunately for your argument you would be completely wrong. I have completely given up on ORGANIZED religion for reasons I have stated already, but I do believe in God. I'm just not so sure that any single religion has all the answers and is as completely pure as they would like to claim. Too many human fingers in the pot you see, and when you have too many human fingers in the pot, you must take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt as well as at least a little knowledge of the history of things, especially words, and how those words have changed over the centuries.

 

Now I firmly have faith in my country, even when she is being lead around by the nose by idiots for awhile like currently. However, I do not hold so tight to those "traditional family values" you want to flaunt as the be all end all of making the world perfect.

 

Would this be the "traditional family value" that said you could own slaves and give them away as gifts and inheritance, and in fact that your wife was a slave? or perhaps the one that said you could have more than one wife? Oh, I know, it is the one that lead to the LAWS in this very country that you could only beat your wife with a switch as long as it was smaller than your thumb? And of course the values that put your children into the work houses for long grueling hours of hard labor, those were important too.

 

You see, I hold some traditions sacred, I really do... but I also realize that some traditions are not meant to be held in esteem, and clinging to those things that exclude others, despite the fact that it is pretty much the exact opposite of what Christ did,because of something *I* believe is judging, and I do remember that I should judge not, lest I be judged. As much as I try to live right, I'm not so sure I want to be judged just yet.

[RobertNashville]

No one has answered my question regarding how this policy will change anything in regard to how scouting activities are conducted.

That's probably because the folks who are upset about this policy change knows that it really isn't going to change a thing about how the scouting conducts things or what activities it does or the principles and information it tries to teach. ;)

Edited May 31, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Please explain the account of Sodom and Gomorrah then. When the men of the city surrounded Abrahams house and demanded he give up the men that had come into his house. What did they want those men for. I will not use the word homosexuality. Those men wanted to have sex with other men. Some would understand that to be a homosexual act, no matter when the word was created. 

It offended God so much that he destroyed a city because of it. Whatever word you want to use.

 

 

Are you of the opinion that God is in heaven and thinking to himself men having sex with men and women having sex with women is a good thing, yes that’s what the world needs more of?

What bearing does that story from the Old Testament have on the BSA's change in policy???

 

Unless you think that gay 12 year old boys are going to walk over the the "straight kids' tent" and demand they come out so the gay boys can sodomize them I really don't see the relevance. :shrug:

Edited May 31, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest Charis]

Please explain the account of Sodom and Gomorrah then. When the men of the city surrounded Abrahams house and demanded he give up the men that had come into his house. What did they want those men for. I will not use the word homosexuality. Those men wanted to have sex with other men. Some would understand that to be a homosexual act, no matter when the word was created. 

It offended God so much that he destroyed a city because of it. Whatever word you want to use.

 

 

Are you of the opinion that God is in heaven and thinking to himself men having sex with men and women having sex with women is a good thing, yes that’s what the world needs more of?

 

Sorry, somehow I missed your post in my reading... I should probably have more coffee before I start such things.

 

I believe that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah points out several very important things, none of which has to do with homosexuality. Again, we have a moment where I do not see in the words what you seem to, so let us quote... 

 

Genesis 19-5 KJV - And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

 

I personally prefer the Wycliffe, but this is the most well known and used version, so I'll go with it just to keep things simple.

 

When I read that, I see a bunch of people, because of their own beliefs and fears, as well as their own wickedness, are suspicious of strangers in their area are demanding to know who they are. I do not see anything sexual in it at all. Later versions of the bible say sex, I will give you that, but again, I believe this is too much human imposition in what are supposed to be the words of God.

 

But what else is in this story that we should perhaps notice... that it was perfectly fine to offer up his daughters to be gang raped kind of bothers me, but I do believe in the theory of a guest in your home is to be taken care of, treated well, and protected from harm.

 

I also believe that we should also look to Genesis 18, where God says that he will not destroy the cities if even 10 righteous people live in them. Unfortunately, there did not seem to be 10 people, so the cities were destroyed, but have you really thought out the idea that there MIGHT have been, and if there was, that those same wicked people would not have been destroyed, because of few good ones. God was willing to do that, let all that evil just keep going to save a very few good people. 

 

So, to me, the most important part of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is that we must look to the good in people, rather than destroying everything because we only see the bad. 

Edited May 31, 2013 by Charis

[RobertNashville]

Moral relativism does not belong in Scouting, the two are diametrically opposed, or at least they used to be.

Of course folks who's moral compass is broken can't seem to (or simply refuse to) comprehend how/why traditional morality & family values are so important to our society, or why it is so important for us to teach them to each new generation.

Of course this is Amerika 2.0 & we do things differently now, don't we eh comrade?

As far as I can tell, the only people having trouble with this policy change are those who want to force their particular moral views onto the BSA.

 

"Traditional morality and family values" is a dangerous term because when it's bandied about; few ever question the validity of those alleged "traditions" and whether they are truly "good" or just 'traditional". The "tradition" of some folks having a hissy-fit over homosexuals just because they happen to be homosexuals is one of those traditions that we would be better of without.

[45guy]

Sorry, somehow I missed your post in my reading... I should probably have more coffee before I start such things.

 

I believe that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah points out several very important things, none of which has to do with homosexuality. Again, we have a moment where I do not see in the words what you seem to, so let us quote... 

 

Genesis 19-5 KJV - And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

 

I personally prefer the Wycliffe, but this is the most well known and used version, so I'll go with it just to keep things simple.

 

When I read that, I see a bunch of people, because of their own beliefs and fears, as well as their own wickedness, are suspicious of strangers in their area are demanding to know who they are. I do not see anything sexual in it at all. Later versions of the bible say sex, I will give you that, but again, I believe this is too much human imposition in what are supposed to be the words of God.

 

But what else is in this story that we should perhaps notice... that it was perfectly fine to offer up his daughters to be gang raped kind of bothers me, but I do believe in the theory of a guest in your home is to be taken care of, treated well, and protected from harm.

 

I also believe that we should also look to Genesis 18, where God says that he will not destroy the cities if even 10 righteous people live in them. Unfortunately, there did not seem to be 10 people, so the cities were destroyed, but have you really thought out the idea that there MIGHT have been, and if there was, that those same wicked people would not have been destroyed, because of few good ones. God was willing to do that, let all that evil just keep going to save a very few good people. 

 

So, to me, the most important part of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is that we must look to the good in people, rather than destroying everything because we only see the bad. 

 

that we may know them; not who they were, and from whence they came, and what their business was; nor did they pretend anything of this kind to hide and cover their design from Lot, but they were open and impudent, and declared their sin without shame and blushing, which is their character, Isaiah 3:9; their meaning was, that they might commit that unnatural sin with them, they were addicted to, and in common used, and which from them to this day bears the name of Sodomy. As lawful copulation with a man's wife is modestly expressed by knowing her, Genesis 4:1; so this unlawful and shocking copulation of man with man is expressed by this phrase; and that this was their meaning is plain from Lot's answer to them, Genesis 19:8.

 

Lot knew what these men had in mind, you may not see it but he sure did, his response was please do not do this wicked thing. He even offered up his daughters to try to fulfill the sexual frenzy these men were under

 

 

Why were the angles there in the first place?  They told Lot to get his family and get out because God was getting ready to destroy the city. So God provided a way out for those he wanted to save. 

 

 

God did see the good in the city he removed it and then destroyed the rest. Seeing the good in people is certainly something we should all strive to do, but ignoring the wicked and refusing to call sin a sin is not the answer. At least God didn’t.

[daddyo]

As far as I can tell, the only people having trouble with this policy change are those who want to force their particular moral views onto the BSA.

 

"Traditional morality and family values" is a dangerous term because when it's bandied about; few ever question the validity of those alleged "traditions" and whether they are truly "good" or just 'traditional". The "tradition" of some folks having a hissy-fit over homosexuals just because they happen to be homosexuals is one of those traditions that we would be better of without.

 

I just want to see if I understand you.

 

Being homosexual is not a sin, but engaging in homosexual acts is.

 

Did I get it right?

[Guest Charis]

that we may know them; not who they were, and from whence they came, and what their business was; nor did they pretend anything of this kind to hide and cover their design from Lot, but they were open and impudent, and declared their sin without shame and blushing, which is their character, Isaiah 3:9; their meaning was, that they might commit that unnatural sin with them, they were addicted to, and in common used, and which from them to this day bears the name of Sodomy. As lawful copulation with a man's wife is modestly expressed by knowing her, Genesis 4:1; so this unlawful and shocking copulation of man with man is expressed by this phrase; and that this was their meaning is plain from Lot's answer to them, Genesis 19:8.

 

Lot knew what these men had in mind, you may not see it but he sure did, his response was please do not do this wicked thing. He even offered up his daughters to try to fulfill the sexual frenzy these men were under

 

 

Why were the angles there in the first place?  They told Lot to get his family and get out because God was getting ready to destroy the city. So God provided a way out for those he wanted to save. 

 

 

God did see the good in the city he removed it and then destroyed the rest. Seeing the good in people is certainly something we should all strive to do, but ignoring the wicked and refusing to call sin a sin is not the answer. At least God didn’t.

 

Alas,  your links pretty much prove my point about too many human fingers in the pot. Just read through those, the older the version, the LESS it mentions anything to do with something of a sexual nature. You can pretty much pick what you WANT it to mean, and paste the one that agrees with you. However, the KJV, which again, I choose because it is the most well known and used, though I do not like the differences between it and the MUCH older Wycliffe translation it is usually best to try and find at least some middle ground, says this - 

 

Isaiah 3-9 KJV -  The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

 

Ok, again, there is ONLY sexuality there if you make the assumption that it is. Those words say that the wicked people acted like those people of the city of Sodom, as sinners, and did not try to hide it and in fact rewarded themselves for their evil.

 

Because you have decided that Sodom is only important because of homosexuality, anything else that mentions Sodom must be talking about homosexuality. I do not make that assumption, nor do I accept that assumption, and once you remove that assumption you (and read Genesis 18) you have the answer to your question, the angels were there to witness 10 righteous people to report back to God so he would not destroy the cities. That may not be what happened, but it is why they were there. They did not tell Lot and his family to get out, they were in fact planning on spending the night in the streets to find these 10 people that would save the cities. They were only at Lot's house because he insisted, and they did not try to lead Lot and his family out of the cities until AFTER this whole exchange happened, didn't even suggest it was a possibility.

 

I also take issue with the idea that the term "know" or "knew" can only mean "have sex with", you should probably do a search for the words "know" and "knew"  in the bible and realize that it is used a great many times, most of which that I saw had nothing to do with sex, but with knowledge, of knowing or learning or teaching something, and whenever it is used as a delicate way to suggest sex, it is also qualified with some other term, like "his wife" in the example you gave. It says Adam knew Eve as his wife and she got pregnant. There is no qualifier such as that in the Genesis 19-5.

 

And to be honest, I'm not sure it is the best policy to point out that this supposedly righteous man offered up his daughters to a mob of angry and suspicious men to do whatever they wanted with (though sex is not actually mentioned here either, only that the girls are virgins) in order to distract them from the strangers in their midst as proof that the angry suspicious men MUST have been trying to have sex with the strangers. Lot is the person that brought up sex in this situation, and he brought it up in relationship to his own daughters having not had any in order to make his daughters more tempting to the mob of angry suspicious men.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Forcing their views on someone is different from voicing one's opinion, wouldn't you say?

[RobertNashville]

I just want to see if I understand you.

 

Being homosexual is not a sin, but engaging in homosexual acts is.

 

Did I get it right?

 

Yes you did get it right.

 

Every time a heterosexual male sees a beautiful woman and has a physical attraction; is that male an adulterer/fornicator at that moment or is he only guilty of the sin of adultery/fornication if he acts on that impulse?

 

If he's committed the sin of lust/adultery/fornication just because of his attraction then there shouldn't be a BSA because no boys, heterosexual or homosexual, would ever have the necessary "morals' to be allowed to join!

Edited May 31, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RichardR]

So that's how it's going to be; you ignore 95% of my post you "quoted" then make a not so veiled insult that I'm a homosexual "activist/supporter"?

How about you answer my questions?

1. What "moral core foundation" are you talking about?
2. What "values morals & principles" are they (BSA) surrendering?
3. Have you even read the BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle? If so, point out precisely how this policy change violates it.

You and others have been asserting through this entire thread that somehow, the BSA is being "forced" to compromise its morals...I think it's about time those making that asserting show precisely how...direct me to where I can go to read that "moral core foundation" you assert they have so that I can see how this change in policy violates it.

Meh, I only have so much free time & I addressed the most pertinent part of your previous post.

You should already know what traditional moral values are & what the moral core foundation of Scouting was, if you honestly don't know, than that is probably why you support openly gay Scouts.

Simply put, moral relativism & homosexuality are diametrically opposed w/the values taught in Scouting.

I don't know what personal experience you have with the scouting program but I have been involved in scouting since the mid 1970's, first as a cubscout, weblow, boyscout, venture crewmember, eagle scout, as an explorer scout & finally as the adult troop master of my old scout troop.

Our scout troop's host organization is a United Methodist Church, most of the membership of our scout troop consists of the congregation's children and we hold all of our meetings & store our troops gear in the church's annex & hold our troop ceremonies in the chapel.

At the end of 2010, (the most recent data I could find) the United Methodist Church’s involvement with Scouting included:

235,672 Cub Scouts from 5,136 packs

127,419 Boy Scouts from 5,005 troops

8,408 Venturers from 1,146 crews

I do not know what the United Methodist Church or other large denominations will ultimately decide to do about the recent BSA decision but many parents & volunteer leaders have already started to withdraw from the Scouting program.

We teach scouts moral & ethical absolutes, these things can not be "wishy-washy" or "situational" not if you are trying to build a strong moral/ethical character.

And building strong moral character is the foundation of Scouting, not the ancillary activities like knot-tying or fire-starting, or first-aid or camping.

Can openly gay homosexuals be of strong moral character?

Supporters of their cause will certainly claim that they can be, however that is like claiming that anyone, regardless of who they are or what sin's they regularly commit or regardless of how someone lives their life can be of strong moral character.

It doesn't work like that.

[45guy]

Alas,  your links pretty much prove my point about too many human fingers in the pot. Just read through those, the older the version, the LESS it mentions anything to do with something of a sexual nature. You can pretty much pick what you WANT it to mean, and paste the one that agrees with you. However, the KJV, which again, I choose because it is the most well known and used, though I do not like the differences between it and the MUCH older Wycliffe translation it is usually best to try and find at least some middle ground, says this - 

 

Isaiah 3-9 KJV -  The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

 

Ok, again, there is ONLY sexuality there if you make the assumption that it is. Those words say that the wicked people acted like those people of the city of Sodom, as sinners, and did not try to hide it and in fact rewarded themselves for their evil.

 

Because you have decided that Sodom is only important because of homosexuality, anything else that mentions Sodom must be talking about homosexuality. I do not make that assumption, nor do I accept that assumption, and once you remove that assumption you (and read Genesis 18) you have the answer to your question, the angels were there to witness 10 righteous people to report back to God so he would not destroy the cities. That may not be what happened, but it is why they were there. They did not tell Lot and his family to get out, they were in fact planning on spending the night in the streets to find these 10 people that would save the cities. They were only at Lot's house because he insisted, and they did not try to lead Lot and his family out of the cities until AFTER this whole exchange happened, didn't even suggest it was a possibility.

 

I also take issue with the idea that the term "know" or "knew" can only mean "have sex with", you should probably do a search for the words "know" and "knew"  in the bible and realize that it is used a great many times, most of which that I saw had nothing to do with sex, but with knowledge, of knowing or learning or teaching something, and whenever it is used as a delicate way to suggest sex, it is also qualified with some other term, like "his wife" in the example you gave. It says Adam knew Eve as his wife and she got pregnant. There is no qualifier such as that in the Genesis 19-5.

 

And to be honest, I'm not sure it is the best policy to point out that this supposedly righteous man offered up his daughters to a mob of angry and suspicious men to do whatever they wanted with (though sex is not actually mentioned here either, only that the girls are virgins) in order to distract them from the strangers in their midst as proof that the angry suspicious men MUST have been trying to have sex with the strangers. Lot is the person that brought up sex in this situation, and he brought it up in relationship to his own daughters having not had any in order to make his daughters more tempting to the mob of angry suspicious men.

 

Why did Lot not turn over the men(angels) if they just wanted to find out about them? As you assume the word means. If the word "know" has the meaning you suggest then they were in no danger.  I did look up the orginial word and the many differant uses of it but only one would be something those men needed protection from.  The same orginal word is used in Genisis 4-1, so when Adam knew his wife and she conceived, there is only one way that can happen.  It surely is not what you are suggesting the same word is used for in with the men in Sodom.  So again what do you think these men wanted with these men that they needed protection from. Or what do you think the word "know" means here?

 

So your primise that Lot offered up his daughters as virgins in the attempt to make them more tempting to the angry men (that had no sexual inclinations toward these men) makes no sense at all. 

Edited May 31, 2013 by 45guy

[RobertNashville]

Forcing their views on someone is different from voicing one's opinion, wouldn't you say?

Those who wanted this change in policy and those who didn't want the change in policy are both "guilty" of trying to have their views be the prevailing views; neither group is any more or less "guilty" than the other in that regard.

 

I suspect that the voting members of the BSA/BSA BoD spent a considerable amount of time debating the pros and cons of this change and made what they felt was the best decision they could; likely being privy to a lot of facts and information that none of us have access to. Whether it was the "best" or "right" decision there probably is no way to ever know for sure.

 

What I find disturbing are those who, with virtually no facts in front of them at all, would try to impose their particular brand of morality on an organization (BSA) that holds to no particular religion but in fact, has always gone out of its way to be open to all.

[RobertNashville]

Meh, I only have so much free time & I addressed the most pertinent part of your previous post.

You should already know what traditional moral values are & what the moral core foundation of Scouting was, if you honestly don't know, than that is probably why you support openly gay Scouts.

Simply put, moral relativism & homosexuality are diametrically opposed w/the values taught in Scouting.

I don't know what personal experience you have with the scouting program but I have been involved in scouting since the mid 1970's, first as a cubscout, weblow, boyscout, venture crewmember, eagle scout, as an explorer scout & finally as the adult troop master of my old scout troop.

Our scout troop's host organization is a United Methodist Church, most of the membership of our scout troop consists of the congregation's children and we hold all of our meetings & store our troops gear in the church's annex & hold our troop ceremonies in the chapel.

At the end of 2010, (the most recent data I could find) the United Methodist Church’s involvement with Scouting included:

235,672 Cub Scouts from 5,136 packs

127,419 Boy Scouts from 5,005 troops

8,408 Venturers from 1,146 crews

I do not know what the United Methodist Church or other large denominations will ultimately decide to do about the recent BSA decision but many parents & volunteer leaders have already started to withdraw from the Scouting program.

We teach scouts moral & ethical absolutes, these things can not be "wishy-washy" or "situational" not if you are trying to build a strong moral/ethical character.

And building strong moral character is the foundation of Scouting, not the ancillary activities like knot-tying or fire-starting, or first-aid or camping.

Can openly gay homosexuals be of strong moral character?

Supporters of their cause will certainly claim that they can be, however that is like claiming that anyone, regardless of who they are or what sin's they regularly commit or regardless of how someone lives their life can be of strong moral character.

It doesn't work like that.

You are still just ascribing YOUR particular religious views onto an non-religious organization - why don't you stop asserting morals onto BSA and back up your assertions with evidence???  You clearly have time to write long responses (as evidenced by the above) to my post so I find it doubtful that you are are not answering my questions because you don't have enough free time but rather, because if you looked at the BSA objectively you would have to admit that this change in BSA policy doesn't violate its values or morals at all; it only violates yours.

 

You certainly have the right to be pissed off at the change in policy but I'd suggest you at least be honest enough to acknowledge that it's your personal view of homosexuals that is causing your angst and not some imagined violation of "traditional values and morals" of the BSA.

 

By the way; I've performed in a number of UM Churches over the years, some of them had...OMG...female pastors (which many denominations would say was a practice straight out of hell) One UM church's pianist was 1/2 of  a homosexual couple that had been together for over 30 years) so if you are insinuating that UMC is going to pull out of scouts I would find such an withdraw highly hypocritical (and a bit laughable).

 

 

So "many parents & volunteer leaders have already started to withdraw from the Scouting program"???  Do have any real evidence of that or is that just another assertion?  I'm sure some will leave...maybe even a lot will leave but I find it highly doubtful that you or anyone else actually knows yet what those numbers are so far or will be. Personally, I expect that when all is said and done those who don't leave will find this whole thing not much more than a tempest in a teapot and won't really change anything about what scouting does or what they teach or how they conduct their activities.

Edited May 31, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RichardR]

Welp considering that you've dismissed, discounted &/or ignored every single thing that I've had to say about this issue, I really don't see the point in continuing our conversation.

I'd been more than happy to have continued to discuss the issue, had it not felt like a complete waste of my time.

You are still just ascribing YOUR particular religious views onto an non-religious organization - why don't you stop asserting morals onto BSA and back up your assertions with evidence??? You clearly have time to write long responses (as evidenced by the above) to my post so I find it doubtful that you are are not answering my questions because you don't have enough free time but rather, because if you looked at the BSA objectively you would have to admit that this change in BSA policy doesn't violate its values or morals at all; it only violates yours.

You certainly have the right to be pissed off at the change in policy but I'd suggest you at least be honest enough to acknowledge that it's your personal view of homosexuals that is causing your angst and not some imagined violation of "traditional values and morals" of the BSA.

By the way; I've performed in a number of UM Churches over the years, some of them had...OMG...female pastors (which many denominations would say was a practice straight out of hell) One UM church's pianist was 1/2 of a homosexual couple that had been together for over 30 years) so if you are insinuating that UMC is going to pull out of scouts I would find such an withdraw highly hypocritical (and a bit laughable).


So "many parents & volunteer leaders have already started to withdraw from the Scouting program"??? Do have any real evidence of that or is that just another assertion? I'm sure some will leave...maybe even a lot will leave but I find it highly doubtful that you or anyone else actually knows yet what those numbers are so far or will be. Personally, I expect that when all is said and done those who don't leave will find this whole thing not much more than a tempest in a teapot and won't really change anything about what scouting does or what they teach or how they conduct their activities.

[RobertNashville]

Welp considering that you've dismissed, discounted &/or ignored every single thing that I've had to say about this issue, I really don't see the point in continuing our conversation.

I'd been more than happy to have continued to discuss the issue, had it not felt like a complete waste of my time.

 

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.

Edited May 31, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TLRMADE]

Thought of this thread when I saw this today....

[Smith]

Moral relativism does in fact belong in the scouts, as it in fact belongs in EVERYTHING that is, was, or will be American since they wrote that thing about freedom of religion and speech. You absolutely can not have those things without some sort of moral relativism, else the individual can not make their own decisions, instead large groups will be making them for you, no matter if you agree with them or not.. 

 You can't argue relativism using absolutes.

 

Your understanding and interpretation of scriptures go hand in hand with this issue. Scripture means what the writer intended it to mean not what you or I interpret to mean in our current culture or context. Right and wrong also can not be interpreted by current context or "feeling". In the same way that the Constitution holds value because it is unchanging in core principal and belief regardless of how folks of the past or present try to apply it, morality is not an ever vacillating sea. The changes we see are a result of our growing in understanding of the truth of the core principal. Not an expansion of some kind of "new truth".  "Grey" areas are were we find this growth. However, when we change black and white to mean red and green then all foundation is lost and we have anarchy - where one is left to their own devices - ala Sodom and Gomorrah. That is the fundamental principal in the story of Lot. He choose to come back to absolute truth and was saved. The cities had completely given themselves over to moral relativism and perished.

 

This is why it matters to some including myself. When I see something clearly I am forced to reckon with it. I am not perfect and as Robert has stated I can be hypocritical, however my flaws and shortcomings do not shape or change the absolutes of morality.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Smith

[Guest Charis]

Someone mentioned that we are short on facts, and this is true. We ARE missing quite a few that might be pertinent. Some of which we may never have unless we somehow get someone in the council meetings that did the investigation and made the final determination releases everything, including transcripts of the discussions. I doubt this is likely.

 

So I did read back through the posts and then did a little research so we could have at least a few things that are important to this conversion, but have not yet been included in the discussion.

 

The scouting movement started around 1907, when Robert Baden-Powell took a group of boys and his book Scouting for Boys to a camp and they learned things about military scouting (Baden-Powell was a lieutenant general in the British Army).

 

The BSA was founded in 1910.

 

The BSA made the decision that atheists and agnostics should not be part of their program, I could find no exact date, but it seems to have been done in the 1920's. The reason stated for this is that that people without some sort of religion could not possibly hold up the scouting oath. That said, they do not care what religion you are, just that you have one, and they even except those that define their own spirituality.

 

In 1980, someone decided that a homosexual could not join their troop, there is no real information about this, due to respect for privacy from what I can tell not much information was ever released, only that it happened is mentioned.

 

In 1991, the BSA made an official statement against homosexuals joining as either members.

 

In 1993, the BSA made an official policy that homosexuals could not join as members or leaders.

 

In 2004 they issued a revision bolstering and strengthening this policy, specifically pointing out that a boy that was a scout and then decides he is homosexual can not move into a leadership position.

 

In April 2013, They released a statement annoucing that they were going to take the issue back up again, and the Latter Day Saints church released a letter of support.

 

In May 2013, The vote included 1,400 members of the National Council, and passed 61% to 38%. Homosexual boys would be allowed to join, homosexual adults will still be excluded.

 

 

Hope that helps on the facts front.

[c.a.willard]

Why did Lot not turn over the men(angels) if they just wanted to find out about them? As you assume the word means. If the word "know" has the meaning you suggest then they were in no danger.  I did look up the orginial word and the many differant uses of it but only one would be something those men needed protection from.  The same orginal word is used in Genisis 4-1, so when Adam knew his wife and she conceived, there is only one way that can happen.  It surely is not what you are suggesting the same word is used for in with the men in Sodom.  So again what do you think these men wanted with these men that they needed protection from. Or what do you think the word "know" means here?

 

So your primise that Lot offered up his daughters as virgins in the attempt to make them more tempting to the angry men (that had no sexual inclinations toward these men) makes no sense at all. 

Just for the sake of argument your own religion says theres more than one way for a woman to conceive.  Just sayin