Church asks boys scouts to leave.

[luvmyberetta]

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?

 

OK. Here's an example. About 20 years ago at a Spring Camporee where over 1,500 Boy Scouts from all areas of the state & out of state were in attendance, a young Boy Scout from another troop was molested by a gay Scout leader. This happened at Bandy Creek Camp Grounds in the Big South Fork. I was there that weekend & didn't learn what had happened until a few days later at a meeting. Be assured that boy was affected for the rest of his life in one way or another. This is one of the reasons gay leaders are not tolerated in the BSA.

[daddyo]

I have it on good authority that the Middle TN Council may refuse to observe the new membership policy.

[Dennis1209]

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?

 

 

The majority of Americans don't identify themselves by perverted and unnatural sexual acts, want special treatment, hate laws passed, all health-care research and medications directed towards AIDS and flaunt their deviance in your face and demand acceptance.

 

A scientific fact: If the majority were gay, the world certainly would not be approaching a population of seven billion.

 

Where do you draw the line in the sand Mr. Robert? Anything and everything seems perfectly acceptable to you, What two people do in privacy is none of my business or concern as long as it doesn't dig into my pocket, shove it in my face, my off spring doesn't acquire the illness, tell me to accept it, or pass hate laws that deny me the right to express my opinion about something that should not be public and held out for everyone to vomit.

[Mike.357]

 a young Boy Scout from another troop was molested by a gay Scout leader.

 

 

how is that possible when BSA does not allow gay leaders?

 

How is it known the leader was gay?

[RobertNashville]

The majority of Americans don't identify themselves by perverted and unnatural sexual acts, want special treatment, hate laws passed, all health-care research and medications directed towards AIDS and flaunt their deviance in your face and demand acceptance.

What you call "perverted and unnatural acts" not even all Christendom agrees on whether they are “perverted and unnatural”. That aside, you are painting with such a broad brush that I think you'll wind up with paint on yourself.

If you are going to condemn any group because of the acts/demands of a small percentage of that group who are a fringe of the whole then ALL groups, religious, Tea Party, pro-life, or any other you can think of should be condemned as well because they ALL have elements that can be just as abhorrent as the extreme you describe above.

 

A scientific fact: If the majority were gay, the world certainly would not be approaching a population of seven billion.

Which has what to do with scouting not prohibiting boys who are attracted to the same sex???

 

Where do you draw the line in the sand Mr. Robert? Anything and everything seems perfectly acceptable to you, What two people do in privacy is none of my business or concern as long as it doesn't dig into my pocket, shove it in my face, my off spring doesn't acquire the illness, tell me to accept it, or pass hate laws that deny me the right to express my opinion about something that should not be public and held out for everyone to vomit.

Are young homosexual boys demanding anything of you or telling you that you can't express your opinion?  Are they demanding that they be allowed to engage in sex acts on scouting activities?

 

I draw that line at what people DO; not at what sex they find sexually attractive.  Sexual ACTIVITY has NO PLACE IN SCOUTING whether it’s homosexual sex or heterosexual acts…THAT’S where I draw the line.

[RobertNashville]

how is that possible when BSA does not allow gay leaders?

 

How is it known the leader was gay?

Good questions

Edited June 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

Robert, the internet is rife with what I am talking about. In regards to TGO, there is clearly animosity towards Christians by certain individuals. If you can't deduce it from the posts being made (not just in this thread), then I cannot help you because you will never see it.

People say hateful and ignorant things on the Internet under the safety of anonymity? I was not aware of this.

[RobertNashville]

OK. Here's an example. About 20 years ago at a Spring Camporee where over 1,500 Boy Scouts from all areas of the state & out of state were in attendance, a young Boy Scout from another troop was molested by a gay Scout leader. This happened at Bandy Creek Camp Grounds in the Big South Fork. I was there that weekend & didn't learn what had happened until a few days later at a meeting. Be assured that boy was affected for the rest of his life in one way or another. This is one of the reasons gay leaders are not tolerated in the BSA.

How, exactly do you know with such certainty that the scout leader was "gay"; did he describe himself as gay or are you just making that assumption?

 

Child molestation is a heinous act but I'm not sure what you are suggesting here.  Assuming for the moment that the scout leader in your example really was "gay"...are you proposing that a single example of one terrible act is sufficient reason to preclude all gay men from leadership in scouting? And if so, why?

 

What if the scout leader in your example was not "gay" at all but a heterosexual who also happened to be a child molester - should than all heterosexual males be excluded from scouting leadership as well?

 

Before we assume that all homosexual men are also child molesters, perhaps we should consider this...

 

"Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147)."

Edited June 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Moped]

I am not surprised that some churches and even whole sects have and will  ban BSA.  My son's troop was sponsored by a church who wanted to replace the Scouts with the AWANA program.  Unfortunately for preacher, the head of the Scout Committee, had more power than he did, so Scouts stayed, along with AWANA.   I suspect that the preacher will get his way now.  I don't think it will matter much though.  The Scout Master, knowing him, has a back up plan, and some place to take his troop too.

 

Yes, this decision will hurt Scouting for a while, but they will recover and find more friendly churches or some secular organizations to sponsor Troops.  They will also raise more money from companies, that would not otherwise support them, because of they have change the policy baring gay scouts.

 

My personal belief is that sex has not part in Scouts, so regardless of whether a boy is gay or straight, it should not matter.  Also, for the person that brought up co-ed units, BSA already has that.  It's called Venture Scouts.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Moped

[luvmyberetta]

how is that possible when BSA does not allow gay leaders?

 

How is it known the leader was gay?

 

An incident like this had not happened or at least wasn't known about until this happened. All leaders & volunteers that participate in troop functions must pass a criminal background check so people never considered he would do something like this. He admitted being gay only after he was arrested. This was the first big blemish on the reputation of the BSA & many of their safety rules were rewritten after this.

Edited June 3, 2013 by luvmyberetta

[enfield]

Church asks boys scouts to leave.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/05/31/dnt-scouts-kicked-out-of-church.wbrc.html

 

 

 

Hurray for the church!  It's nice to hear of one that believes in something greater than money and popularity.

Edited June 3, 2013 by enfield

[Erik88]

An incident like this had not happened or at least wasn't known about until this happened. All leaders & volunteers that participate in troop functions must pass a criminal background check so people never considered he would do something like this. He admitted being gay only after he was arrested. This was the first big blemish on the reputation of the BSA & many of their safety rules were rewritten after this.

 

Well, you proved the point that was made by several here. If someone wants to join scouts with intent to do harm to kids nothing is going to stop them. As pointed out earlier there is no correlation between homosexuality and child molestation. 

 

Kinda like that whole gun control debate we always have...

[knewcomb]

Finally got to sit down and read though all of this thread. I have two things that I would like to bring to the discussion. 

 

1. As a Christian, I am well aware at how we sometimes like to pick and choose parts of the Bible to suit our needs and other times we ignore if we dont like what is in it. Does that make it right? Of course it doesn't. Is being a homosexual a sin? No it is not. Is engaging in homosexual acts a sin? Absolutely. Just like any other sin of the flesh. There are times when I feel ashamed when I see other Christians straight up ignore one person who is obviously living a sinful life such as adultery while being outspoken about such things as homosexuality. They are hyprocrites and they are wrong. 

 

2. I thing the title could have been worded a little bit differently as it is a little misleading. The church wasnt telling sinners they couldnt come to worship. They told a group that they couldnt use their facilites because they openly supported a biblical sin. There is a BIG difference in the two. Would there be as much backlash if some local guy or girl wanted to have the bachelor/bacheolorette party with strippers there and they were told no? Doubtful. This is only a big deal because it has to do with homosexuals. 

 

After all that has been going on lately with our individual rights, some of you have the nerve to criticize the Church for their beliefs. Guess what right comes in front your so cherished right? The 1st Amendment. Freedom of Religion. If a Church chooses to not allow use of their facilities by someone who openly supports something that the church is in strong disagreement with then the have EVERY right to do so. 

Edited June 3, 2013 by knewcomb

[TMF]

After all that has been going on lately with our individual rights, some of you have the nerve to criticize the Church for their beliefs. Guess what right comes in front your so cherished right? The 1st Amendment. Freedom of Religion. If a Church chooses to not allow use of their facilities by someone who openly supports something that the church is in strong disagreement with then the have EVERY right to do so.

I don't see criticizing a decision is affecting anyone's rights. Freedom of speech goes both ways ya know. The church made a decision during a time where the subject is big in the news. This would likely not be news at all had it happened any other time.

Personally, I support their decision 100%, just like I support BSA's decision.

[RobertNashville]

Finally got to sit down and read though all of this thread. I have two things that I would like to bring to the discussion. 

 

1. As a Christian, I am well aware at how we sometimes like to pick and choose parts of the Bible to suit our needs and other times we ignore if we dont like what is in it. Does that make it right? Of course it doesn't. Is being a homosexual a sin? No it is not. Is engaging in homosexual acts a sin? Absolutely. Just like any other sin of the flesh. There are times when I feel ashamed when I see other Christians straight up ignore one person who is obviously living a sinful life such as adultery while being outspoken about such things as homosexuality. They are hyprocrites and they are wrong. 

 

2. I thing the title could have been worded a little bit differently as it is a little misleading. The church wasnt telling sinners they couldnt come to worship. They told a group that they couldnt use their facilites because they openly supported a biblical sin. There is a BIG difference in the two. Would there be as much backlash if some local guy or girl wanted to have the bachelor/bacheolorette party with strippers there and they were told no? Doubtful. This is only a big deal because it has to do with homosexuals. 

 

After all that has been going on lately with our individual rights, some of you have the nerve to criticize the Church for their beliefs. Guess what right comes in front your so cherished right? The 1st Amendment. Freedom of Religion. If a Church chooses to not allow use of their facilities by someone who openly supports something that the church is in strong disagreement with then the have EVERY right to do so. 

I really appreciate your comments above...very well said.

[BigK]

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.

 

I don't agree that one sin is being singled-out by churches or the BSA at all, nor do I believe they are turning a blind eye to other sins.

 

What we have here is a group of people who wish to flaunt their sinfulness, while demanding acceptance. The difference it seems you are willing to overlook is that the average Christian (using them as an example, since this thread is about a Christian church's actions) doesn't wave their sins in peoples faces like a flag, thinking their fellow Christians should tolerate OR accept it as if it weren't immoral in the eyes of the Christian God they voluntarily accepted. Most realize that they are imperfect, regardless of how hard they try to do right and are ashamed of their transgressions. They are trying to be better Christians, not trying to change the rules, so they can slip in on a technicality.

 

That's not the case with openly gay Scouts. They don't see their self-identifying trait as a sin, so they seem to think others should ignore the sinfulness of the very characteristic they choose to identify themselves with.

 

I get the impression that some (not saying you, just "some" in general) want to rewrite Christian doctrine in terms of their personal ideals. These same people, while demanding that Christians remove homosexuality from God's LONG list of sins, are the same who accuse Christians of picking and choosing which sins they demonize. In actuality, if a group of adulterers, blasphemers, murderers, or liars were petitioning for acceptance, they'd be met with equal resistance. The difference is nobody in their right mind would question their exclusion. It's the non-Christians who want to choose which sins are real sins and demand that Christians bend their religious beliefs to meet their ideas of what they want Christianity to be.

Edited June 3, 2013 by BigK

[RobertNashville]

I don't agree that one sin is being singled-out by churches or the BSA at all, nor do I believe they are turning a blind eye to other sins.

 

What we have here is a group of people who wish to flaunt their sinfulness, while demanding acceptance. The difference it seems you are willing to overlook is that the average Christian (using them as an example, since this thread is about a Christian church's actions) doesn't wave their sins in peoples faces like a flag, thinking their fellow Christians should tolerate OR accept it as if it weren't immoral in the eyes of the Christian God they voluntarily accepted. Most realize that they are imperfect, regardless of how hard they try to do right and are ashamed of their transgressions. They are trying to be better Christians, not trying to change the rules, so they can slip in on a technicality.

 

That's not the case with openly gay Scouts. They don't see their self-identifying trait as a sin, so they seem to think others should ignore the sinfulness of the very characteristic they choose to identify themselves with.

 

I get the impression that some (not saying you, just "some" in general) want to rewrite Christian doctrine in terms of their personal ideals. These same people, while demanding that Christians remove homosexuality from God's LONG list of sins, are the same who accuse Christians of picking and choosing which sins they demonize. In actuality, if a group of adulterers, blasphemers, murderers, or liars were petitioning for acceptance, they'd be met with equal resistance. The difference is nobody in their right mind would question their exclusion. It's the non-Christians who want to choose which sins are real sins and demand that Christians bend their religious beliefs to meet their ideas of what they want Christianity to be.

If they were not being singled out than why is being "gay" the only "sin" that was part of this special policy that the BSA has now changed?

 

I'll ask you the same question I've asked others; please point out to me where in accepted scripture it states that being attracted to the same sex is a "sin"?  I submit, such attraction is not a sin any more so than a person being attracted to the opposite sex is a sin.

 

I submit that you are either failing or refusing to make the distinction between an impulse/attraction and someone who actively follows the impulse. If simply having the attraction is a "sin" and any with that attraction should be excluded from scouting then there is no more reason to exclude gay boys from scouting that there is to exclude straight boys from scouting since either one pursuing their impulses has NO PLACE in scouting and each are every bit as SINFUL as the other.

Edited June 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[klamb5]

Robert if you search the Bible you can find it if you can't its because you don't want too. Remember we need to hate sin in form and love the sinner.

[RobertNashville]

Robert if you search the Bible you can find it if you can't its because you don't want too. Remember we need to hate sin in form and love the sinner.

I know the bible pretty well...what you suggest is there simply isn't.  If you think it is then point out the specific scriptures; otherwise you are just asserting your personal belief based on your interpretation of your church's doctrine; but not on scripture.

 

I can't help but wonder how a Christian can ever minister the love of Christ to someone if that Christian truly believes that a person simply being attracted to the same sex is, in and of itself, a sin?  If it is, then can a homosexual ever be saved because they would be in a constant state of sin would they not?  

Edited June 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[robin48]

Robert if you search the Bible you can find it if you can't its because you don't want too. Remember we need to hate sin in form and love the sinner.

I know the bible pretty well...what you suggest is there simply isn't. If you think it is then point out the specific scriptures; otherwise you are just asserting your personal belief based on your interpretation of your church's doctrine; but not on scripture.

I can't help but wonder how a Christian can ever minister the love of Christ to someone if that Christian truly believes that a person simply being attracted to the same sex is, in and of itself, a sin? If it is, then can a homosexual ever be saved because they would be in a constant state of sin would they not?

Robert the bible plainly states homosexual sex is sin, just as any form of fornication ( sex outside of marriage ) as is gluttony, greed, anger, envy, lust. The list goes on. Sin is sin, lust is lust.

I am an Oath Keeper. One of the 3%

[robin48]

If the BSA allows homosexuals it's not my business. I won't support them. I no longer support GSA because of their connection to Planned Parenthood. That is my right and is my business just as the church can decide who it supports and does not support.

I am an Oath Keeper. One of the 3%

[RobertNashville]

Robert the bible plainly states homosexual sex is sin, just as any form of fornication ( sex outside of marriage ) as is gluttony, greed, anger, envy, lust. The list goes on. Sin is sin, lust is lust.

I am an Oath Keeper. One of the 3%

Absolutely correct....engaging in unnatural sex acts (and that includes some that heterosexuals engage in as well) is a sin.

 

My entire point is that being "attracted to the same sex" is not engaging in sex and as such is no more a "sin" than someone who wants to overeat to the point of morbid obesity but doesn't. 

Edited June 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[maroonandwhite]

I know the bible pretty well...what you suggest is there simply isn't.  If you think it is then point out the specific scriptures; otherwise you are just asserting your personal belief based on your interpretation of your church's doctrine; but not on scripture.

 

I can't help but wonder how a Christian can ever minister the love of Christ to someone if that Christian truly believes that a person simply being attracted to the same sex is, in and of itself, a sin?  If it is, then can a homosexual ever be saved because they would be in a constant state of sin would they not?  

Robert I honestly can't find any scripture in the KJV that flat out says homosexuality is a sin (I didn't look extremely hard though since I'm at work). I think the problem lies in the definition of homosexuality in the bible. Some of these translations are far different than others when it comes to that. I myself read the NIV. I am not saying one way or the other what I think on the matter but I will definitely read a little more into it once I get home.  If I could read hebrew then maybe we could get a good idea as to what the original text says haha.

 

I agree that the mere temptation of sexual immorality is not a sin. It is the actual act that is the sin.

 

It's just whether or not homosexuality means thinking or doing in scripture context. I am guessing that most would consider that identifying oneself openly and proudly as homosexual would imply that they would commit the sin when the opportunity arose. That is being judgmental of course but hey everybody sins.  ;)

Edited June 3, 2013 by maroonandwhite

[RobertNashville]

Robert I honestly can't find any scripture in the KJV that flat out says homosexuality is a sin (I didn't look extremely hard though since I'm at work). I think the problem lies in the definition of homosexuality in the bible. Some of these translations are far different than others when it comes to that. I myself read the NIV. I am not saying one way or the other what I think on the matter but I will definitely read a little more into it once I get home.  If I could read hebrew then maybe we could get a good idea as to what the original text says haha.

 

I agree that the mere temptation of sexual immorality is not a sin. It is the actual act that is the sin.

Unfortunately, there are some, maybe even a lot of Christians who base their beliefs solely on what they think the Bible says or, even worse, on what someone else has told them the Bible says or even worse still, on their particular church doctrine...confusing doctrine for scripture happens all too often.

 

Others, as was mentioned before, are somewhat particular about what parts of the Bible they like and ignore what they don't like...when that happens, rather than winding up with the "Word of God" they actually wind up with the "Word of George" (or Tom or Marry or Bill). ;)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It took me no time at all to find places in the Bible that talks about homosexuals. Quite a few places, actually,

Robert. And I wasn't that interested in the direction this has gone. :D