Boy Scouts reconsidering stance on gay members

[dzheremi]

That's why their kids are always misbehaved, but emotionally healthy. Whereas, religious kids are always well behaved, but then emotionally unstable during adulthood needing therapy.

Without broaching what "always misbehaved, but emotionally healthy" could possibly mean, isn't it inadvisable to make such sweeping generalizations about people based on the religious outlook of their parents? The vast majority of agnostically or atheistically-minded people I know were raised in at least passively religious environments (several actively religious, as well), and came to reject or at least be ambivalent about religion later in life, without the aid or complication of therapy.

And my best friend in junior high/high school experimented for some of that time with homosexuality and bisexuality. He was raised in an atheistic household, but always hiding his curiosity from his family because his parents were very openly anti-homosexual, and his father's views in particular had a big impact on his younger brother in their former years, making for a very toxic environment. My friend ended up on the street off an on from about age 16 to 20 due to mental illness issues aggravated (he said some of his therapists said "brought on") by the stress of trying to be okay with some of what he was doing/feeling at the time while his family's message that it was definitely not okay (I can't use the words I heard in good conscience, but I remember being with his family at several times as a teenager when his father and/or younger brother would go off on how gross/immoral/worthy of terrible things homosexuals are, completely oblivious to the effect this was having on him). He's been happily, heterosexually married for years now, so it's most likely that this was a teenage phase/confusion, but I know that he's never forgotten this period of his life and the effect it had on him. As his friend, I haven't either. (This is one of the many, many reasons I do not accept the presumption of some people on the internet that if you are against the forced acceptance of homosexuality/the criminalization of traditional Christian teachings on homosexuality, that means you hate homosexuals or want them to die or whatever...I was unaware that I secretly wanted my best friend to die during all the years that I spent taking collect calls from him while he was on the street or in various mental hospitals, and the many years since then, during which I have never, ever stopped being his friend and supporting him...)

Actually, it is quite possible he is bisexual.

Tell that to his wife of 6-7 years. Having known him for about 20 years at this point, I'm betting that the sexually-confused phase of his life (like his drug experimentation around the same period) was part of the same "who am I?" sort of thing that a lot of teenagers and young adults go through, seeing as how all of that stopped once he met the woman who would become his wife. He cleaned up his life in a big way, got a steady job that afforded him the opportunity to buy a house and a little land, and has lived happily ever since in rural Oregon. Other than his taste in music (he still loves heavy metal; I've never understood it), I'd think he was a completely different guy than the kid I grew up with. He knows who he is now. He's happy. He doesn't need drugs or sex with random people or any of that stuff. Perhaps not coincidentally, he told me last time I saw him that he really hasn't had any psych episodes to speak of in years. We're not very close anymore, but I'm so happy for him.

I know it's hard for younger, more socially progressive types to accept, but plenty of people who would've built their identities around being "gay" (or any number of other things) do eventually grow up and realize that it was a phase in their development/maturation, not "who they are". I'm certainly not saying that this is how it is for everybody, but it is not as uncommon as you might think. He's certainly not the only one I know who has that type of past (I can think of at least half a dozen other people, male and female, I grew up with who went through similar struggles with their sexuality in their teens and early 20s, and I grew up in a tiny town of about 10K, not a big city with an organized "gay scene" or whatever). I suppose the difference now (socially speaking) is that with all the insanity surrounding sexual identity being a battleground at every level at an increasingly young age, if most of the people I have known who thought they were gay in high school and later realized they weren't were going through high school now, they might feel pressure to become gay activists or whatever and become sexual cause celebres, thereby probably prolonging their confusion and delaying their ability to move on with their lives/become more complete, well-rounded people.

[PeterTheAleut]

You never see atheist parents rejecting their children because of their sexuality and/or religious beliefs, whereas religious parents do...

How many atheist parents have you known personally?

[PeterTheAleut]

I've never seen an atheist parent reject their kid based on something like beliefs on sexuality. On the other hand, what I have observed among them is that they don't teach their kids crap, because in their eyes, expressing authority automatically equals abuse. That's why their kids are always misbehaved, but emotionally healthy. Whereas, religious kids are always well behaved, but then emotionally unstable during adulthood needing therapy.

Again, how many families have you seen?

[JamesRottnek]

That's why their kids are always misbehaved, but emotionally healthy. Whereas, religious kids are always well behaved, but then emotionally unstable during adulthood needing therapy.

Without broaching what "always misbehaved, but emotionally healthy" could possibly mean, isn't it inadvisable to make such sweeping generalizations about people based on the religious outlook of their parents? The vast majority of agnostically or atheistically-minded people I know were raised in at least passively religious environments (several actively religious, as well), and came to reject or at least be ambivalent about religion later in life, without the aid or complication of therapy.

And my best friend in junior high/high school experimented for some of that time with homosexuality and bisexuality. He was raised in an atheistic household, but always hiding his curiosity from his family because his parents were very openly anti-homosexual, and his father's views in particular had a big impact on his younger brother in their former years, making for a very toxic environment. My friend ended up on the street off an on from about age 16 to 20 due to mental illness issues aggravated (he said some of his therapists said "brought on") by the stress of trying to be okay with some of what he was doing/feeling at the time while his family's message that it was definitely not okay (I can't use the words I heard in good conscience, but I remember being with his family at several times as a teenager when his father and/or younger brother would go off on how gross/immoral/worthy of terrible things homosexuals are, completely oblivious to the effect this was having on him). He's been happily, heterosexually married for years now, so it's most likely that this was a teenage phase/confusion, but I know that he's never forgotten this period of his life and the effect it had on him. As his friend, I haven't either. (This is one of the many, many reasons I do not accept the presumption of some people on the internet that if you are against the forced acceptance of homosexuality/the criminalization of traditional Christian teachings on homosexuality, that means you hate homosexuals or want them to die or whatever...I was unaware that I secretly wanted my best friend to die during all the years that I spent taking collect calls from him while he was on the street or in various mental hospitals, and the many years since then, during which I have never, ever stopped being his friend and supporting him...)

Actually, it is quite possible he is bisexual.

Tell that to his wife of 6-7 years. Having known him for about 20 years at this point, I'm betting that the sexually-confused phase of his life (like his drug experimentation around the same period) was part of the same "who am I?" sort of thing that a lot of teenagers and young adults go through, seeing as how all of that stopped once he met the woman who would become his wife. He cleaned up his life in a big way, got a steady job that afforded him the opportunity to buy a house and a little land, and has lived happily ever since in rural Oregon. Other than his taste in music (he still loves heavy metal; I've never understood it), I'd think he was a completely different guy than the kid I grew up with. He knows who he is now. He's happy. He doesn't need drugs or sex with random people or any of that stuff. Perhaps not coincidentally, he told me last time I saw him that he really hasn't had any psych episodes to speak of in years. We're not very close anymore, but I'm so happy for him.

I know it's hard for younger, more socially progressive types to accept, but plenty of people who would've built their identities around being "gay" (or any number of other things) do eventually grow up and realize that it was a phase in their development/maturation, not "who they are". I'm certainly not saying that this is how it is for everybody, but it is not as uncommon as you might think. He's certainly not the only one I know who has that type of past (I can think of at least half a dozen other people, male and female, I grew up with who went through similar struggles with their sexuality in their teens and early 20s, and I grew up in a tiny town of about 10K, not a big city with an organized "gay scene" or whatever). I suppose the difference now (socially speaking) is that with all the insanity surrounding sexual identity being a battleground at every level at an increasingly young age, if most of the people I have known who thought they were gay in high school and later realized they weren't were going through high school now, they might feel pressure to become gay activists or whatever and become sexual cause celebres, thereby probably prolonging their confusion and delaying their ability to move on with their lives/become more complete, well-rounded people.

I fail to see how any of this addresses my comment.

[dzheremi]

This is not surprising to me.

[PeterTheAleut]

If you can't prove it, he didn't say it.

?

Yeah, of all people, I'd not expect PTA to fall for that fallacy.

No fallacy... Just using a figure of speech to challenge you to provide evidence for your accusations...

[Kerdy]

That's why their kids are always misbehaved, but emotionally healthy. Whereas, religious kids are always well behaved, but then emotionally unstable during adulthood needing therapy.

Without broaching what "always misbehaved, but emotionally healthy" could possibly mean, isn't it inadvisable to make such sweeping generalizations about people based on the religious outlook of their parents? The vast majority of agnostically or atheistically-minded people I know were raised in at least passively religious environments (several actively religious, as well), and came to reject or at least be ambivalent about religion later in life, without the aid or complication of therapy.

And my best friend in junior high/high school experimented for some of that time with homosexuality and bisexuality. He was raised in an atheistic household, but always hiding his curiosity from his family because his parents were very openly anti-homosexual, and his father's views in particular had a big impact on his younger brother in their former years, making for a very toxic environment. My friend ended up on the street off an on from about age 16 to 20 due to mental illness issues aggravated (he said some of his therapists said "brought on") by the stress of trying to be okay with some of what he was doing/feeling at the time while his family's message that it was definitely not okay (I can't use the words I heard in good conscience, but I remember being with his family at several times as a teenager when his father and/or younger brother would go off on how gross/immoral/worthy of terrible things homosexuals are, completely oblivious to the effect this was having on him). He's been happily, heterosexually married for years now, so it's most likely that this was a teenage phase/confusion, but I know that he's never forgotten this period of his life and the effect it had on him. As his friend, I haven't either. (This is one of the many, many reasons I do not accept the presumption of some people on the internet that if you are against the forced acceptance of homosexuality/the criminalization of traditional Christian teachings on homosexuality, that means you hate homosexuals or want them to die or whatever...I was unaware that I secretly wanted my best friend to die during all the years that I spent taking collect calls from him while he was on the street or in various mental hospitals, and the many years since then, during which I have never, ever stopped being his friend and supporting him...)

Actually, it is quite possible he is bisexual.

Tell that to his wife of 6-7 years. Having known him for about 20 years at this point, I'm betting that the sexually-confused phase of his life (like his drug experimentation around the same period) was part of the same "who am I?" sort of thing that a lot of teenagers and young adults go through, seeing as how all of that stopped once he met the woman who would become his wife. He cleaned up his life in a big way, got a steady job that afforded him the opportunity to buy a house and a little land, and has lived happily ever since in rural Oregon. Other than his taste in music (he still loves heavy metal; I've never understood it), I'd think he was a completely different guy than the kid I grew up with. He knows who he is now. He's happy. He doesn't need drugs or sex with random people or any of that stuff. Perhaps not coincidentally, he told me last time I saw him that he really hasn't had any psych episodes to speak of in years. We're not very close anymore, but I'm so happy for him.

I know it's hard for younger, more socially progressive types to accept, but plenty of people who would've built their identities around being "gay" (or any number of other things) do eventually grow up and realize that it was a phase in their development/maturation, not "who they are". I'm certainly not saying that this is how it is for everybody, but it is not as uncommon as you might think. He's certainly not the only one I know who has that type of past (I can think of at least half a dozen other people, male and female, I grew up with who went through similar struggles with their sexuality in their teens and early 20s, and I grew up in a tiny town of about 10K, not a big city with an organized "gay scene" or whatever). I suppose the difference now (socially speaking) is that with all the insanity surrounding sexual identity being a battleground at every level at an increasingly young age, if most of the people I have known who thought they were gay in high school and later realized they weren't were going through high school now, they might feel pressure to become gay activists or whatever and become sexual cause celebres, thereby probably prolonging their confusion and delaying their ability to move on with their lives/become more complete, well-rounded people.

I fail to see how any of this addresses my comment.

Of course you do.

[yeshuaisiam]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Not just sinful, but abominable!!!

Do you want somebody who has such a distraught and messed up family, who loves their own sex, will not engage in normal relations as God created us, to be the role model for your son or sons?

Us Christians DO NOT JUDGE homosexual behavior, GOD already did.  When we call homosexual behavior an abomination, we are only repeating what God called it.

No Christian should want their sons role models / mentors / troop leaders to be homosexuals.  End of story.

[orthonorm]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Not just sinful, but abominable!!!

Hey, it is called the abominable snowman but really, what are you going to do when he looks like this?














Rainbowiness, intentional . . .

[Michał Kalina]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Not just sinful, but abominable!!!

Do you want somebody who has such a distraught and messed up family, who loves their own sex, will not engage in normal relations as God created us, to be the role model for your son or sons?

Us Christians DO NOT JUDGE homosexual behavior, GOD already did.  When we call homosexual behavior an abomination, we are only repeating what God called it.

No Christian should want their sons role models / mentors / troop leaders to be homosexuals.  End of story.

Scriptures say nothing about lesbians, do they?

[PeterTheAleut]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Do you eat oysters?

[Deep Roots]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

yes

This is not a subject that should be debated.

meh

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

yep

Not just sinful, but abominable!!!

ooohhhhh [!!!]

Do you want somebody who has such a distraught and messed up family, who loves their own sex, will not engage in normal relations as God created us, to be the role model for your son or sons?

I'd rather have that than, say, a greedy person or a hateful one -- absolutely. 

Us Christians DO NOT JUDGE homosexual behavior, GOD already did.  When we call homosexual behavior an abomination, we are only repeating what God called it.

k

No Christian should want their sons role models / mentors / troop leaders to be homosexuals.  End of story.

Or...you know, not.

[Αριστοκλής]

Rainbowiness, intentional . . .

Coming out?

Your avatar might lead one to think so. 

[orthonorm]

Rainbowiness, intentional . . .

Coming out?

Your avatar might lead one to think so. 

Out as what? What is that third thing?

That image cracked me up. I saw this whole tri-sexual symbol and it looked some graphic expression of modalism.

Hence it and the words beneath.

The rainbowage was pure plus on the image search.

[Αριστοκλής]

Rainbowiness, intentional . . .

Coming out?

Your avatar might lead one to think so. 

Out as what? What is that third thing?

That image cracked me up. I saw this whole tri-sexual symbol and it looked some graphic expression of modalism.

Hence it and the words beneath.

The rainbowage was pure plus on the image search.

It was just a test to flush you out of "Hidden" status. 

[ilyazhito]

I would withdraw from Boy Scouts if gays were allowed, because I would not want to be exposed to potential or actual pedophiles. Also, homosexuality would violate the "morally straight" provision on the scout oath. It would prevent a Scout from being reverent, because certain religions, such as Orthodox Christianity, do not accept homosexuality as a normal way of life. Accepting gays as Scouts implies accepting the gay way as normal, at least for Scouting.

[orthonorm]

I would withdraw from Boy Scouts if gays were allowed, because I would not want to be exposed to potential or actual pedophiles. Also, homosexuality would violate the "morally straight" provision on the scout oath. It would prevent a Scout from being reverent, because certain religions, such as Orthodox Christianity, do not accept homosexuality as a normal way of life. Accepting gays as Scouts implies accepting the gay way as normal, at least for Scouting.

You are more likely going to find yourself the victim of pedophilia at the hands of a non-homosexual male than a homosexual one (this gets a bit into begging the question, but whatever).

And what age is one typically a Boy Scout? Ain't you too old to be the victim of pedophilia by that time?

[ilyazhito]

This concern would be more for my son than for me, but man-on-man sexual abuse can happen at any age.

[orthonorm]

This concern would be more for my son than for me, but man-on-man sexual abuse can happen at any age.

OK, and why do you think homosexual males are more likely to commit such abuse than non-homosexual men?

[Deep Roots]

I would withdraw from Boy Scouts if gays were allowed, because I would not want to be exposed to potential or actual pedophiles.

   

[JamesR]

Simba was raised by two men and he turned out just fine, becoming the new king of the jungle.

[Jetavan]

Simba was raised by two men and he turned out just fine, becoming the new king of the jungle.

Quit lion.

[Achronos]

Simba was raised by two men and he turned out just fine, becoming the new king of the jungle.

ROFL

[That person]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Not just sinful, but abominable!!!

Do you want somebody who has such a distraught and messed up family, who loves their own sex, will not engage in normal relations as God created us, to be the role model for your son or sons?

Us Christians DO NOT JUDGE homosexual behavior, GOD already did.  When we call homosexual behavior an abomination, we are only repeating what God called it.

No Christian should want their sons role models / mentors / troop leaders to be homosexuals.  End of story.

Scriptures say nothing about lesbians, do they?

Romans 1:26 seems to. Doesn't use the word "abomination" though. I did know one guy who thought, based on the Bible's general silence, that male homosexuality was wrong, but not female. I'm pretty sure he wanted to justify his girl-on-girl porn consumption. I can't say I'm unsympathetic.

[Deep Roots]

I did know one guy who thought, based on the Bible's general silence, that male homosexuality was wrong, but not female.

I had a student last semester in my Freshman Composition class make the same argument.  He is Muslim and it was great fun getting him to see the hypocrisy.

[Deacon Lance]

And what age is one typically a Boy Scout? Ain't you too old to be the victim of pedophilia by that time?

11-17. Depends if the boy is prepubescent, but hebephilia and ephebophilia are illegal also.  I agree with you that a pedophile is just as likely to be heterosexual as homosexual, if not more likely.

[Deacon Lance]

I would withdraw from Boy Scouts if gays were allowed, because I would not want to be exposed to potential or actual pedophiles. Also, homosexuality would violate the "morally straight" provision on the scout oath. It would prevent a Scout from being reverent, because certain religions, such as Orthodox Christianity, do not accept homosexuality as a normal way of life. Accepting gays as Scouts implies accepting the gay way as normal, at least for Scouting.

The local charter organization has final say on who leaders are.  So even if National drops its policy, a troop owned by a  Catholic or Orthodox parish will be able to refuse membership to homosexuals.  What is also going unreported is churches with no opposition to homosexuals, like Unitarians  and Episcopals, already allow homosexuals in.

[PeterTheAleut]

I would withdraw from Boy Scouts if gays were allowed, because I would not want to be exposed to potential or actual pedophiles.

Oy! That canard again. What connection has ever been shown between homosexuality and pedophilia? Or have you so soon forgotten that the Boy Scouts have had a major problem with pedophilia even in spite of their ban on gays?

Also, homosexuality would violate the "morally straight" provision on the scout oath. It would prevent a Scout from being reverent, because certain religions, such as Orthodox Christianity, do not accept homosexuality as a normal way of life. Accepting gays as Scouts implies accepting the gay way as normal, at least for Scouting.

I can agree with this, though.

[TheMathematician]

I've thought this one long as through, and as an Eagle and now Assistant Scoutmaster with now 14+ years in the Scouting movement, and what is comes down to for me is this.

The BSA needs to think if allowing gays into scouting would contradict with the "morally straight" aspect of the Scout Law. They need to act and choose based on what they view to be the right course of action, whatever it is. I will respect the BSA with whatever choice they make, as long as they are doing what they view to be the correct choice of action, and I will support thm with either choice they make.

HOWEVER, if they fold, and give in based on outside pressure and money, then my respect will go down for the BSA, as it is not the same organization as i joined in my youth, earned my eagle in, and am currently a volunteer in.


Big picture, regardless of their decision, the BSA is a good orginzation to support and be a part of, but if they fold, give up on their morals and duty to do what is right, then the orgiznation i know is gone.

[Ioannis Climacus]

Rainbowiness, intentional . . .

Coming out?

Your avatar might lead one to think so. 

Out as what? What is that third thing?

That image cracked me up. I saw this whole tri-sexual symbol and it looked some graphic expression of modalism.

Hence it and the words beneath.

The rainbowage was pure plus on the image search.

Your avatar made a cameo on that schema-monk hoodie that's been going around :

[Peter J]

I would withdraw from Boy Scouts if gays were allowed, because I would not want to be exposed to potential or actual pedophiles. Also, homosexuality would violate the "morally straight" provision on the scout oath. It would prevent a Scout from being reverent, because certain religions, such as Orthodox Christianity, do not accept homosexuality as a normal way of life. Accepting gays as Scouts implies accepting the gay way as normal, at least for Scouting.

Do you mean, because those "certain religions" happen to be right?

[Peter J]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Not just sinful, but abominable!!!

Do you want somebody who has such a distraught and messed up family, who loves their own sex, will not engage in normal relations as God created us, to be the role model for your son or sons?

Us Christians DO NOT JUDGE homosexual behavior, GOD already did.  When we call homosexual behavior an abomination, we are only repeating what God called it.

No Christian should want their sons role models / mentors / troop leaders to be homosexuals.  End of story.

It is a sin.

But I guess the question to you should be: Do you believe that people who commit that sin should be put to death?

[orthonorm]

Rainbowiness, intentional . . .

Coming out?

Your avatar might lead one to think so. 

Out as what? What is that third thing?

That image cracked me up. I saw this whole tri-sexual symbol and it looked some graphic expression of modalism.

Hence it and the words beneath.

The rainbowage was pure plus on the image search.

Your avatar made a cameo on that schema-monk hoodie that's been going around :

As it has been said before: I am the height of teen-age fashion.

[Kerdy]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Not just sinful, but abominable!!!

Do you want somebody who has such a distraught and messed up family, who loves their own sex, will not engage in normal relations as God created us, to be the role model for your son or sons?

Us Christians DO NOT JUDGE homosexual behavior, GOD already did.  When we call homosexual behavior an abomination, we are only repeating what God called it.

No Christian should want their sons role models / mentors / troop leaders to be homosexuals.  End of story.

It is a sin.

But I guess the question to you should be: Do you believe that people who commit that sin should be put to death?

No, this isn’t the question at all.  Not even remotely close to the question.  The question is, should be allowed openly in the BSA.  Nice diversion tactic, but it was unsuccessful. 

[yeshuaisiam]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Not just sinful, but abominable!!!

Do you want somebody who has such a distraught and messed up family, who loves their own sex, will not engage in normal relations as God created us, to be the role model for your son or sons?

Us Christians DO NOT JUDGE homosexual behavior, GOD already did.  When we call homosexual behavior an abomination, we are only repeating what God called it.

No Christian should want their sons role models / mentors / troop leaders to be homosexuals.  End of story.

Scriptures say nothing about lesbians, do they?

Yes

Romans 1:26-27

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

"vile affections"

[yeshuaisiam]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Not just sinful, but abominable!!!

Hey, it is called the abominable snowman but really, what are you going to do when he looks like this?














Rainbowiness, intentional . . .

Hah,

Well it is a man with a pink flower in his hat.... so....

[yeshuaisiam]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Do you eat oysters?

No, I keep Kosher.

However,

Romans 1:26
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

In the New Covenant they were called "vile affections" and "against nature".

[Jetavan]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Not just sinful, but abominable!!!

Do you want somebody who has such a distraught and messed up family, who loves their own sex, will not engage in normal relations as God created us, to be the role model for your son or sons?

Us Christians DO NOT JUDGE homosexual behavior, GOD already did.  When we call homosexual behavior an abomination, we are only repeating what God called it.

No Christian should want their sons role models / mentors / troop leaders to be homosexuals.  End of story.

Scriptures say nothing about lesbians, do they?

Yes

Romans 1:26-27

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

"vile affections"

I wonder. Did Paul have any notion of people who are 'born' with same-sex attractions? He seems to be criticizing here, people -- heterosexual -- whose extreme lust has taken them into 'vile affections', not people whose normal state of attraction is directed towards those of the same sex.

[yeshuaisiam]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Not just sinful, but abominable!!!

Do you want somebody who has such a distraught and messed up family, who loves their own sex, will not engage in normal relations as God created us, to be the role model for your son or sons?

Us Christians DO NOT JUDGE homosexual behavior, GOD already did.  When we call homosexual behavior an abomination, we are only repeating what God called it.

No Christian should want their sons role models / mentors / troop leaders to be homosexuals.  End of story.

It is a sin.

But I guess the question to you should be: Do you believe that people who commit that sin should be put to death?

No.

I believe that the New Covenant Christ taught us (by example the adulterous woman) that we should not cast stones at her.  He said 'go now and sin no more' to her.

Now, if a gay person were to repent of their sin and not practice it, okay the doors are open as we all struggle.   But they won't.  They want to be accepted and for us to accept their sin & them living in their sin.

[yeshuaisiam]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Not just sinful, but abominable!!!

Do you want somebody who has such a distraught and messed up family, who loves their own sex, will not engage in normal relations as God created us, to be the role model for your son or sons?

Us Christians DO NOT JUDGE homosexual behavior, GOD already did.  When we call homosexual behavior an abomination, we are only repeating what God called it.

No Christian should want their sons role models / mentors / troop leaders to be homosexuals.  End of story.

Scriptures say nothing about lesbians, do they?

Yes

Romans 1:26-27

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

"vile affections"

I wonder. Did Paul have any notion of people who are 'born' with same-sex attractions? He seems to be criticizing here, people -- heterosexual -- whose extreme lust has taken them into 'vile affections', not people whose normal state of attraction is directed towards those of the same sex.

We were all born with weaknesses to certain sins.  One of mine is anger.

Also your question has been debated before (or the subject matter) by many Christian groups.   Many say that "born gay" is propaganda of our modern evil culture.  Many gay men were sexually abused.   Anyway, it's a sin period.  I can't buy into Lady Gaga's "born this way" mouthpiece song for acceptance.

[yeshuaisiam]

I would withdraw from Boy Scouts if gays were allowed, because I would not want to be exposed to potential or actual pedophiles.

Oy! That canard again. What connection has ever been shown between homosexuality and pedophilia? Or have you so soon forgotten that the Boy Scouts have had a major problem with pedophilia even in spite of their ban on gays?

Also, homosexuality would violate the "morally straight" provision on the scout oath. It would prevent a Scout from being reverent, because certain religions, such as Orthodox Christianity, do not accept homosexuality as a normal way of life. Accepting gays as Scouts implies accepting the gay way as normal, at least for Scouting.

I can agree with this, though.

I do see an equally evil division between pedophiles who are gay pedophiles and heterosexual pedophiles.
Both equally sick and disturbing.

However, post-pubescent pedophilia draws some differences.

If Joseph was in his mid 20's and Mary was 14-15, these ages were accepted at this time and would have got Joseph 20 years today.

If Jimmy was in his mid 20's and Marty was 14-15 (in the time of Christ), he would have got stoned then and 20 years today.

The result of this is that gay pedophilia by our definition today (a man at 26 and teen at 15) is equally illegal.  But prior to the 2nd covenant he would have been stoned or put to death.

[JamesRottnek]

There are A LOT of Christians that need to read the scriptures.

This is not a subject that should be debated.

God called Men who lay with Men an ABOMINATION.
God called Women who lay with Woman an ABOMINATION.

Not just sinful, but abominable!!!

Do you want somebody who has such a distraught and messed up family, who loves their own sex, will not engage in normal relations as God created us, to be the role model for your son or sons?

Us Christians DO NOT JUDGE homosexual behavior, GOD already did.  When we call homosexual behavior an abomination, we are only repeating what God called it.

No Christian should want their sons role models / mentors / troop leaders to be homosexuals.  End of story.

It is a sin.

But I guess the question to you should be: Do you believe that people who commit that sin should be put to death?

No.

I believe that the New Covenant Christ taught us (by example the adulterous woman) that we should not cast stones at her.  He said 'go now and sin no more' to her.

Now, if a gay person were to repent of their sin and not practice it, okay the doors are open as we all struggle.   But they won't.  They want to be accepted and for us to accept their sin & them living in their sin.

In case you hadn't noticed, the order of events goes:
1.) Crowd brings woman to Jesus, wanting to kill her;
2.) Jesus gets crowd to disperse without harming the woman;
3.) Jesus tells woman to go and sin no more.

It does NOT go:
1.) Crowd brings woman;
2.) Jesus tells woman not to sin, woman says "OK";
3.) Crowd disperses.

[JamesRottnek]

I would withdraw from Boy Scouts if gays were allowed, because I would not want to be exposed to potential or actual pedophiles.

Oy! That canard again. What connection has ever been shown between homosexuality and pedophilia? Or have you so soon forgotten that the Boy Scouts have had a major problem with pedophilia even in spite of their ban on gays?

Also, homosexuality would violate the "morally straight" provision on the scout oath. It would prevent a Scout from being reverent, because certain religions, such as Orthodox Christianity, do not accept homosexuality as a normal way of life. Accepting gays as Scouts implies accepting the gay way as normal, at least for Scouting.

I can agree with this, though.

I do see an equally evil division between pedophiles who are gay pedophiles and heterosexual pedophiles.
Both equally sick and disturbing.

However, post-pubescent pedophilia draws some differences.

If Joseph was in his mid 20's and Mary was 14-15, these ages were accepted at this time and would have got Joseph 20 years today.

If Jimmy was in his mid 20's and Marty was 14-15 (in the time of Christ), he would have got stoned then and 20 years today.

The result of this is that gay pedophilia by our definition today (a man at 26 and teen at 15) is equally illegal.  But prior to the 2nd covenant he would have been stoned or put to death.

I don't know who is included when you say "our definition," but this is not the psychological or psychiatric definition of pedophilia.

[yeshuaisiam]

This concern would be more for my son than for me, but man-on-man sexual abuse can happen at any age.

Agreed.  

I can't imagine a fully heterosexual man being able to be gratified by young boys.

This is just such common logic:   Ask yourselves - who is more likely to sexually abuse your son?

A) A married family man with 3 children who has been married for 12 years and one of his children are in your son's troop.

-or-

B) A gay man that lives with his partner with no children.  He just wants to be a scout leader because he likes children.

[yeshuaisiam]

I would withdraw from Boy Scouts if gays were allowed, because I would not want to be exposed to potential or actual pedophiles.

Oy! That canard again. What connection has ever been shown between homosexuality and pedophilia? Or have you so soon forgotten that the Boy Scouts have had a major problem with pedophilia even in spite of their ban on gays?

Also, homosexuality would violate the "morally straight" provision on the scout oath. It would prevent a Scout from being reverent, because certain religions, such as Orthodox Christianity, do not accept homosexuality as a normal way of life. Accepting gays as Scouts implies accepting the gay way as normal, at least for Scouting.

I can agree with this, though.

I do see an equally evil division between pedophiles who are gay pedophiles and heterosexual pedophiles.
Both equally sick and disturbing.

However, post-pubescent pedophilia draws some differences.

If Joseph was in his mid 20's and Mary was 14-15, these ages were accepted at this time and would have got Joseph 20 years today.

If Jimmy was in his mid 20's and Marty was 14-15 (in the time of Christ), he would have got stoned then and 20 years today.

The result of this is that gay pedophilia by our definition today (a man at 26 and teen at 15) is equally illegal.  But prior to the 2nd covenant he would have been stoned or put to death.

I don't know who is included when you say "our definition," but this is not the psychological or psychiatric definition of pedophilia.

Let me clarify.

"Our definition" would be laws in America and legality in America.

There are many states here that prosecute young teen sexual abuse as pedophilia.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Boy Scouts reconsidering stance on gay members