Boy Scouts of America...Doomed By Gays?

[philbo]

I think its complete ignorance to believe its only gays that molest children, when its usually the other way around by far.

What.. children molest gays?

@SomeRandom @vaguelyhumanoid

The risks are not the same. Nor do they have anything to do with pedophilia. They don't even include sex, necessarily. The problem is that the world is a messy place full of deceit and misunderstanding and misinformation.

Suppose Joe Gay is a small town scout leader. Billy Bratt is a 14yo scout, son of indulgent parents who think their kid can do no wrong.

Joe catches Billy sneaking a joint at a scout function. He confiscates the pot and lets Billy know his parents are going to deal with the problem. Billy calls home and asks his parents to come get him because that gay guy is feeling him up. The Bratts show up and take their poor victimized son straight to the police. The police file charges.

Now, what do you think is going to happen in that town after that? Imagine that it is Peru Indiana. Everybody will take a calm, reasoned approach to sorting out the facts before responding? The politicians, the parents, the newspapers and facebook, the preachers, Joe's employer and neighborhood? How do you think this will impact the Scout troop, and the ability of a bunch of volunteers to do Scouting?
No, there will be a huge disaster.

This is why I don't think the Scout's need a policy. Gay guys need to recognize the risk they pose.
Tom

A very similar scenario happened to an acquaintance, the chap is happily married with children and the little Billy equivalent didn't need a gay teacher to accuse, the accusation was enough. Your story is equally apposite for a heterosexual scout leader - seems to me the difference as you see it is that a heterosexual leader is more likely to be believed, when there's no rational reason for that.

 

[columbus]

How would allowing homosexual men to serve as scout leaders compromise that mission?

How is this a response to what I said?
Here, let me repeat it:
"Having no BSA policy about gays is what I think would best serve that mission. "
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How is this a response to what I said?
Here, let me repeat it:
"Having no BSA policy about gays is what I think would best serve that mission. "
Tom

Maybe I misunderstood, but how is no policy going to address the issue you brought up?

 

[Underhill]

The prohibition against pork is part of the Law of Moses which we are no longer under. Christ fulfilled the law. The Law of Moses was a strict law, a lesser law, that was designed to prepare the children of Israel for the higher gospel of Christ. But sexuality, stealing, lust, greed, taking the name of God in vain.... and on and on... are not only part of the Law of Moses. They are eternal principles from the beginning of time and still should be followed. No offense, but I'm surprised that someone who quotes the Bible would not be aware that Christians believe that the old law was replaced by the new, which negates many of the ancient requirements.

Oh I know the concept. I just think it's silly that some laws get to be set aside because they were earlier cultural rules and others don't. I've yet to have a christian give me any reason for the disparity other than it's what we believe god intends.

I

 

[Scott C.]

You're divorced. From your wife, who it was morally permissible to have sex with. If you were homosexual, you wouldn't have had that. You would be doomed to never experience sexual pleasure with another human being. You can't change, you can't stop your feelings, and no matter how much you loved someone and he loved you you could never be physically intimate with him without disgracing your god. Such a doctrine brings nothing good into this world. It doesn't improve anyone's lives. All it does is split apart couples and families and teach people to hate and reject themselves. If sex outside heterosexual marriage being "wrong" is an uncompromisable commandment of your god, I'll stick to my gods, thank you very much.

I agree that it's more difficult for a homosexual than a heterosexual to follow the principle of chastity as taught by my church. I'm glad that's not a challenge that I'm personally faced with.

 

[Scott C.]

Oh I know the concept. I just think it's silly that some laws get to be set aside because they were earlier cultural rules and others don't. I've yet to have a christian give me any reason for the disparity other than it's what we believe god intends.

I

It may be silly to you, but I think I understand why the earlier law was given in thto those people in those days.

Oh I know the concept. I just think it's silly that some laws get to be set aside because they were earlier cultural rules and others don't. I've yet to have a christian give me any reason for the disparity other than it's what we believe god intends.

I

It's not silly to me. The implementation of the law of Moses and it's subsequent fulfillment by Christ makes perfect sense to me. Your argument isn't persuasive to someone who has a reasonable foundation in the Old and New Testaments. But, your argument may work on others who think to themselves: "Hey, I never thought of that. If we can eat pork, why can't we have sex with whoever we want?"

 

[Underhill]

It may be silly to you, but I think I understand why the earlier law was given in thto those people in those days.


It's not silly to me. The implementation of the law of Moses and it's subsequent fulfillment by Christ makes perfect sense to me. Your argument isn't persuasive to someone who has a reasonable foundation in the Old and New Testaments. But, your argument may work on others who think to themselves: "Hey, I never thought of that. If we can eat pork, why can't we have sex with whoever we want?"

I get that. A reasonable foundation being the belief that god knows best and that your interpretation is the right one. I wouldn't expect you to understand the logical argument coming from a position of belief.

But the logical argument says that the bible, old and new testament, are reflections of their time. That the morality in those books is based upon the prevailing knowledge of the day. Based upon those assumptions one would think that today the same would hold true. That knowing what we know now, our morality should be based upon the prevailing knowledge of our time. That being gay is not harmful to anyone. That slavery is wrong and that slaves are not beholden to their masters. That women should be treated as equals in all things and not subject to their husbands.

2 out of three of those, most Christians have managed to accept by one device of reinterpretation or another. For some reason many are towing the line on homosexuality. This too shall pass; or so I hope.

 

[Scott C.]

I get that. A reasonable foundation being the belief that god knows best and that your interpretation is the right one. I wouldn't expect you to understand the logical argument coming from a position of belief.

But the logical argument says that the bible, old and new testament, are reflections of their time. That the morality in those books is based upon the prevailing knowledge of the day. Based upon those assumptions one would think that today the same would hold true. That knowing what we know now, our morality should be based upon the prevailing knowledge of our time. That being gay is not harmful to anyone. That slavery is wrong and that slaves are not beholden to their masters. That women should be treated as equals in all things and not subject to their husbands.

2 out of three of those, most Christians have managed to accept by one device of reinterpretation or another. For some reason many are towing the line on homosexuality. This too shall pass; or so I hope.

I get your point. Christian scripture can "seem" inconsistent. We also have Christian denominations with conflicting interpretation and interpretations that change with the times. We have Christians who twist scripture to justify things such as slavery. I believe that polygamy was endorsed by God anciently, at times. It was endorsed for a period of time in the history of my church. But it's not endorsed today. We have God commanding Moses to give a very strict law which he does not require today. So yes, things change under God's direction, based on times and circumstances and his will. But, I do believe that chastity, as defined by my church, is consistent with ancient and modern (LDS) scripture. I don't believe that my leaders are misinterpreting those scriptures. And I don't believe that God will reveal a new law on the subject. The concept of man, woman, marriage, children, and family is so very fundamental to life in heaven and on earth, as God has revealed it. Interesting times we live in...

 

[Underhill]

I get your point. Christian scripture can "seem" inconsistent. We also have Christian denominations with conflicting interpretation and interpretations that change with the times. We have Christians who twist scripture to justify things such as slavery. I believe that polygamy was endorsed by God anciently, at times. It was endorsed for a period of time in the history of my church. But it's not endorsed today. We have God commanding Moses to give a very strict law which he does not require today. So yes, things change under God's direction, based on times and circumstances and his will. But, I do believe that chastity, as defined by my church, is consistent with ancient and modern (LDS) scripture. I don't believe that my leaders are misinterpreting those scriptures. And I don't believe that God will reveal a new law on the subject. The concept of man, woman, marriage, children, and family is so very fundamental to life in heaven and on earth, as God has revealed it. Interesting times we live in...

First off, the bible did not need to be twisted to justify slavery. The bible gives instructions on how to treat slaves. It tells slaves to be content with their lives. At any time it could have said slavery is wrong. It didn't. It loses an awful lot of credibility as a moral authority on that basis alone.

And gay marriage has nothing to do with chastity. A gay couple can be every bit as committed as a straight couple.

But you are right in one respect. I too doubt that God will reveal a new law on the subject. Of course I doubt he had anything to do with the bible in the first place.

 

[Scott C.]

First off, the bible did not need to be twisted to justify slavery. The bible gives instructions on how to treat slaves. It tells slaves to be content with their lives. At any time it could have said slavery is wrong. It didn't. It loses an awful lot of credibility as a moral authority on that basis alone.

And gay marriage has nothing to do with chastity. A gay couple can be every bit as committed as a straight couple.

But you are right in one respect. I too doubt that God will reveal a new law on the subject. Of course I doubt he had anything to do with the bible in the first place.

I need to look more into slavery in OT/NT before I can comment. Chastity is broader than fidelity to a partner. I see chastity as including no fornication (sex out of marriage, even if the partners are loyal), no adultery (clearly a breach of fidelity), no homosexual sex, no sex with animals, no lusting, no porn, no abusive sex to your spouse,... I must say that this law is probably the most difficult for a homosexual, if that homosexual has no interest whatsoever in sexual relations with the opposite sex. The non-married can wait for marriage to have their sex. The married can stick to sex with one person only. We all can avoid animals. We all can work to eliminate lust. But the homosexual can't have sex ever, unless his/her orientation changes. The situation is somewhat similar to a heterosexual who never marries. If he or she toes the line, they will never have sex in all of their lives. There are probably not many who pull that off. But an unmarried hetero can date and find romance, even if there's no marriage and no sex. I can see why gays reject my beliefs regarding chastity. I get it. It troubles me. But I do believe that there are gays, albeit a minority, who believe as I do and who therefore abstain. They find peace in their lifestyle. They do not loathe themselves. They are happy and know that God loves them. They find strength in their faith. But, admittedly, I am not gay and do not know how I would act or feel, if I were.

 

[Underhill]

I need to look more into slavery in OT/NT before I can comment. Chastity is broader than fidelity to a partner. I see chastity as including no fornication (sex out of marriage, even if the partners are loyal), no adultery (clearly a breach of fidelity), no homosexual sex, no sex with animals, no lusting, no porn, no abusive sex to your spouse,... I must say that this law is probably the most difficult for a homosexual, if that homosexual has no interest whatsoever in sexual relations with the opposite sex. The non-married can wait for marriage to have their sex. The married can stick to sex with one person only. We all can avoid animals. We all can work to eliminate lust. But the homosexual can't have sex ever, unless his/her orientation changes. The situation is somewhat similar to a heterosexual who never marries. If he or she toes the line, they will never have sex in all of their lives. There are probably not many who pull that off. But an unmarried hetero can date and find romance, even if there's no marriage and no sex. I can see why gays reject my beliefs regarding chastity. I get it. It troubles me. But I do believe that there are gays, albeit a minority, who believe as I do and who therefore abstain. They find peace in their lifestyle. They do not loathe themselves. They are happy and know that God loves them. They find strength in their faith. But, admittedly, I am not gay and do not know how I would act or feel, if I were.

Well I guess that depends on your definition of chastity. From the dictionary... Chastity - the state or practice of refraining from extramarital, or from all, sexual intercourse.

Assuming you are right and god dictates this, I would never understand a god who makes people gay then tells them they cannot be involved in a loving relationship based upon how he made them. And don't bother going down the road of "homosexuals are not born that way". It's crap. As a straight man you could not turn me gay for all the gold in fort knox.

In fairness I also could not understand a loving god who would create us knowing we will sin, but condemns us all to eternal damnation because of that sin. It's like beheading a child for nabbing a cookie from the cookie sheet.

 

[Scott C.]

Well I guess that depends on your definition of chastity. From the dictionary... Chastity - the state or practice of refraining from extramarital, or from all, sexual intercourse.

Assuming you are right and god dictates this, I would never understand a god who makes people gay then tells them they cannot be involved in a loving relationship based upon how he made them. And don't bother going down the road of "homosexuals are not born that way". It's crap. As a straight man you could not turn me gay for all the gold in fort knox.

In fairness I also could not understand a loving god who would create us knowing we will sin, but condemns us all to eternal damnation because of that sin. It's like beheading a child for nabbing a cookie from the cookie sheet.

There was a lot in that post...

I accept that many, if not all, gays are that way not by choice. Whether it's in the DNA or they become that way through life experiences, or some of both, I can't be sure. But I accept that many, if not all, can't change their orientation, if they wanted to.

God intended life to be challenging. Without an atonement, or the opportunity to repent, life would not be fair. The punishment seems to out weigh the crime. But if justice is not fair, we know that God himself fixed that, by willingly paying the harsh price himself, so we don't have to. Nobody need be subjected to the harsh law of justice without the saving grace of the atonement. I don't know why some people are born into this world with trials that others do not experience.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I need to look more into slavery in OT/NT before I can comment. Chastity is broader than fidelity to a partner. I see chastity as including no fornication (sex out of marriage, even if the partners are loyal), no adultery (clearly a breach of fidelity), no homosexual sex, no sex with animals, no lusting, no porn, no abusive sex to your spouse,... I must say that this law is probably the most difficult for a homosexual, if that homosexual has no interest whatsoever in sexual relations with the opposite sex. The non-married can wait for marriage to have their sex. The married can stick to sex with one person only. We all can avoid animals. We all can work to eliminate lust. But the homosexual can't have sex ever, unless his/her orientation changes. The situation is somewhat similar to a heterosexual who never marries. If he or she toes the line, they will never have sex in all of their lives. There are probably not many who pull that off. But an unmarried hetero can date and find romance, even if there's no marriage and no sex. I can see why gays reject my beliefs regarding chastity. I get it. It troubles me. But I do believe that there are gays, albeit a minority, who believe as I do and who therefore abstain. They find peace in their lifestyle. They do not loathe themselves. They are happy and know that God loves them. They find strength in their faith. But, admittedly, I am not gay and do not know how I would act or feel, if I were.

For one thing, you can't change your orientation. People have literally killed themselves trying. The co-founders of the largest "ex-gay" organization in the country resigned after they fell in love with each other. And all the celibate gay Christians I've read stuff by aren't exactly "happy" or "peaceful" about it. They're more of the perspective that God has chosen to test them with temptation, and it's not easy or comfortable at all. Why would a God make people gay, or make gay sex pleasurable to begin with, only to arbitrarily name it "wrong"?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The co-founders of the largest "ex-gay" organization in the country resigned after they fell in love with each other.

And don't forget all the ones who have been caught with a male prostitute, all the apologies for the damage that reparative therapy caused, all the "cured" gays who gave it up and resumed being themselves, and the legions who have abandoned reparative therapy because there is no evidence, at all, that it actually works. I can't say exactly for gay therapy, but if it's anything like trying to tell someone with gender dysphoria to deal with it, repress themselves, and live as their birth-assigned gender, it causes a lot of inner pain, turmoil, destructive habits, and makes life undesirable to live.

 

[Underhill]

There was a lot in that post...

I accept that many, if not all, gays are that way not by choice. Whether it's in the DNA or they become that way through life experiences, or some of both, I can't be sure. But I accept that many, if not all, can't change their orientation, if they wanted to.

God intended life to be challenging. Without an atonement, or the opportunity to repent, life would not be fair. The punishment seems to out weigh the crime. But if justice is not fair, we know that God himself fixed that, by willingly paying the harsh price himself, so we don't have to. Nobody need be subjected to the harsh law of justice without the saving grace of the atonement. I don't know why some people are born into this world with trials that others do not experience.

Even that doesn't make much sense. The bible says our punishment is to be eternal, and yet Jesus dies and lies in the tomb for 3 days... and all is paid for. It's like saying I'll pay off your $500,000 mortgage with a tenner.

But none of what you said changes my point. Any being who would create something knowing what it would do, then punish it for doing it... is not worthy of my respect.