Dale, you name call and justify it using the bible. You called gays perverted...Oh, yeah...that isn't name calling...that is just your religious belief.
Charlotte, Dale did not call anyone names. He made a statement. Homosexuality is a perversion. Maybe your next effort should be to remove that word from the dictionary.
I also heard on the radio today that over 75% of the scout charters are held by faith based organization.
Bob's shot was an air ball. In this particular case it is the Boy Scouts who are considering the change, not homosexuals.
In regard to marriage Bob, I am guessing that the 53% of people who voted to support gay marriage are NOT all homosexuals. Therefore, it is society changing their viewpoint on homosexuality, not just homosexuals making the changes.
One day, in my opinion, my kids are going to look back at some of your opinions on sexuality and wonder how it is you could have kept anyone from participating because they like a particular sex. Actually, wait, they ALREADY DO.
I am as guilty as the next person. I used to think that sexuality was a choice and that those who were gay, chose to be gay. I am a man of pretty significant faith and even I have come to the realization that homosexuality is not a CHOICE. It is a decision, but it is a decision to be happy with what they are particularly interested in sexually.
I am having a VERY difficult time understanding how you can justify not letting your children play in someone's yard because they are gay. I am literally shaking my head while reading some of the posts here. God help your children when they venture outside your home and the raw root of reality slaps them in the face and they get fired for calling sexuality a sin at their workplace. Because that is what happens to people who discriminate because of sexual preference.
1850-------->Mormons 1900-------->Irish Immigrants 1950---->Blacks 2000------->Homosexuals
2060--------->Hopefully no one, because you will have run out of people to pick on
In this particular case it is the Boy Scouts who are considering the change, not homosexuals.
Ryan, the Scouts is the entire organization, not just the heirarchy. It is a few in the heirarchy that are considering the change, under pressure I presume. The organization as a whole just does not have the money to fight the homosexual agenda. Like I stated, over 75% of Scout charters are owned by faith based organizations, I wonder what percentage will drop their charter.
I have come to the realization that homosexuality is not a CHOICE.
Ryan, born gay has long been disproven. Even Simon LeVay has backed away from that stance.
Charlotte & Ryan, I stated the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is not approved by God, is considered deviant behavior by God, is considered unnatural by God, is considered to be abominable behavir by God, and is considered to be a perversion of natural human behavior by God. Don't take my word for it, though. Find out for yourself. Read the Bible, from front cover to back. I'd recommend the NIV Bible, the King James Bible or the New King James Bible. Take your pick. His Word is much more clear than what I am able to poorly express.
You are free to have your views. I'm not taking them away, demanding they be taken away or shunning you because of them. I also do not require that you accept my perspective, nor join any organization to which I belong, nor change the rules of any organization to which you belong to accomodate my views.
I'm inviting you to fine tune your perspective, tuned to God's Word and God's will for your life. He loves you and invites you to partake generously of His love for you.
When you oppose His clearly expressed written Word, though, you present to Him a form of rejection of His love for you. It's called Free Will. You have it because He gave it to you. I'd suggest you consider using it more wisely, but I am not you, and you can call your own shots in life. This earthly life, that is.
Our time here is but a blip in eternity, and that is where we are all headed. Only those who seek to live a life in accordance with God's will, who admit to and repent from their sins, and who accept Jesus Christ as their savior will be taking the elevator up, so to speak. The remainder of mankind end up taking the elevator down, spending their eternity without the presence of God. That is known as "not good" for one's eternal soul. Your choice.
Not being "born gay" is NOT the same as choosing to be a homosexual. If one was born gay, that of course would take all choice away, but whether one is born gay or not, that doesn't make choice the only alternative. This suggests a grossly simplistic view on the way the body and mind works.
Here's a solid overview of the history of research and evidence behind things:
Well that settles it _ _ . A piece written by a freelance writer/blogger, got to be fact.
Do you know what an ad hominem fallacy is?
The writer lists her sources. It was published by a reputable source.
Ryan, you need to re-read my post again as to why we don't let the kids play in that yard. There is more to it than just because the parents are homosexual. The police are over there at least once a week. That should be the question you are asking yourself, why are the police over there at least once a week? They are not there to play cards. What should happen if the police show up if the kids are in the yard, then all the parents are called upon with questionable judgement. A lot you have said well times have changed and you are right they have and if you think public perception won't be called into question about these parents, you are only fooling yourselves. I can say this, some kids are the children of a conservative Pastor and two other families are that of publicically elected officials. You can't tell me that these parents won't be dragged through the mud if something was to happen. So excuse us for doing what we think is best for our kids.
We had all discussed at one time whether it was a good to even let our kids play with this child because of the attitude problems and how the police are at that house so frequently. So we made a collective decision to let our kids play with this child as our kids could be a positive influence, but they were to play in our backyards. However, some of the kids have had enough of the attitude from this kid and no longer want anything to do with this one. Now there are plenty of kids in the neighborhood and eventually this five year old will run up against somebody who will not take it anymore, as for now everybody is just walking away to avoid a fight. Everybody knows what at is at stake here and how often the police are at that house. There are kids in this neighborhood who are not part of the three families I have talked about that would have no problem dunking this kid into a snowbank head first. I think that is what has stopped some of the kids so far is a knock on the door by the police to visit Mom & Dad. The last thing any of us need is more friction in the neighborhood. We liked it better when the police would just occasionally drive down the street. Now-a-days when they show up it is with blue lights flashing and multiple cruisers. So back to my original question, why are the police there at least once a week? Would you want your own kids playing in a yard where the police show up so often? I know we don't.
Interesting twist on the issue from you, Ryan, etc.
This is what we have seen over and over. Ignore the real issue and concerns. Stick to the emotional talking points.
I am referring to the silly comment about who is allowed to play in the yard.
The title of the thread is about "Gay Scoutmasters". The issue is about "openly gay" men wanting to lead groups of boys and young men in moral development.
Who is forcing the issue?
More indoctrination and recruitment by homosexuals. They have the schools. television , the girl scouts and now they want the boy scouts. Every homosexual is a pedophile but not every pedophile is a homosexual. The menu may get a lot bigger. If even one child is turned into a homosexual is it worth the risk??
Dale...calling gays perverted and using your interpretation of God's word to justify name calling is the truth. Just own it.
PMR your neighborhood experience is just one example of a gay parent family. I don't let our daughter play with every family...we have our limits too...That said, don't judge all gay parent families by the actions of one.
Bob..."openly gay men"...whoa how frightening.
I did not say it was frightening. Just pointing out that the issue is not about private or personal choices. How is one "openly gay"? That would require making one's sexual preference public.
There are those who want to say it is about hatred, fear, etc. That is the most blatant (albeit, successful) lie told by homosexual activists.
Wouldn't it be better if the homosexual men became Girl Scout leaders rather than Boy scout leaders, lol
Charlotte, why don't you expand your mind once and awhile, pick up a dictionary before you get angry.
From Wiki: "Perversion is a concept describing those types of human behavior that deviate from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal. Although it can refer to a variety of forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are considered particularly abnormal, repulsive or obsessive."
Yep, perversion fits, but you're trying, once again, to make it seem "normal". It is not and will never be 'normal' to me.
And how about this from the AP Wire: "...the Minnesota lawsuit says they revealed that scouting was a "pedophile magnet and sanctuary for child molesters" and that its screening system was ineffective."
Guess what, it's not women that are molesting the kids, it's men, and they would have to be homosexual to do it. And this is with the ranks closed to homosexual leaders and "two deep leadership", open that up, and watch the magic happen.
Ask yourself this, would you allow a woman to spend the night in a tent with teenage boys? No? Then why allow men who are attracted to the same type to do the same thing.
I won't go into the whole religious aspect, because religion is for each of us to decide, but homosexuality is not normal from any perspective. And equating it to the historical aspect of blacks and women is laughable. Once again the link is trying to be made between a personal decision and the way a person was born. This is the fallacy that is brought forth all the time with ZERO proof to back it up yet we are supposed to believe it's true. If this is the basis for an argument, then I welcome the discussion.
Charlotte, your misguided and unsound argument is with God, not with me. My experience is I've never won an argument with God. Seems He's always 100% right. Perhaps your experience is different. Every time, the problem lies with me, not HIm. And I've simply relayed His views to you. Let me know how that conversation works out for you. Hint: I recommend you open it up with a significant amount of prayer and repentance.
Would it be unreasonable to wait until the said meeting takes place and see what results on the issue ?
Bob E, this is about gay men and boys not allowed to participate in scouting. The Boy Scouts are considering changing this policy because so many people (mostly straight) don't support it.
Abacus...so now you believe gays/lesbians are abnormal, perverted, repulsive and obsessive? Yeah, no name calling here.
I agree that men are much more likely to sexually abuse a child...but what the professionals have to say, is most identify with being straight. Sexual abuse is about power and abusing the easy target. Most men are around boys when the volunteer...thus the sexual abuse of boys. Saying men who abuse boys are all homosexual is just wrong.
Saying men who abuse boys are all homosexual is just wrong.
Men who sexually abuse boys are homosexuals. That would seem very straightforward (no pun intended).
Abacus...so now you believe gays/lesbians are abnormal, perverted, repulsive and obsessive? Yeah, no name calling here. ~Charlotte
You have a learning impairment....don't you. You must to not have seen that was a QUOTE from Wikipedia, so I'm pointing it out to you.
And yes, I believe the sexual actions of homosexuals is definitely abnormal, definitely perverted, DEFINITELY repulsive, and I have no idea about the obsessive, but you never asked me that and I never posted it before now, because I WAS QUOTING WIKIPEDIA!!!!
Now, since you brought it up, do you find the sexual actions of homosexuals normal, straight, attractive, and balanced, or the antonyms of what Wikipedia listed as the definition?
Ryan: "This conversation is absolutely ridiculous to be having in 2013."
That settles it.
Discussion of moral values is so passé in this age of "social progressives".
Whatever else may pop up in this discussion, the use of the word 'normal' for homosexual behavior is bizarre to say the least.
Like trying to fasten two bolts to each other; that is not normal.
So the whole reason you have a problem with homosexuality, is because they are going to hell, in your opinion?
Is that accurate?
Next question, you are concerned that someone who is gay can and will make your child gay, and then your child will go to hell?
So, what happens if someone who is gay, goes to confession and decides to be straight? Do they still go to hell? How does one pay penance for these supposed sins?
Seems to me that we are quick to say that murderers can be "forgiven", but homosexuals can't?
I'm not sure I am okay with a God who condemns someone to hell because of who they choose to make the bed with. In fact, I know I am not okay with it.
What pains me even more is those of you who are Pro Choice and think homosexuals are evil, now there is a real whopper of hypocrisy!
but what the professionals have to say, is most identify with being straight.
I do not care what they identify themselves as. Someone who has sex with the same sex is a homosexual. Someone who has sex with both sexes is a bisexual. Someone who has sex with both sexes is NOT straight by any means.
IMHO, what is so "passe'" is a discussion of whether homosexuality is immoral. What is not passe' is a discussion of whether bigotry, intolerance, and prejudice is immoral, no matter what the basis is. Which is the greater "sin"?
As someone who was raised by a single mom and with help of many great Scout leaders, I dedicate much of my time to Scouting and my closest friends will tell you that after the past 17 years as a registered leader at many levels, I will likely die bleeding khaki green. It is one of the most structured, far reaching programs a young man can be involvved in. It teaches respect, citizenship and gives a taste of many school and career paths one might not otherwise have an oportunity to learn about.
Allow me a moment to talk about citizenship. As a Scouting leader we teach or Scouts about the imprtance to be civicly involved, to speak for what you believe and most of all to stay firm to your own moral compass. I think Shakespeare coined it best " to thine own self be true". This past fall I lost an incredible scout leader and his son when his son felt a calling to leave scouting becuase of the anti-gay position taken nationnally. He felt it important to support a friend who was gay and that meant leaving Scuting just a few months shy of becoming an Eagle Scout. For a young man I admire to have that conviction agter almost 8 years in the program was a message that cannot be misplaced or ignored. The program taught him to stand by his moral compass and that should not change simply because his moral compass points in a different direction from national leadership. I miss them in scouting, but embrace the courage chosen.
Nationally, our leaders have NOT embraced homosexuality nor have they decided to allow gays, but rather they have made the decision that any individual unit through the sponsoring organization can decide to accept homosexual leaders into their program. Under the proposal, each local organization decides, whether it be sponsored by a church, school or VFW to name a few. Thus you will likely have some Troops who continue wth a "no-gay" policy and some who welcome them as involved parents and potential leaders. One benefit might be opening doors to more funds, opening groups willing to sponsor and opening new places to meet.
Any family would still be able to ask the sexual orientaiton policy towards leaders and make decisions based on their PERSONAL opinion of the subject as well as other factors. (Location, time & date of meeting, dues and other costs etc). Any current leader would also have an opportunity to move to and from troops based on those decisions assuming they are accepted into new units.
To Apollo....homohobia does not help the discussion...not all homosexual persons are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are homosexual. To equate the two shows ignorance towards the greater picture and only hinders open and honest discussion of the topic.
Respectfully to all who weighed in, once a Scout, always a Scout..just an hour a week!
One benefit might be opening doors to more funds, opening groups willing to sponsor and opening new places to meet.
Everything has a price, eh?
David, I believe that homosexuality, and all the other immoral characteristics that you mention above, are sinful and are reasonable issues for discussion, even in 2013. Why should homosexuality be excluded for discussion in 2013, as Ryan and you would like? The difference though is that what constitutes homosexuality is well known but what constitutes the other characteristics is debateable.
Robert, above you state, "....but rather they have made the decision that any individual unit through the sponsoring organization can decide to accept homosexual leaders...". My understanding is that that decision has NOT been made yet, but is being considered. Please correct me if I am wrong on this point
I understand your sense of loss at your scout leaving. While I respect his decision, I would have to disagree with his choice to leave the program. As I intreperet the Scout Oath, I see it as one placing duty to God before duty to country. To stand in support of homosexual behavior, which is sodomy, is to join with them in spirit, even if not in practice or personal behavior.
The worst sin is liberal political correctness putting children at documented risk.