Originally Posted By wahooskipper Wasn't it physically strong mentally awake and morally straight? It is the mentally awake that I struggle with these days.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The fear seems to stem from a gay scout leader would 'go after' the young boys -- is that what the fear is based on? Or is it about the acceptability of homosexuality? How does the Boy Scout organization feel about gay teachers? Gay church leaders? Baseball coaches? It's very odd when groups try to control their world to such an extent. And the BSA thinks it's a workable solution is that members can be gay but not leaders. Suppose the gay kid gets sequestered in his own tent? It's so ridiculous.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Blacks drinking from their own fountain was pretty ridiculous too yet as a society it took us a long time to challenge that and even a longer time to overcome it. Homosexuality wasn't even publicly discussed to any great extent until "Soap" in the 80s and "Ellen" in the 90s and even then it was still rare. In context it hasn't been that long and for a group as long traditioned as the Boy Scouts it shouldn't come as a great surprise that they would be slow in responding. Heck, our own government is slow in addressing it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The fear seems to stem from a gay scout leader would 'go after' the young boys -- is that what the fear is based on?<< Yes, and or that being around a gay adult, the boys will decide to be gay themselves. It's crazy. Just one of the many problems with the new policy is that a Scout could advance through the ranks, all the way to eagle Scout. Then, at age 18, they are out the door and cannot be leaders as adults. So you have the very best example of successful Scouting -- an Eagle Scout -- and you're rejecting them. It's a stupid waste. Unanswered is the situation of Scouts visiting a military base. Since gay service members can serve openly, does that mean Scouts can no longer "risk" visiting a military base, or having members of the military come speak to their troops and packs? It isn't a workable solution.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm told that this is largely a problem that isn't even an issue at the local level. I haven't been around Scouting in quite a while but I have friends in the area tell me that have had active gay scouts and leaders and with no questions asked. "Getting the gay" by being around gays may seem ludicrous, but again it took a Century or more for us as a nation to get past a black man drinking from a white man's fountain.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Just one of the many problems with the new policy is that a Scout could advance through the ranks, all the way to eagle Scout. Then, at age 18, they are out the door and cannot be leaders as adults.>> Right. Because no gay teenager ever has s-e-x until he turns 18. Gay guys don't even think about s-e-x until that magical 18th birthday when they become adults. Until then, not a problem if the gay scouts are sleeping in tents with teen hotties. Those gay teen scouts have *zero* interest in doing the nasty with any guy of any age until they become legal. Seriously, what are these people smoking?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Let me put my satirical rant another way. Even though it's none of the BSA's business whether or not their scouts are having s-e-x... why are they not concerned about it? Sure, the hyperfocus on adult gay leaders is ridiculous. They're not going to 'recruit' young men to earn that toaster oven badge. But why is BSA being selectively blind to the sexuality of their young scouts? By their logic, they shouldn't be allowing *any* gay scouts to join, because the temptation is too great. If this is a problem for the gay adult leaders (which it isn't), then it should also be a problem for the gay teen scouts. They're still modeling their organization after Wally and The Beav. They seriously need to wake the F up.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt This video is definitely worth watching: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VJpWbN2hanw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...WbN2hanw</a>
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf This topic has been dormant a while but I wanted to share a message that one of the parents in my boy scout troop just sent that illustrates the hatred many still harbor towards homosexuals: "Dear XXXXXX, Good morning. Can you please take our information off the troopwebhost site and all remove all of our family's personal information, delete us from the troop website and all emailing lists. Our sons will not be involved with the BSA. The values of the organization no longer represent the values of our family or our faith. We do cherish all the great times, and all the great people in BSA Troop XXX. At the national and council levels, which control the summer camps and other high adventure camps ... the decisions to allow Sodomites into scouting has force us, as Christian family to withdraw our support since the oath to be morally straight now has a new and perverted definition. Best regards, XXXXXXXXX" For those of you who think the boy scouts did too little with their announcement, there are clearly those who think they went too far. I wrote a rather stern response to this: "XXXXX, While I am personally sorry to see you and your sons depart from the troop, as a Christian I feel compelled to respond to your comments regarding your Christian faith. Of course you are allowed to believe in whatever you want, but I think your interpretation of Christianity is questionable. After all, Jesus Himself says, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone," which I am sure I don't have to tell you was said in the context of sexual sin. Calling young boys "Sodomites" and "perverts"- boys who might be confused about their sexuality but are almost definitely not even acting on it - is throwing stones at them. You are deciding to be judge and jury of these boys. Remember, Jesus says, "Judge not, lest you be judged." Your brand of Christianity that treats homosexuality as the greatest of all sins is perverted in my opinion. Why is homosexuality worse than other sexual sins? If you want to argue that sexually active teenage boys are violating the "morally straight" clause, then I think you have an argument. But singling out homosexual boys is bigotry, plain and simple. Sin is sin, what a sin is is defined by God, not us, and we are all sinners. In fact, being a sinner is the only prerequisite to being a Christian. So the fact that you are casting stones at young boys signifies to me that you hold yourself to be sinless, which in turn renders you ineligible to be a Christian. Jesus Himself hung around sinners, dined with them, slept in their homes. You are saying that you are too good to do that, that you are better than Jesus. If I were you, I would forget about the sliver in the sinner's eye and mind the beam that is in your own. It is clearly blinding you. Again, I am personally sorry to see you go. But I am not sorry the un-Christian attitude you espouse goes. I hope that you can soften your heart and reflect on your attitude and re-read Jesus' words in the gospels. Jesus teaches us to love and not to judge and be humble, which is the opposite of what you appear to be doing. Peace be with you, EighthDwarf
Originally Posted By ecdc Fantastic response! I'm always a little caught off guard (you'd think I'd learn) when I see people invoke archaic religious language to label others. Sodomites? Seriously? I'm surprised they didn't throw a line in about the "negro problem."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder It's the Baptists that are leaving. I knew I left the Baptists for some reason. <a href="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/31/southern-baptists-to-urge-churches-and-members-to-cut-boy-scout-ties/?hpt=hp_t2" target="_blank">http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/...pt=hp_t2</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck From SPPH's link: >>The National Jewish Committee on Scouting, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which sponsors more Scout units than any other faith, all endorsed the change. The National Catholic Committee on Scouting, which is run with oversight from a bishop, said Thursday that allowing gay youths in the Scouts does not conflict with church teaching. Each bishop will decide whether or not to allow churches in his diocese to charter Scout units, the committee added.<< It's interesting to see where this line is getting drawn. Congratulations, SBC. You're the new White Citizen's Council. It couldn't happen to a better bunch.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Congratulations, SBC. You're the new White Citizen's Council. > Well, they were essentially the old one, too.
Originally Posted By mawnck Yeah, but they apologized for that ... ... in 1995!! <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112329862" target="_blank">http://www.npr.org/templates/s...12329862</a> So all we have to do is wait until 2163 ......
Originally Posted By planodisney Problem here is that there is nothing in the Bible that states it is ok for ANYONE to be prejudice against another human being because of the color of their skin. There ARE in fact passages throughout the Bible that label homosexuality as wickidness, perverse and sin. As much as it politically helps the cause, there is no equating the two.
Originally Posted By ecdc No, we should totally base 21st century values on a book written by old men in the bronze age. >>Problem here is that there is nothing in the Bible that states it is ok for ANYONE to be prejudice against another human being because of the color of their skin.<< That is beyond laughable. The Bible is rife with passages admonishing the Israelites not to intermarry, to wipe out entire ethnicities, etc. Yeah, god is totally tolerant in the Bible.
Originally Posted By ecdc Here's one of approximately 87 billion online reference tools that document racism in the Bible. If you get bored with that, you can also click on the violence and cruelty links. <a href="http://www.project-reason.org/scripture_project/Annotations:intolerance:" target="_blank">http://www.project-reason.org/...lerance:</a>:
Originally Posted By ecdc Oh, just one more teensy point. I don't give a crap what the Bible says. We don't legislate rights based on the Bible (thank your god) anymore than we legislate based on Dianetics, the Book of Mormon, the Qur'an, or the Book of the Dead. The Bible says things about homosexuality, it says things about women, it says things about different ethnicities. It is wrong. It tells stories of God torturing a guy to prove a point to Satan, it talks about a guy nearly sacrificing his son to satisfy god's insecurity. It's ahistorical at multiple points in both the Old and New Testament. I've got books I like too. So it's swell people like the Bible. It'd be even more swell if they kept it to themselves and didn't try to push their book on the rest of us. I don't try and push Farewell, My Lovely on you (another work of fiction), so please return the favor.
