toldailytopic: Boy Scouts vote to allow gay members. Good decision or bad decision?

[Huckleberry]

So perhaps you will agree that a desire to have sex at least would in all probability have to be genetic and that at least the majority would be likely to find the opposite sex desirable?

Why are you even asking me this? :idunno:

Firstly I disagree that you can simply assume homosexuality must be a disorder. But even if it is a disorder then imo it is rather more likely to be a genetic one rather than some unknown event occurring during puberty, perhaps conveniently so, that some Christians can claim it a sin? (just my sceptic's suspicion perhaps.)
From what I at least understand from gay people they simply tend to find the same sex more desirable sexually much as heterosexuals similarly do the opposite sex. So in effect it doesn't really matter how a sexual tendency comes about in the young, it simply occurs as a natural unconscious honest process.
I would presume that Christian "sin" requires a conscious choice to do wrong, but then again how does that square with the idea of being born bearing the sins of some guy called Adam, nobody told be not to eat a forbidden fruit? :idunno:
So maybe sin not actually a choice to do wrong after all more pot luck?
Anyway I can't believe that anyone could actually change their sexual preference, even bisexuals who may choose partners from either sex could not simply decide to change that.

To reiterate, I offered the example of homosexuality being a sexual disorder developed during puberty in order to answer how our all being born sinners does not necessarily allow for being born gay. Sure, there was sort of an implication that I believed this or at least thought it something other than utterly impossible or I probably would have touched on that point. But, still...that's quite a lot of reading between the lines you did there. I'm pretty sure there weren't that many lines in the first place.

Sorry. Not to seem rude but I'm not going go wading through all your assumptions. How about doing me the courtesy of addressing what I actually say rather than being prejudicial?

It seems to matter if you think that homosexuality is a sin, and that sin is always a bad and culpable thing presumably, but then again if sin can be innocently acquired at or before birth then I personally wouldn't worry about it too much.

That's nice. I still think it's ridiculous though. Whether you were born gay or not hasn't anything whatsoever to do with whether or not homosexual sex is a sin. Just like whether you were born heterosexual hasn't anything to do with whether or not fornication is a sin. :idunno:

Yes we can move on, but we should also tolerate other people who may think or who just are different to us. Personally I wouldn't blame anyone for having a responsible private adult homosexual sex life if that is what they want, it's also none of my business.

That's nice. :idunno:

I don't quite know why you seem to doubt that homosexuals are fully human beings? :think:

I have experienced this somewhat "apartheid" mentality from other Christians which seems highly counter-productive to me in a modern society.

I was rather sarcastically making the point that this "born that way" thing being used to divorce homosexuals of responsibility for their sexual behavior was more than a little condescending. To the point that it's even dehumanizing.

I see that went right over your head. lain:

Anyway, despite its Christian based origins the BSA seems to want to be a secular organisation, not least perhaps because, if the UK scout association is a guide, it wants secular support and sponsorship from secular companies, after all they perhaps have a financial and fiscal need to be secular.
If however the BSA is entirely funded by conservative Christianity then fair enough afaic they won't be requiring any secular funding or sponsorship so they can make their own rules on who is allowed in.

OTOH a new, more secular version of the BSA might well arise and find secular funding and sponsorship deals rather useful, providing it is open to all. IMO large secular public companies rather tend to be successful and rich because they are in tune with overall general public opinion and its wants, perhaps because they have to be.

Any organization is free to take whatever position they like, strive for whatever goals they like, etc, etc.

I disagree with BSA taking this step away from being an organization grounded upon strong moral principle toward becoming a organization grounded upon whatever the general public found agreeable at the moment.

 

[alwight]

Why are you even asking me this? :idunno:

Because I wanted to know if we agree that sexual desire would likely be genetic, I presume you do. You originally suggested that homosexuality was unlikely to be from birth and probably occurred at puberty, presumably overriding the built-in heterosexual tendency? And so I asked what your evidence was for that, particularly since gays will testify otherwise and that it seems more than likely to me anyway that it is more than reasonably genetic. You have done a good job of avoiding supplying any evidence for your assumption I notice.

To reiterate, I offered the example of homosexuality being a sexual disorder developed during puberty in order to answer how our all being born sinners does not necessarily allow for being born gay. Sure, there was sort of an implication that I believed this or at least thought it something other than utterly impossible or I probably would have touched on that point. But, still...that's quite a lot of reading between the lines you did there. I'm pretty sure there weren't that many lines in the first place.

No evidence then just that you perhaps want to be able to proclaim homosexuality can be/is sinful somehow because of your religious beliefs, got it.

Sorry. Not to seem rude but I'm not going go wading through all your assumptions. How about doing me the courtesy of addressing what I actually say rather than being prejudicial?

I was talking about "sin" and what it actually is iyo because you were. Sorry if I made any presumptions but you could always explain sin to me if you wanted to and why gays presumably are sinful for you. Maybe you don't think they are, was that one of my assumptions?

That's nice. I still think it's ridiculous though. Whether you were born gay or not hasn't anything whatsoever to do with whether or not homosexual sex is a sin. Just like whether you were born heterosexual hasn't anything to do with whether or not fornication is a sin. :idunno:

OK can I now assume that you think that any sex outside of a regular marriage is sinful and should not happen? Is a gay teenager who has never had sex a sinner and not a worthy of being a scout?

I was rather sarcastically making the point that this "born that way" thing being used to divorce homosexuals of responsibility for their sexual behavior was more than a little condescending. To the point that it's even dehumanizing.

I see that went right over your head. lain:

You seemed to doubt that gays were human in two different places, my mistake then. If their sexuality is genetic or natural what responsibility do you think they bear, particularly if they haven't actually had any sex yet?

Any organization is free to take whatever position they like, strive for whatever goals they like, etc, etc.

I disagree with BSA taking this step away from being an organization grounded upon strong moral principle toward becoming a organization grounded upon whatever the general public found agreeable at the moment.

I don't know enough about the BSA to comment only that it seems out of step with the UK and other countries (Canada, Australia etc) scouts who do not seem to worry that a specific religious ideas of sin should prevent a gay teenager becoming a scout. If older scouts perhaps become fornicators, or have gay sex, or do any of their leaders, should they be expelled iyo?

 

[Huckleberry]

Sorry alwight, but if you're going to leap to conclusions and attack every assumption you can then I'm not seeing having a discussion with you on this topic as anything other than a big ole mess.

'exminister' said some things that didn't make a lot of sense to me. I responded, poking at that, because that bothered me. Not really interested in stretching that out into a discussion on the particulars of homosexuality, but I might still be willing...if that didn't mean being expected to defend positions I haven't even taken.

Frankly, you seem so eager to attack a particular position on homosexuality that you're sure I hold to that you can't even wait until I've taken that position before attacking it and expecting me to defend it. I'd rather be sure the position I'm defending is, in fact, my position. :idunno:

 

[alwight]

Sorry alwight, but if you're going to leap to conclusions and attack every assumption you can then I'm not seeing having a discussion with you on this topic as anything other than a big ole mess.

'exminister' said some things that didn't make a lot of sense to me. I responded, poking at that, because that bothered me. Not really interested in stretching that out into a discussion on the particulars of homosexuality, but I might still be willing...if that didn't mean being expected to defend positions I haven't even taken.

Frankly, you seem so eager to attack a particular position on homosexuality that you're sure I hold to that you can't even wait until I've taken that position before attacking it and expecting me to defend it. I'd rather be sure the position I'm defending is, in fact, my position. :idunno:

You had a chance to put me straight (sic) so to speak , I was rather hoping for some responses to my questions that might indicate where you stood as perhaps imo a typical a Christian's view of the BSA, never mind then, perhaps you are not typical? :e4e:

 

[PureX]

"The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."

OK ...

Your use of "moral imperatives" here makes my scratch me head a bit.

"Do the right thing, whatever the consequences" sounded a lot like a moral imperative to me.

I don't think the term fits. If you mean that I'm making a moral judgement of the BSA decision...well, yes. Obviously.

I mean that you consider this is an essential moral ideal. But not everyone would share that moral imperative with you. For example, I would probably not share your enthusiasm for that particular ideal.

I'm not sure how one can judge anything as good or bad without making a moral judgment. Pretty sure that's not possible. What's your real objection here?

We all make judgments, and of course we do so according to our own bias, but I think it is important that we understand this: that we ARE judging according to our own bias. And that, so is everyone else. As it has been ordained by God.

I often winder why we even bother making all these judgments about each other when they are ultimately rarely any of our business. I suppose it's just human nature. And I think perhaps we do find some benefit in discussing and debating them: that we can learn from each other in that way.

No, it's not actually a mixture at all. They're pretty clear about it. They spell out exactly what moral values they'll be "pushing" on their members right there in the mission statement and vision statement.

Mission & Vision

Mission Statement
The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law
A Scout is:
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent

Vision Statement
The Boy Scouts of America will prepare every eligible youth in America to become a responsible, participating citizen and leader who is guided by the Scout Oath and Law.

Hmmm ... I don't see a thing in there about who's "God" they owe a duty to, nor do I see a word about any particular religious ideology. And clearly homosexuality is not even on their radar.

In fact, I'm seeing nothing here specifying any moral do's and don'ts. Perhaps it's not nearly as clear and morally dogmatic as you presume.

 

[The Barbarian]

Is it a good decision by the BSA to even vote on allowing gay members, when this not only stands against the very values they were founded upon and is, in fact, an obvious concession to political pressure, primarily by homosexual activists? I say no. Obviously no. And if homosexuals are fully capable human beings I don't even have to feel guilty about that or feel as if I'm being mean to some underprivileged minority whose behavior I must make allowances for. I can recognize them as capable human beings and more properly suggest they get off their duffs and either go form their own such organization or make use of those that already exist in abundance, rather than behaving like spoiled children.

It appears that the BSA has said the same thing to you.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes, it was a good decision to vote on the issue, because the BSA, just like anyone other organization, could always be wrong. They could have been founded on principals that were based on ignorance and prejudice, and were then teaching the same ignorance and prejudice to the boys. And that would need to be exposed and changed.

Also, they were not being subjected to "political" pressure. They were being subjected to social pressure. It is the society that they presume to serve, that is pressuring them to change their policies. So it makes sense, then, that they should take such social admonishment, seriously.

They could make their own scouting groups instead of forcing others to agree with what they want though. Why is it ok for those things you agree with to be forced on others, but not ok for "us" to force our ideas on you? Double standard?

 

[PureX]

They could make their own scouting groups instead of forcing others to agree with what they want though. Why is it ok for those things you agree with to be forced on others, but not ok for "us" to force our ideas on you? Double standard?

You're missing the point. This is about the BSA, their mission, and their relationship to the society which they propose to serve.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You're missing the point. This is about the BSA, their mission, and their relationship to the society which they propose to serve.

You failed to adress your double standard. I guess you think forcing people to agree with you, is ok since you believe your causes are ok, but no one else had better do it, right?

You make no sense and have a clear bias since you didnt adress it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Moot point. The BSA doesn't accept your terms, which means you are free to join a group that doesn't mind your opinions, and will have you.

Pretty much the choice homosexuals had before the change.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Moot point. The BSA doesn't accept your terms, which means you are free to join a group that doesn't mind your opinions, and will have you.

Pretty much the choice homosexuals had before the change.

You mean before they forced themselves on them instead of doing that.

 

[exminister]

If homosexuality is a sexual disorder, something developed during one's natural adolescent development...well, that'd be how one can be born a sinner but cannot be born gay.

True, there is. But I don't think arguing against this "born gay" thing is hair splitting at all. There's little to support it and it's very obviously intended to absolve homosexuals of any responsibility for their behavior in the public eye.

I find it disturbing how well this has worked despite the glaring logical disconnect there. What does the one have to do with the other in the first place?
Then I would expect you'd side with the Boy Scouts on this issue. Do you?

Do you absolve yourself because you were born a sinner?
I think it is just a distraction and you and others have bought into a pointless argument.
"I was born a sinner"
"No problem. God can help you with that"
"I was born gay"
"No problem. God can help you"

Instead you go off arguing with them to prove no one is born gay. The bait has been taken.

No, I don't agree with the BSA. They took the bait as well.

 

[Huckleberry]

Do you absolve yourself because you were born a sinner?
I think it is just a distraction and you and others have bought into a pointless argument.
"I was born a sinner"
"No problem. God can help you with that"
"I was born gay"
"No problem. God can help you"

Instead you go off arguing with them to prove no one is born gay. The bait has been taken.

No, I don't agree with the BSA. They took the bait as well.

Then you appear to be dishonest somewhere. Earlier you seemed to clearly argue for the "born gay" idea and its relevance.

I don't understand how we can be born a sinner without a choice and yet someone cannot be born gay.

Now you paint it as irrelevant and suggest winking at it in passing on the basis.

I think you actually illustrate why it's important not to let a lie go unchallenged.

If homosexuals are not born gay then this, I think, is the proper approach:

"I was born a sinner"
"No problem. God can help you with that"
"I was born gay"
"I think not, but it doesn't matter. God can help you with that."

I contend that if all sides of this issue were honest and lies weren't bandied about on all sides constantly...it would have had a dramatic impact on the BSA's decision here. And everyone else's, on all issues related to homosexuality. It would dramatically impact the entire issue. Perhaps we should all be honest and embrace the truth.

 

[The Barbarian]

You mean before they forced themselves on them instead of doing that.

That's the point. It's a private organization. They couldn't force themselves on the BSA. BSA had to decide to change their rules back to the way things were before 1978.

And they did. What you're really upset about is that you can't force yourself on the BSA. You're free to associate with some other organization, if you like.

Just like homosexuals were, before the change. If it feels like you're being unfairly singled out, that might be a sort of revelation for you.

 

[Nick M]

A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He chooses the company of those who live by high standards. He helps keep his home and community clean.

So in a way, the vote means nothing because being a sodomite is forbidden.

 

[Angel4Truth]

That's the point. It's a private organization. They couldn't force themselves on the BSA. BSA had to decide to change their rules back to the way things were before 1978.

Wrong, they get contributions from others and companies and the gay lobby has made sure those became less and less and that the BSA was labeled a hate organization if they would not let them in loud and proud.

And they did. What you're really upset about is that you can't force yourself on the BSA. You're free to associate with some other organization, if you like.

Im not upset at all, i can see a clear double standard. Swallow that koolaid nice and deep. Those who did what they believed in already was forced to accept something else in order to exist.

Youre telling me to do something that they should have done, like the hypocrite you are. I love it when liberals show their total hypocrisy. Keep talking.

The more double standards and hypocrisy you present, the more people wake up to it when they see your asinine position.

 

[exminister]

Then you appear to be dishonest somewhere. Earlier you seemed to clearly argue for the "born gay" idea and its relevance.
Now you paint it as irrelevant and suggest winking at it in passing on the basis.

I think you actually illustrate why it's important not to let a lie go unchallenged.

If homosexuals are not born gay then this, I think, is the proper approach:

"I was born a sinner"
"No problem. God can help you with that"
"I was born gay"
"I think not, but it doesn't matter. God can help you with that."

I contend that if all sides of this issue were honest and lies weren't bandied about on all sides constantly...it would have had a dramatic impact on the BSA's decision here. And everyone else's, on all issues related to homosexuality. It would dramatically impact the entire issue. Perhaps we should all be honest and embrace the truth.

Your "truth" is there appears to be no evidence. Now you are a qualified scientist and can speak for all of us. You have missed and left out my main point. It is hair splitting for politics (and the ick factor). Sin is sin. We are born sinners genetically. This is without choice. The Bible seems pretty clear there.

Why can you so easily accept that but it must remain unqualified? Do you think babies are born spotless and without sin or a sinful nature? Do you try to convince someone first they were not born a sinner first before telling them about the gospel?

The point is salvation. If you feel you need to convince someone they couldn't possibly be born gay, then you are extra-biblical and argumentative. They then can just focus on you instead of asking for God's help.

 

[The Barbarian]

Wrong,

No, that's quite right. Prior to 1978, no rules on homosexuals.

they get contributions from others and companies and the gay lobby has made sure those became less and less and that the BSA was labeled a hate organization if they would not let them in loud and proud.

"Loud and proud" is just your issues coming out. What happened is that the "You have to hate homos" stuff is no longer accepted by most Americans. It's not about everyone else forcing their ideas on you, it's about you forcing your ideas on everyone else. If you don't like it, find an organization that tolerates your ideas.

Im not upset at all

Your behavior is more convincing than your denial.

i can see a clear double standard.

Yep. When you agreed with them, it was some malcontents trying to force their ideas on the BSA. When you don't agree with them, then it's the BSA forcing their ideas on you. We all noticed.

Swallow that koolaid nice and deep.

Not anymore.

Those who did what they believed in already was forced to accept something else in order to exist.

I notice the vote was nearly two to one. You've got that wrong, too. You thought gays, if they didn't like it, could find their own organization. Now, you're in the same boat, bleating about the unfairness of it all.

Youre telling me to do something that they should have done, like the hypocrite you are.

Funny you should use that word. But you probably won't get it.

The more double standards and hypocrisy you present, the more people wake up to it when they see your asinine position.

Looks like the BSA finally woke up. Your notion that your sins are somehow nicer than other people's sins, isn't so popular right now. I think that's a positive thing.

 

[Huckleberry]

Your "truth" is there appears to be no evidence.

Yes. We don't know how homosexuality develops. We have lots of good ideas about that and a lot of insights...and a lot of lies and bad science...but until we can replicate the process in a lab or something then it will remain up for debate.

Now you are a qualified scientist and can speak for all of us.

Is this sarcasm or something? Otherwise I don't get it. :idunno:

If it's sarcasm, then I'll point out that if you haven't replicated the development of homosexuality in a lab yourself then this little snark applies as perfectly to you as well. And also establishes that one needn't be a qualified scientist to have an opinion or even a belief.

You have missed and left out my main point. It is hair splitting for politics (and the ick factor).

You know, if you go back over our conversation and look it over objectively you'll find that you're the one making a big deal about this, hammering the point as if it's super-important. I think I've illustrated well enough that it isn't. It doesn't really matter in the end (to the issue of salvation) whether or not one is born gay. As you point out in your own arguments, we're born sinners. That obviously doesn't pose an impediment to being saved, so why would being born guilty of any particular sin or sin-nature do so?

It doesn't matter to that question. The truth, however, does matter. And as I think I've shown well enough (haven't I?), one can acknowledge the truth without allowing its irrelevance to the particular point at hand detracting from the point at hand (salvation).

Sin is sin. We are born sinners genetically. This is without choice. The Bible seems pretty clear there.

We're damned both for sin nature and those sins that we willfully commit. For both of those things. So, yes, I agree that it's irrelevant to the question of salvation whether or not one is born gay. As I've said. More than once.

Again, whether or not one is born gay is irrelevant to the question of salvation. A homosexual who is born gay is no more or less able to be saved than a homosexual who is not born gay, and neither is more or less able to be saved than anyone else. I don't know how much more clearly I can say this.

That is not my argument and never has been. I'm merely, simply arguing for standing by the truth and not winking at lies...especially with someone you're witnessing to.

Why can you so easily accept that but it must remain unqualified? Do you think babies are born spotless and without sin or a sinful nature? Do you try to convince someone first they were not born a sinner first before telling them about the gospel?

You're arguing that it's important and even convenient to accept that one is born gay in order to share the good news with someone who asserts that to be true.

I disagree. I think it's far more important, if not especially convenient, to be honest in sharing the good news. You're a born sinner, but you're still responsible for the sins you commit. Both of these points damn you...your sinful nature and the sins you commit. This is why whether or not you're born gay is irrelevant.

There's no reason to accept and agree that the person you're witnessing to is born gay. What you're arguing for is accepting as true something that is not for the sake of sharing the truth. :AMR:

The point is salvation.

Agreed.

That said, let me ask you a question. It's a serious question.

If it were found that one could actually (a la the Spanish Inquisition) torture someone into accepting Christ...would you do that? Torture people into accepting Christ?

Yes, this is a serious question. Would you do this?

I would not, because the ends do not justify the means. The ends are in God's hands, not ours. We do what is right, regardless of consequence. Even if that consequence is someone turning away from the truth.

If you feel you need to convince someone they couldn't possibly be born gay,...

Witnessing to someone I feel no such need. Why do you assume so? Because you're arguing this point with me and I'm...:shocked:...answering you?

What I "feel the need" to do is be honest and not lie, nor accept lies or untruths as truth for convenience' sake.

...then you are extra-biblical...

Let's examine the biblicality (is that a word?) of accepting a lie and challenging a lie to see which prevails.

...and argumentative.

No, I don't think you should get to characterize anything other than smiling and nodding agreement with anything someone you're witnessing to might say, true or untrue, as being "argumentative".

You exaggerate. It's quite possible (and not all that hard) to stand by the truth and even challenge lies and untruths without starting a fight. People do this all the time, all day long.

They then can just focus on you instead of asking for God's help.

Here's a hard truth: let them.

If I'm witnessing to someone and they focus on some irrelevant point of disagreement, blowing that up into the argument you seem to fear so much...this person has no interest in salvation. They're standing before you to argue, not to seek the truth or hear it.

The appropriate response to that is, "kthxbye. Have a nice day."

Not, "Yes, you're right. I acknowledge that untrue thing you're insisting is true to be true. Now, let's get back to me sharing the truth with you."
:AMR:

 

[Nick M]

No, that's quite right. Prior to 1978, no rules on homosexuals.

How about rules on vandalizing?