Shoulds gays allowed to be in the Boy Scouts?

[rebelEnigma]

Could it be that Christians are the ones doing most of the discriminating?

So it's discrimination if we preach against murder, thievery, adultery because it's what our God is against? Interesting...

Should Mexican immigrants learn to speak English?

Come on dude, what the heck?

 

[GhostDad]

So it's discrimination if we preach against murder, thievery, adultery because it's what our God is against? Interesting...

Okay, everyone now... baaaack to the original issue.

Come on dude, what the heck?

I'm not saying Christians should compromise their beliefs, but simply that being more accepting and less hateful of the GLBT community would make things a lot easier, just how Mexican immigrants don't have to learn English, but it sure would help.

 

[levi501]

So it's discrimination if we preach against murder, thievery, adultery because it's what our God is against? Interesting...

yes, in regards to murder and thievery it's good to discriminate against such acts because it protects society. So although those two crimes are against what you believe to be God's interest, they're also against societie's best interest. So with that said, how does denying benefits to homosexuals serve a secular purpose? What evidence do you have that it will help protect society since you compared it to acts that obviously do(murder/theft)?

 

[MortonGneiss]

the way you put it made it sound like you thought that the priests who abused kids were gay.

and the victims werent gay either, that doesnt make a difference at all if a boy gets abused it doesnt mean they are gay or make them become gay.

and i dont really see the joke in it.

It's nice that you're playing PC police with my post, sorry it was so abrasive toward your delicate sensibilities, but how about answering the question.

 

[sethad]

It's nice that you're playing PC police with my post, sorry it was so abrasive toward your delicate sensibilities, but how about answering the question.

you said it was a joke. i didnt see a joke at all in it and i'm stating what it sounded like and the facts. nothing PC about it.

what question? the OP? like others have said...its a private org they can do whatever they want.

 

[""]

Openly gay people are not allowed to be in the boy scouts. Do you feel gays should be allowed in them? I am trying to find some opinions for either side of the argument.

Some on here have suggested that anybody should be allowed, but I propose that their reasoning for this, is due to the fact that it is a Christian organization, and THEY believe that Christians should be accepting of everyone. Many supporters of gay rights will bring forward the scripture where Jesus said that we should "do unto others, was you would have them do unto you". I object to this statement, because I do not believe that Jesus is saying "accept all things, as you too would like to be accepted.", and this appears to be what gay rights activists are suggesting.

My question is this:
If Muslims formed an organization for children and adolescents, that was based on their religion, (and their religion doesn't allow sex before marriage), would you insist that they allow a known prostitute to be a member of their organization and/or instruct children therein?

What if a large group of vegans banded together, and formed a religion, and while doing so, they formed an organization for their children. Knowing that they oppose meat, would you insist that they allow a butcher, or a cattle rancher to be a member of their organization and/or instruct children therein?


I gave two examples here, because I don't want you to assume that I am comparing a prostitute with a homosexual, thus my example of the butcher vs. the vegan. My point is that all of the above, would have the right to have their own organization, based on their religion, which would include turning away applicants that knowingly exhibited behavior that went against their religious tenets. More than this, they have the right to turn away these same persons who insist that their behavior was correct and without sin. See, that's the major difference here. The bible says that we are all sinners, and according to God's word, homosexuality is a sin. So is lying. So is stealing. So is dishonoring your parents.

My main point (and yes, I really do have one, after all of this ) is the following:

This rule of not allowing homosexuals is not merely about the fact that they are sinning against God, it's about the fact that they are insisting that what they are doing is not a sin. By saying that, and by insisting on being allowed to instruct children in this organization, they are giving the following message: "It's only a sin, if I agree that it's a sin, and I only have to ask forgiveness, if I feel that it is necessary." In doing this, they are attempting to place themselves in the Holy of Holies... God's throne. This is the same thing that lucifer wanted, and that's why it's a sin, and shouldn't be accepted for a Christian organization.

 

[ebia]

My question is this:
If Muslims formed an organization for children and adolescents, that was based on their religion, (and their religion doesn't allow sex before marriage), would you insist that they allow a known prostitute to be a member of their organization and/or instruct children therein?

Not a fair comparision, because prostitution is undeniably a choice, is criminal in most places, and most here still accept that it is clearly detrimental to society, and people would reasonably be unhappy about having a practicing prostitue teaching their children.

What if a large group of vegans banded together, and formed a religion, and while doing so, they formed an organization for their children. Knowing that they oppose meat, would you insist that they allow a butcher, or a cattle rancher to be a member of their organization and/or instruct children therein?

Again, not a fair comparision because (again) these are clearly choices, not identities, and a butcher stands directly opposed the principle of a vegan organisation. Homosexuals do not intrisically stand opposed to the basic principle of Christianity or the Boy Scouts.

I don't think you would get much objection to the Boy Scouts refusing membership someone who stands directly opposed to their philosophy - say a Satanist, or someone who would be precieved as a threat to the children in their care.

This rule of not allowing homosexuals is not merely about the fact that they are sinning against God, it's about the fact that they are insisting that what they are doing is not a sin. By saying that, and by insisting on being allowed to instruct children in this organization, they are giving the following message: "It's only a sin, if I agree that it's a sin, and I only have to ask forgiveness, if I feel that it is necessary." In doing this, they are attempting to place themselves in the Holy of Holies... God's throne. This is the same thing that lucifer wanted, and that's why it's a sin, and shouldn't be accepted for a Christian organization.

On this basis they should test everyone's ideas of what is and is not sin, and refuse entry to all who deny any sin:

"Do you believe that buying that new car rather than giving the money to the poor is sinful? No? Then, sorry, you can't join."

"Do believe that spreading gossip about Mrs Smith is sinful? No? Sorry, you can't join."

AFAIK the Boy Scouts don't do this, so either you are wrong about what the issue is, or they are applying double-standards.

 

[""]

Not a fair comparision, because prostitution is undeniably a choice, is criminal in most places, and most here still accept that it is clearly detrimental to society, and people would reasonably be unhappy about having a practicing prostitue teaching their children.


Again, not a fair comparision because (again) these are clearly choices, not identities, and a butcher stands directly opposed the principle of a vegan organisation. Homosexuals do not intrisically stand opposed to the basic principle of Christianity or the Boy Scouts.

It's not a comparison, or did you bother to read the rest of my post? I wasn't comparing prostitution to homosexuality, I was comparing the situation of a faith based organization (or religious based), disallowing members based on the fact that their behavior goes against the tenets of said faith (religion). Please read it again.

I gave two examples here, because I don't want you to assume that I am comparing a prostitute with a homosexual, thus my example of the butcher vs. the vegan. My point is that all of the above, would have the right to have their own organization, based on their religion, which would include turning away applicants that knowingly exhibited behavior that went against their religious tenets. More than this, they have the right to turn away these same persons who insist that their behavior was correct and without sin. See, that's the major difference here. The bible says that we are all sinners, and according to God's word, homosexuality is a sin. So is lying. So is stealing. So is dishonoring your parents.

I really dislike it when somebody responds to one of my posts without reading them in entirety. It's not only unfair, but it's an example of how a bias can make one's view so narrow, that they can't see the face inspite of the nose. (yes I realized that's reversed... think about it.... if your view is so narrow that all you can see is the nose, and not the entire face, then you're missing out.) If you state that the nose is much too large, when you haven't even seen the face, you may be in for a shock once you remove your blinders. The face is simple... it's there, for all to see. When you complicate things, you narrow your view. Stop being so complex in your thinking, where this topic is concerned. The answer is right in front of you..... and HERE IT COMES AGAIN.....

Again, not a fair comparision because (again) these are clearly choices, not identities,

I don't care if they're choices or identities. Don't you get that?
Let me say it again: I don't care if they're choices or identities.
Neither do the boyscouts.
What they care about is that these choices or identities go against the tenets of the faith that the organization is based upon.
PERIOD.

On this basis they should test everyone's ideas of what is and is not sin, and refuse entry to all who deny any sin:

No, on this basis, everyone who lives by tenets of a faith or religion, has the right to exclude those who do not abide by the tenets. PERIOD.

I always have wonder at those who call themselves more open minded, when this topic rears it's ugly head. Is it possible that you're so "open minded" that you're missing the point? Stop looking around for complex meaning. The reason is simple, and your complexity merely gets in the way of it.

 

[""]

On this basis they should test everyone's ideas of what is and is not sin, and refuse entry to all who deny any sin:

"Do you believe that buying that new car rather than giving the money to the poor is sinful? No? Then, sorry, you can't join."

"Do believe that spreading gossip about Mrs Smith is sinful? No? Sorry, you can't join."

AFAIK the Boy Scouts don't do this, so either you are wrong about what the issue is, or they are applying double-standards.

Also, I beg to differ on this illogical argument.
Show me ONE instance where they have allowed a KNOWN liar, a KNOWN theif, (knowingly allowed them) etc., who believed their behavior was appropriate, to instruct children in their organization.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Yes, they should accept gays as members and leaders. They shouldn't be forced to, by law, since they are a private organisation, and are thus free to discriminate based on any basis they want - sexual orientation, colour, gender, whatever. Doing so displays their bigotry and hypocrisy, but that's their problem.

 

[ebia]

It's not a comparison, or did you bother to read the rest of my post? I wasn't comparing prostitution to homosexuality, I was comparing the situation of a faith based organization (or religious based), disallowing members based on the fact that their behavior goes against the tenets of said faith (religion).

And it is that comparision that I am addressing. If the basic tenent of Christian - the primary instruction from Christ himself - was "oppose homosexuality" then your butcher analogy would be reasonable. But opposing homosexuality is not a fundamental tenent of the Christian faith.

Your prostition analogy is also a poor one for different different reasons, as I outlined above.

I understand that you are not comparing homosexuality to prostitution or butcher, but you are comparing reactions, and both your analogies fail to hit the mark.

I really dislike it when somebody responds to one of my posts without reading them in entirety.

I did read it in it's entirety before posting. Twice, infact. Once before posting and again in writing my response.

I don't care if they're choices or identities. Don't you get that?

Maybe you don't but, but it is important in comparisons of reactions. I'm sorry, but you don't get the final say in what is important and what is not.

Neither do the boyscouts.
What they care about is that these choices or identities go against the tenets of the faith that the organization is based upon.
PERIOD.

And that's one place where you are stuffed, because an identity over which I have no choice cannot go against the Christian faith, where as a choice can. And, may I remind you, that was only one of my objections to your analogies.

No, on this basis, everyone who lives by tenets of a faith or religion, has the right to exclude those who do not abide by the tenets. PERIOD.

And if one is being true to that faith, one will apply the same criteria across the board, thereby excluding ALL who do not abide by the tenets of the faith. So out go the divorcees, the gossips, the bloke with a new car, and so on. Oh, and the people who sat in judgement to decide this. Ooops.

The reason is simple, and your complexity merely gets in the way of it.

Your simple reason doesn't stack up. That is evidence that it isn't the real reason.

 

[ebia]

Also, I beg to differ on this illogical argument.
Show me ONE instance where they have allowed a KNOWN liar,

I'm sure that would be pretty easy to find.

a KNOWN theif, (knowingly allowed them) etc.

Just about anyone in the western world who has bough a cheap import from India.

Now please address my specific examples instead of evading:

"Do you believe that buying that new car rather than giving the money to the poor is sinful? No? Then, sorry, you can't join."

"Do believe that spreading gossip about Mrs Smith is sinful? No? Sorry, you can't join."

 

[""]

And it is that comparision that I am addressing. If the basic tenent of Christian - the primary instruction from Christ himself - was "oppose homosexuality" then your butcher analogy would be reasonable. But opposing homosexuality is not a fundamental tenent of the Christian faith.

That is your PERSONAL opinion, and therefore it is not relevant to this conversation because as you have said, we are talking about the opinion of the Christian church, based on biblical and historical documents.

Your prostition analogy is also a poor one for different different reasons, as I outlined above.

Your argument is a poor one, based on the fallacy of your statement above.

I understand that you are not comparing homosexuality to prostitution or butcher, but you are comparing reactions, and both your analogies fail to hit the mark.

All of your arguments have failed to hit the mark of correction, based on the fact that they are grounded in fallacy, rather than perfect truth. That is what we're talking about here... perfect truth. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. His truth is perfect. Yours is not. The Christian Church does not accept homosexuality. This is not about my personal view. This is not about your personal view. If it were, then perhaps you'd have an argument. As it stands now, you do not.

Maybe you don't but, but it is important in comparisons of reactions. I'm sorry, but you don't get the final say in what is important and what is not.

Oh don't be sorry. I don't want the final say. I never did. God has the final say,and based on God's word, you are incorrect, and illogical in your argument.

And that's one place where you are stuffed, because an identity over which I have no choice cannot go against the Christian faith, where as a choice can. And, may I remind you, that was only one of my objections to your analogies.

This again is your opinion. What you are doing here is placing yourself above God's opinion.

You're not alone in that behavior.
Lucifer said in his heart, I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne
above the stars of God. (I will be like the most High.) Isa 14:13.

You have said "an identity over which I have no choice cannot go against the Christian faith". You are in error.

This is why:

Man has not been given the authority and power to define the nature of crime. That authority belongs to the creator of all mankind, and rightly so. Mankind's responsibilities are the embrace the laws in accordance with the laws of God.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Romans 3:19

And if one is being true to that faith, one will apply the same criteria across the board, thereby excluding ALL who do not abide by the tenets of the faith. So out go the divorcees, the gossips, the bloke with a new car, and so on. Oh, and the people who sat in judgement to decide this. Ooops.

Another example of self-made rules.


This is what God thinks of homosexuality.

And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.
Leviticus 20:13 Youngs Literal Translation

Regarding homosexuality and God's laws:
What I think doesn't matter.
What you think doesn't matter.
God is the final judge.

We are to embrace our laws, in accordance to God's laws. I leave Him with the final judgement on the issue of homosexuality, but on the issue of a faith based organization, you have no right to tell them what they should and shouldn't be allowed to object to regarding applications, and that is what it all comes down to.

 

[""]

I'm sure that would be pretty easy to find.

Just about anyone in the western world who has bough a cheap import from India.

Again, you have shown that you seek to determine what is a lie, and who is a theif, in a way that does not mesh with God's principles. You are ignoring the tenets of Christianity, (and for an atheist I would not bring this up but you call yourself a Christian, so it is applicable). Show proof of your statement. Where in God's word does it say that people are not allowed to purchase imports? Verses please. Don't avoid my question. You laid it out, so let's see your proof.

Now please address my specific examples instead of evading

Your typical accusation of "evading your questions" is wearing thin. This behavior is common among animals that are backed into a corner, with no fight left. Throw your fiery darts elsewhere. I have given you more than ample time to review my statements, which are direct responses to your comments. If you choose to refer to them as evasion, then we both know why.

 

[pantsman52]

As long as they are getting government funding, then yes. The moment they stop getting funding from the government, they can ban anyone they want.

 

[outlaw]

What example would someone “black" bring to kids that need a strong base to help them in decisions in life, hopefully good ones.

That is such a sick remark!

And bugg1’s original comment:

Its best to say no, what example would someone
"gay" bring to kids that need a strong base to help them in decisions in life,hopefully good ones

was not?

 

[outlaw]

You may wish to keep the racist commentary to yourself and observe that the OP is on sexual orientation and not ethnicity.

“Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who the victim is, and it is always wrong. There are no ‘special rights’ in America, despite the attempts by many to divide blacks and the gay community with the argument that the latter are seeking some imaginary ‘special rights’ at the expense of blacks.”

Julian Bond – Chair of the NAACP

http://online.statesmanjournal.com/sp_section_article.cfm?i=76605&s=2486

 

[outlaw]

Its interesting to note that the only people really being accused of discrimination are the Christians.

Well in this context they are the only group vocally supporting discrimination….

Never mind the fact that Christianity preaches AGAINST homosexuality, everyone else is free to be as bigotted as they choose.

Actually Christianity says nothing…but a number of vocal Christians are more than willing to use their religion to justify their personal prejudice, their fear, their hatred, their contempt….and in doing so demean and cheapen their religion.

And don't give a rat's rear-end about whether or not this society is gay-friendly. Is that any reason to compromise one's beliefs?

And what of the racist who uses Christianity to justify his/her beliefs? Should they compromise their beliefs and accept civil rights or the abolition of slavery?

 

[Truly Blessed]

Until they are, the Boy Scouts will receive no help from me or mine.

Well, considering where you live; I dont think the Boy Scouts of America is going to have an issue with that.

 

[NPH]

This is what God thinks of homosexuality.

And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.
Leviticus 20:13 Youngs Literal Translation

This is exactly why the Boy Scouts should let homosexuals join! They can get them off in the woods and then make sure 'they are certainly put to death' as God has commanded

Oh, sorry. I forgot for a moment that we only follow the parts of the law that we want to follow and not the parts that are uncomfortable or we can try and explain away. Like the part about putting homosexuals to death or not eating shellfish or wearing blended fiber clothing.

But no, if the Boy Scouts don't want homosexuals then they have every right as a privately funded organization to not allow them membership.