Shoulds gays allowed to be in the Boy Scouts?

[outlaw]

No they don't, because if you had read my post, you'd have seen that what I said is the DSM says that behavior can be changed. It wasn't me who said that homosexuality is an orientation. I simply defined orientation for you, which suggests learned behavior, and then I reminded you that the DSM says that behavior can be changed.

So.....


Nice try but no cigar.

If you had bothered to read, you would have found that the APA says sexual orientation is not a behavior.



What Is Sexual Orientation?

Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html







And sexual orientation cannot be changed.







Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

 

[mark53]

Another way of looking at this is to reverse the idea a little "Should heterosexuals be allowed in the Scouts". Because if "gays" could have sex with boys then female leaders could have sex with the boys and the male with females (where girls are allowed into Scouts - like in Australia).


Over here everyone who helps lead in any youth organisation MUST have a police check, for a start.

 

[Nightson]

Yes they should.

 

[""]

If you had bothered to read, you would have found that the APA says sexual orientation is not a behavior.

ONCE AGAIN (and hopefully for the LAST TIME)

I am not the one that called Homosexuality an "orientation".
I merely defined ORIENTATION for you.
If you don't want homosexuality to be seen as an orientation, then I suggest you stop calling it one.



One final comment:
Your articles are not the only ones available.

In the June 2002 issue of the American Psychological Association Journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Dr. Warren Throckmorton has written an article titled, "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays."

The research presented has caused a stir amongst the psychology world. The article finds that sexual orientation can be changed. "[The research] suggests that sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging sexual trait, is actually quite flexible for many people, changing as a result of therapy for some, ministry for others and spontaneously for still others," Dr. Throckmorton said.


Furthermore, the report went on to say that the change from homosexuality to heterosexuality is very helpful and positive to the majority of those who experience the change.

If you don't agree with this, then I suggest you send an email to Dr. Warren Throckmorton, at ewthrockmorton@gcc.edu.

 

[feral]

Of course homosexuals should be allowed to join the Boy Scouts. It seems ridiculous that a group claiming to support and encourage the development of Christian values would want to exclude people. Even if they do believe homosexuality is a sin, when did Jesus ever encourage shunning sinners?

I'm not a Christian and I don't believe it's right to encourage homosexuals to try and become straight, but even if that is your aim, it would seem you would be much more successful if you allowed these boys into the club and showed them a warm, supportive, welcoming environment where they could come to know Christ or at least get a positive view of Christians, rather than to exclude them because they, like every other Boy Scout, is a sinner. Anyway, most of the boys joining the Boy Scouts are just beginning to understand their sexuality and are probably haven't acted on any homosexual feelings in most cases, so it seems all the more cruel to brand them and exclude them from what could have been an extremely beneficial influence in their lives. I have never understood the struggle some people have with looking past someone's sexual feelings or attractions. Sexual feelings are such a small part of who a human is, there is just so much being wasted or dismissed by people when they identify and discriminate against someone solely because of their sexual desires or dating preferences.

 

[""]

Of course homosexuals should be allowed to join the Boy Scouts. It seems ridiculous that a group claiming to support and encourage the development of Christian values would want to exclude people. Even if they do believe homosexuality is a sin, when did Jesus ever encourage shunning sinners?

I'm not a Christian

That last line explains your entire post. Of course it seems ridiculous to you, because you don't embrace our faith. However, not wanting to sound cold and unkind toward you, I will say that I do appreciate your sentiment regarding Jesus shunning sinners. God bless you for that. Jesus often told the sinner to stop sinning, but he did not shun them.

It is possible (and it should be the norm) for Christians to stand against something that God says is wrong, while still displaying love toward those who participate in the activity. I know that many of you detest the phrase "hate the sin and love the sinner." so I won't use it, and I hadn't planned to anyway. I don't hate homosexuals. I don't believe that any Christian should. I don't even hate homosexuality, but I do believe that God's word says it's a sin, and therefore, because I attempt to stand for what God says is right and true, I oppose homosexuality being taught in a Christian organization, in a Christian school, in a Christian church, in a Christian home, etc.

Hating the homosexual, to me, is a very sad behavior. If we are going to hate the homosexual, then we must also hate the liars, the thieves, the promiscuous, the gossipers, etc (just as ebia suggested in a post earlier). There is however, a difference between hating them, and saying no to them. It should be my right as a citizen of a free world to say no to something when it involves an organization based on my values.

If homosexuals began an organization, that included instructing their children to believe as they saw fit, would they be very accepting to a conservative Christian who applied to be a mentor?

 

[outlaw]

ONCE AGAIN (and hopefully for the LAST TIME)

I am not the one that called Homosexuality an "orientation".
I merely defined ORIENTATION for you.
If you don't want homosexuality to be seen as an orientation, then I suggest you stop calling it one.

Well yeah…you did.



Allow me to refresh your memory

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19910129&postcount=66



No, the FLAW is when you begin to assume that sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of a person.

Orientation means "the act of orienting or being oriented", hence, it is learned. A learned behavior, is not an intrinsic part of a person in such a way that it cannot be unlearned. See the DSM manuals, and just about any psychiatry journal for more information on changing behavior.

You called sexual orientation “A learned behavior” and suggested as a learned behavior it can be “unlearned and then tried to use the DSM and the APA to backup these faulty claims.



Now you are engaging in an irrational attack that I just don’t get.

 

[ebia]

I oppose homosexuality being taught in a Christian organization, in a Christian school, in a Christian church, in a Christian home, etc.

How do you teach homosexuality?

Hating the homosexual, to me, is a very sad behavior. If we are going to hate the homosexual, then we must also hate the liars, the thieves, the promiscuous, the gossipers, etc (just as ebia suggested in a post earlier). There is however, a difference between hating them, and saying no to them. It should be my right as a citizen of a free world to say no to something when it involves an organization based on my values.

So why don't the boy scouts say "no" to gossips and people who are greedy?

If homosexuals began an organization, that included instructing their children to believe as they saw fit, would they be very accepting to a conservative Christian who applied to be a mentor?

It's not a comparison that works. Being a conservative Christian is a belief system that affects every aspect of your life and what you do (or should be). Homosexuality (or hetrosexuality) is a description of one small part of your psychological makeup.

 

[outlaw]

That last line explains your entire post. Of course it seems ridiculous to you, because you don't embrace our faith.

So if feral were a Christian she would understand and embrace discrimination?

However, not wanting to sound cold and unkind toward you,

A little late for that….

It is possible (and it should be the norm) for Christians to stand against something that God says is wrong,

like eating shrimp.Leviticus 11:10-12

while still displaying love toward those who participate in the activity.

So… the Boy Scouts should also discriminated against employees of Red Lobster?

I know that many of you detest the phrase "hate the sin and love the sinner." so I won't use it,

but you did...

I don't hate homosexuals.

You think advocating discrimination is an act of love?

I don't believe that any Christian should.

Fortunately most Christians don’t advocate discrimination.

I don't even hate homosexuality, but I do believe that God's word says it's a sin, and therefore, because I attempt to stand for what God says is right and true, I oppose homosexuality being taught in a Christian organization, in a Christian school, in a Christian church, in a Christian home, etc.

What about seafood eaters…do you oppose them too? Working hard to ensure that the horrible PC policy regarding eating lobster stays well away from the ears of Christian children lest they to start to think eating shellfish is all right?

Hating the homosexual, to me, is a very sad behavior. If we are going to hate the homosexual, then we must also hate the liars, the thieves, the promiscuous, the gossipers, etc (just as ebia suggested in a post earlier). There is however, a difference between hating them, and saying no to them
It should be my right as a citizen of a free world to say no to something when it involves an organization based on my values.

As is the right of others to object to the teaching and advocating of hate and discrimination by the Boy Scouts and the right of free persons to insist that if the BSA is going to teach hate and discrimination then they should receive no public funding.

If homosexuals began an organization, that included instructing their children to believe as they saw fit, would they be very accepting to a conservative Christian who applied to be a mentor?

Why would they have a problem? Most gay social organizations don’t discriminate or advocate discrimination. And most of the members of that organization would likely be Christians anyway.

 

[ebia]

What about seafood eaters…do you oppose them too? Working hard to ensure that the horrible PC policy regarding eating lobster stays well away from the ears of Christian children lest they to start to think eating shellfish is all right?

If you are going down this route, you'd better check that no part of the unform is made from mixed fibres.

 

[""]

I am not the one that called Homosexuality an "orientation".
I merely defined ORIENTATION for you.
If you don't want homosexuality to be seen as an orientation, then I suggest you stop calling it one.

Well yeah…you did.



Allow me to refresh your memory


You called sexual orientation “A learned behavior” and suggested as a learned behavior it can be “unlearned and then tried to use the DSM and the APA to backup these faulty claims.

It would really help if you'd actually READ my quotes before you paste them in an attempt to accuse me of something.

Let's look at my post again shall we?

No, the FLAW is when you begin to assume that sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of a person.

Orientation means "the act of orienting or being oriented", hence, it is learned. A learned behavior, is not an intrinsic part of a person in such a way that it cannot be unlearned. See the DSM manuals, and just about any psychiatry journal for more information on changing behavior.

See it? ORIENTATION. I defined it. Then I suggested that ORIENTATION, being a learned behavior can be changed. Show me in that quote where I said "SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS A LEARNED BEHAVIOR THAT CAN BE CHANGED". You won't find it. Why? Because I didn't say it. I said, "ORIENTATION IS A LEARNED BEHAVIOR AND AS SUCH IT CAN BE UNLEARNED."

My point in doing this was to show you that if you plan to suggest that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, then you should stop calling it an orientation. Before homosexuality began being referred to as a "sexual orientation", nobody in the medical field or any other science related field ever referred to heterosexuality as a sexual orientation. Why? Because we know that it's not an orientation. It's innate. Therefore, my point, in this entire discussion with you, has been to suggest that if you expect to be taken seriously in your attempt to prove that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, then you should stop calling it by a moniker which epitomizes learning.

Once again, I suggest that you stop personalizing this debate. Once you can accomplish that, you might be able to step back, and see that I'm not attacking your stance, (not that I agree with your stance either, but my agreement or disagreement didn't even enter into our discussion) but merely your choice of words.

 

[outlaw]

It would really help if you'd actually READ my quotes before you paste them in an attempt to accuse me of something.

Let's look at my post again shall we?





See it? ORIENTATION. I defined it. Then I suggested that ORIENTATION, being a learned behavior can be changed. Show me in that quote where I said "SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS A LEARNED BEHAVIOR THAT CAN BE CHANGED". You won't find it. Why? Because I didn't say it. I said, "ORIENTATION IS A LEARNED BEHAVIOR AND AS SUCH IT CAN BE UNLEARNED."

My point in doing this was to show you that if you plan to suggest that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, then you should stop calling it an orientation. Before homosexuality began being referred to as a "sexual orientation", nobody in the medical field or any other science related field ever referred to heterosexuality as a sexual orientation. Why? Because we know that it's not an orientation. It's innate. Therefore, my point, in this entire discussion with you, has been to suggest that if you expect to be taken seriously in your attempt to prove that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, then you should stop calling it by a moniker which epitomizes learning.

Once again, I suggest that you stop personalizing this debate. Once you can accomplish that, you might be able to step back, and see that I'm not attacking your stance, but merely your choice of words.

You defined it as a behavior which can be unlearned…and as I pointed out the APA (a group you brought up BTW) disagrees with you.

 

[""]

You defined it as a behavior which can be unlearned…and as I pointed out the APA (a group you brought up BTW) disagrees with you.

HEY ARE YOU BLIND. I defined ORIENTATION as a BEHAVIOR.
ORIENTATION. It's a word. Look it up.

Orientation means "the act of orienting or being oriented", hence, it is learned. A learned behavior, is not an intrinsic part of a person in such a way that it cannot be unlearned. See the DSM manuals, and just about any psychiatry journal for more information on changing behavior.

I did not define sexual orientation. I defined ORIENTATION. I have pointed this out to you about 5 times now for goodness sakes.

Out of silence comes learning. Stop talking and start reading. You're accusing me of something I didn't do, and if you'd stop and read it over a few times you'll see what I mean.

 

[""]

and as I pointed out the APA (a group you brought up BTW) disagrees with you.

No they don't disagree with me. They agree that a LEARNED BEHAVIOR can be changed, which is EXACTLY what I said.

See the DSM manuals, and just about any psychiatry journal for more information on changing behavior

See?

Orientation suggests learned behavior. Behavior can be changed.

Note the two words: ORIENTATION. BEHAVIOR.

NO where in the midst of them will you find "sexual orientation". Why?
Because that's not how I defined homosexuality.
That's how YOU defined homosexuality.

 

[ebia]

HEY ARE YOU BLIND. I defined ORIENTATION as a BEHAVIOR.

Youdid, but having your own personal definitions that are not the same as everyone else's is pointless.

ORIENTATION. It's a word. Look it up.

1 the act or an instance of orienting; the state of being oriented. 2 a a relative position. b a person's attitute or adjustment in relation to circumstances, esp politically or psychologically. 3 an introduction to a subject or situation, a briefing. 4 the faculty by which birds etc find their way home from a distance. (apparently from ORIENT)

Now, your "proof" is based entirely on meaning 1, whereas clearly meaning 2 is the relevent one. Your proof that "homosexual orientation" is learned behaviour is as flawed as if I used meaning 4 to prove that "homosexual orientation" is useful in pigeon racing.

I did not define sexual orientation. I defined ORIENTATION. I have pointed this out to you about 5 times now for goodness sakes.

Unfortunately, you did not define it correctly.

 

[""]

Youdid, but having your own personal definitions that are not the same as everyone else's is pointless.

Are you suggesting that I'm the only person in the entire world who believes that the word ORIENTATION is defined as "the act or process of being oriented" ?

Now, your "proof" is based entirely on meaning 1, whereas clearly meaning 2 is the relevent one. Your proof that "homosexual orientation" is learned behaviour is as flawed as if I used meaning 4 to prove that "homosexual orientation" is useful in pigeon racing.

HEY I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I didn't define sexual orientation. I defined orientation.

Unfortunately, you did not define it correctly.

Really? Hmm.... I picked the most common use for the term, as defined in 4 dictionaries. I wasn't attempting to define homosexuality, as you are though. I was merely attempting to define ORIENTATION.

So you think you defined homosexuality by defining Orientation as:

a relative position. b. a person's attitute or adjustment in relation to circumstances, esp politically or psychologically.

That's fascinating stuff!

Let's take a look at your definition:
First, you've underlined "relative position".
Relative means: a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing.
So what this is saying is that the position of this orientation is dependent on something else. Hmm.... that seems an odd stance to take if you're attempting to prove that homosexuality is a sexual orientation that cannot be changed.
Familiar with the phrase "everything is relative" ?
It suggests, that change is possible. One thing is only that thing, because of other things in the circumstance. This is not a very convincing argument for something that is supposedly unchangeable, is it?

Now on to your 2nd definition of "orientation"

Your words were:
"a person's attitute* or adjustment in relation to circumstances, esp politically or psychologically"


I've got news for you. A person's attitude can be adjusted... changed... altered. Hence the phrase "adjustment". You used "especially politically or psychologically" as if it backed up your stance. All of these things are capable of being changed.

Ever heard of Ronald Reagan? He used to be a democrat. That's right. He was a democrat for the first 40 years of his life, and then he decided that he wanted to be a republican. Why? Because political attitudes can be adjusted and changed.
Now if you want to get into psychological attitudes and adjustments, I can bring up a slew of them for you. Why? Because attitudes with a basis in psychological make-up can change, or be altered based on circumstances.

So you know.... here you are attempting to prove that I am defining homosexuality as an alterable state, when in reality, you just did it for yourself.

I think this debate is over as far as you (ebia/outlaw) and I are concerned. You basically gave in to the idea that homosexuality is an orientation that can be changed, and all because of your own definition.

I had nothing to do with it, nor did I promote it. All I did, was define the word ORIENTATION.

* You spelled attitude wrong, and I'm just pointing that out, lest anybody believe that I meant to spell it that way.

 

[outlaw]

HEY ARE YOU BLIND. I defined ORIENTATION as a BEHAVIOR.
ORIENTATION. It's a word. Look it up.

Even though I know it will be ignored…

Once again

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

What Is Sexual Orientation?

Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.





Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.





Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/language.html

The term sexual orientationis preferred to sexual preference for psychological writing and refers to sexual and affectional relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual people. The word preference suggests a degree of voluntary choice that is not necessarily reported by lesbians and gay men and that has not been demonstrated in psychological research.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html

Sexual behavior does not necessarily equate to sexual orientation.

I did not define sexual orientation. I defined ORIENTATION.

And related it to sexual orientation as noted in post number and made the unsupported claim that it can be “unlearned”

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19910129&postcount=66



No, the FLAW is when you begin to assume that sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of a person.

Orientation means "the act of orienting or being oriented", hence, it is learned. A learned behavior, is not an intrinsic part of a person in such a way that it cannot be unlearned. See the DSM manuals, and just about any psychiatry journal for more information on changing behavior.

incidentally you have also failed to supply evidence (surprise surprise) that sexual orientation is not intrinsic to the person.

Out of silence comes learning. Stop talking and start reading. You're accusing me of something I didn't do, and if you'd stop and read it over a few times you'll see what I mean.

i have...please try to be honest

 

[Ethaniel]

I have read through all of these posts and the thought that occurs to me is why we feel the need to teach discrimination to children. For some reason we need to make sure that they know that there our others that are either evil, not as good as them; or those that they need not associate with because what they are will rub off on them. It seems a high price to pay for not having your child learn military history from Alexander the Great because he was gay; to not learn painting from Leonardo Da Vinci or Michaelangelo because they were gay; poetry from Emily Dickinson, stories from Hans Christian Anderson, tennis from Martina Navratilova, or music from Tchaikovsky, all because they were gay. It seems so isolating to always associate with those that only believe as you do; to never be exposed to outside ideas that challenge your own. It seems such a waste to miss out on what so many others have to offer.
Obviously if someone is harmful then you should not associate with them. That being said, to simply avoid contact with others who have shown no harm save for their choice in mates seems truly sad indeed.

 

[""]

i have...please try to be honest

I am being honest.

I'm only using one name.


Here is your definition once again:

Let's take a look at your definition:
First, you've underlined "relative position".
Relative means: a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing.
So what this is saying is that the position of this orientation is dependent on something else. Hmm.... that seems an odd stance to take if you're attempting to prove that homosexuality is a sexual orientation that cannot be changed.
Familiar with the phrase "everything is relative" ?
It suggests, that change is possible. One thing is only that thing, because of other things in the circumstance. This is not a very convincing argument for something that is supposedly unchangeable, is it?

Now on to your 2nd definition of "orientation"

Your words were:
"a person's attitute* or adjustment in relation to circumstances, esp politically or psychologically"


I've got news for you. A person's attitude can be adjusted... changed... altered. Hence the phrase "adjustment". You used "especially politically or psychologically" as if it backed up your stance. All of these things are capable of being changed.

Ever heard of Ronald Reagan? He used to be a democrat. That's right. He was a democrat for the first 40 years of his life, and then he decided that he wanted to be a republican. Why? Because political attitudes can be adjusted and changed.
Now if you want to get into psychological attitudes and adjustments, I can bring up a slew of them for you. Why? Because attitudes with a basis in psychological make-up can change, or be altered based on circumstances.

So you know.... here you are attempting to prove that I am defining homosexuality as an alterable state, when in reality, you just did it for yourself.

I think this debate is over as far as you (ebia/outlaw) and I are concerned. You basically gave in to the idea that homosexuality is an orientation that can be changed, and all because of your own definition.

I had nothing to do with it, nor did I promote it. All I did, was define the word ORIENTATION.

 

[outlaw]

Reputation for you ebia for handling the nonsense and the mockery with grace.