Will there be a ‘mass exodus’ of religious groups from the Scouts?

[Maren]

That's an old and false defense for sin.
Simply because all sinners are called to repent.
While those who advocate for gay sin not only refuse to do that, but argue that the homosexual immoral sexual sin should be exempt from repentance, and given special rights and protections and designations under secular law, so as to not only continue , but to prosper, advance, and be afforded special lawful rights due to their sin.

Except we aren't talking about homosexual sexual sin in this case. The Boy Scouts have stated that they will not prohibit those that have same sex attraction -- the rules for remaining chaste are still to be enforced. So I'm not sure what sin you are talking about that fits with this topic?

As we witness, the Southern Poverty Law Center declares Christian groups that advocate Christian family values, and uphold scripture that condemns the sin of homosexuality, are deemed 'hate groups' , engaged in 'hate speech.' Thank God SCOTUS does not (yet) agree.

No, they don't declare "Christian groups that advocate Christian family values" as hate groups, that is completely untrue. What they have done is found that a few of these Christian groups have spread lies and other "hate-style" tactics against homosexuals -- and only the groups who have done these things have been named as hate groups.

And there are no laws against "hate speech". Perhaps that you think there are is part of the reason a group you listen to made the SPLC list of hate groups.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Except we aren't talking about homosexual sexual sin in this case. The Boy Scouts have stated that they will not prohibit those that have same sex attraction -- the rules for remaining chaste are still to be enforced. So I'm not sure what sin you are talking about that fits with this topic?

Running around declaring you are attracted to other boys wouldn't exactly be chaste behavior...

No, they don't declare "Christian groups that advocate Christian family values" as hate groups, that is completely untrue. What they have done is found that a few of these Christian groups have spread lies and other "hate-style" tactics against homosexuals -- and only the groups who have done these things have been named as hate groups.

Wrong, the Southern Poverty law center actually routinely label Christian groups as hate groups for simply speaking up against homosexuality regardless of whether or not they preach "hate-style" tactics against homosexuals.

In fact I would argue that the Southern Poverty Law Center's irresponsible behavior is somewhat responsible for a shooting in Washington DC at one group's hq that was irresponsibly labeled as a "hate group." Especially since in interrogation, the shooter admitted the Southern Poverty Law Center labelling that group as a hate group is why he did what he did.

And there are no laws against "hate speech". Perhaps that you think there are is part of the reason a group you listen to made the SPLC list of hate groups.

I would actually argue that the SPLC has actually become a hate group.

 

[CabVet]

Drop the strawman argument...

No strawman there.

The issue is over whether or not you want a 17 year old boy whom is sexually attracted to other boys in the same tent as your 10 to 11 year old son...

This is honestly like saying you'd be okay with a 17 year old heterosexual boy sleeping in the same tent as your 12 to 14 year old daughter...

Now that is a straw man.

No, you're just intolerant with everyone whom disagrees with you. They aren't talking about simply abandoning boys whom are in boy scouts, they are talking about pulling their children out of an organization that turned its back on its core values and creating a new organization for boys to join instead of the one that caved to pro-homosexuality groups.

It's a free country, just pull them out. I am not intolerant of them (or anybody else as far as I know). What I am saying is that I find this deeply hypocritical. You condemn certain sins with utmost intolerance while others are not even given notice. When you ban obese kids and leaders from the boyscouts (obesity is as much of a sin as homosexuality in the Bible), I will agree with banning gays. If you take that to other sins, pretty soon there will be nobody allowed in.

 

[Prayer Circle]

Except we aren't talking about homosexual sexual sin in this case. The Boy Scouts have stated that they will not prohibit those that have same sex attraction -- the rules for remaining chaste are still to be enforced. So I'm not sure what sin you are talking about that fits with this topic?

It's an absurd demarcation. The Scouts will not ban those who have same sex attraction, the rules of remaining chaste will be enforced.
Ergo, it's like unto the military and it's former policy of don't ask don't tell. What does the BSA gay advocates think is going to happen? Gay sex police making sure the homosexual scout doesn't act on their desires? And if they do? Out? Hardly.

If this was a legitimate claim by BSA, they would argue the same while allowing gay chaste adults to be Scout leaders.

No, they don't declare "Christian groups that advocate Christian family values" as hate groups, that is completely untrue. What they have done is found that a few of these Christian groups have spread lies and other "hate-style" tactics against homosexuals -- and only the groups who have done these things have been named as hate groups.

That is not true.

Before Shooting: Southern Poverty Law Center Put Family Research Council on ‘Hate Map’

And there are no laws against "hate speech". Perhaps that you think there are is part of the reason a group you listen to made the SPLC list of hate groups.

That is not true either.
Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition

 

[All Englands Skies]

They are hate groups. They are on par with Nazis and the KKK. They do nothing but spread lies, myths, and anti-gay propaganda.

Clearly you don't comprehend how much harm those groups cause.

Typical, throwing the inflammatory, "they're like Nazis and the KKK!" out there.

Whats this supposed to achieve, "Oh no, I am being called a Nazi, I must now become silent!"

Thats what its in aid of, nobody in modern society wants to be called "nazis", so its a tactic to call groups your against as bad as Nazis/KKK.

 

[katautumn]

No, and anyone that does leave over this is better off gone anyway.

Which is precisely the goal of the people who try and bully their way into every single segment of society and force acceptance from people. So much for "tolerance". Here is my question, why didn't the tiny group of gay Scouts just go start their own gay scouting organization? I mean, how is it that such a small percentage of people can be so intimidating? Is it because they erroneously use terms like "bigot", "hatemonger" and "homophobe"?

This decision puts people in a position of discomfort. We're talking about allowing a young man who openly admits to being sexually attracted to members of the same gender sleep in a tent with another child who does not. Saying, "hey, we have a code of sexual propriety" means nothing. It's like telling teens at a church lock-in, "hey, no touchy feely in the janitor's closet, mmmkay?" I don't think it's out of line to ask people if they would be okay with a sixteen year-old boy sleeping in a tent with their fourteen year-old daughter for an entire week-long camping trip. Anyone who thinks nothing would happen is naive.

Since all studies show that heterosexuals are the most likely to abuse boys, I'd be far more concerned putting a heterosexual adult in those tents.

Um, news flash - heterosexuality is normal. Molesting children is not. That isn't heterosexuality. That's pedophilia. Two totally different things. A man that molests little boys has no more of a right to claim he's a heterosexual than someone who despises the Bible to claim they are a Christian.

 

[Marius27]

Running around declaring you are attracted to other boys wouldn't exactly be chaste behavior...

Why would they be running around declaring that? Do heterosexual boy scouts run around declaring their opposite-sex attractions?

Wrong, the Southern Poverty law center actually routinely label Christian groups as hate groups for simply speaking up against homosexuality regardless of whether or not they preach "hate-style" tactics against homosexuals.

Do you have examples of groups labeled as such that do not use those tactics?

In fact I would argue that the Southern Poverty Law Center's irresponsible behavior is somewhat responsible for a shooting in Washington DC at one group's hq that was irresponsibly labeled as a "hate group." Especially since in interrogation, the shooter admitted the Southern Poverty Law Center labelling that group as a hate group is why he did what he did.

Family Research Council is most certainly a vile hate group. They backed Uganda's kill the gays bill, and spread constant lies and myths about gays. I put FRC in the same league as Neo-Nazis and the KKK. They belong on that list.

 

[katautumn]

Typical, throwing the inflammatory, "they're like Nazis and the KKK!" out there.

Whats this supposed to achieve, "Oh no, I am being called a Nazi, I must now become silent!"

Thats what its in aid of, nobody in modern society wants to be called "nazis", so its a tactic to call groups your against as bad as Nazis/KKK.

Silence, Hitler! There's heresy afoot!

 

[All Englands Skies]

Silence, Hitler! There's heresy afoot!

You fascist, Ice cream eating Cosmonaut!

 

[katautumn]

You fascist, Ice cream eating Cosmonaut!

Yeah, well, it's better than being a cross burning, bed sheet wearing Klansman!

 

[Creech]

I see words such as "racist' and "bigot" to have the same meaning as stupid-head. It's just silly name calling words.

 

[Marius27]

Which is precisely the goal of the people who try and bully their way into every single segment of society and force acceptance from people. So much for "tolerance". Here is my question, why didn't the tiny group of gay Scouts just go start their own gay scouting organization? I mean, how is it that such a small percentage of people can be so intimidating? Is it because they erroneously use terms like "bigot", "hatemonger" and "homophobe"?

Maybe these boys have strong moral values (and spare me the, gays can't have moral values opinion) and want to be part of organization that has a long history of teaching the types of things the Boy Scouts does. One of my best friends is an Eagle Scout, and he's extremely pro-gay.

This decision puts people in a position of discomfort.

Your point? So it's ok for gay kids to be made to feel horrible, but gosh forbid we hurt the sensibilities of some religious conservatives?

We're talking about allowing a young man who openly admits to being sexually attracted to members of the same gender sleep in a tent with another child who does not. AnSaying, "hey, we have a code of sexual propriety" means nothing. It's like telling teens at a church lock-in, "hey, no touchy feely in the janitor's closet, mmmkay?" I don't think it's out of line to ask people if they would be okay with a sixteen year-old boy sleeping in a tent with their fourteen year-old daughter for an entire week-long camping trip. Anyone who thinks nothing would happen is naive.

Gays have always been in the boy scouts. Was there a crazy string of unwanted sexual assaults in those tents I never heard about for all those years?

Um, news flash - heterosexuality is normal. Molesting children is not. That isn't heterosexuality. That's pedophilia. Two totally different things. A man that molests little boys has no more of a right to claim he's a heterosexual than someone who despises the Bible to claim they are a Christian.

Which completely proves that you have no understanding of the difference between Sexual Orientation and Pedophilia. There are regressed pedophiles, and fixated pedophiles. Fixated have no adult orientation. That means they feel absolutely no attraction to either adult men or adult women. They are only attracted to children. A regressed pedophile is one who is attracted to children, but also attracted to adults. Their adult orientation is almost always heterosexual. They do not engage in relationships with adult members of the same-sex. But they are the largest group that targets young boys. They describe their attractions to young boys to be the same as young girls. Soft, smooth, and hairless. They are attracted to the feminine qualities of the boys. Gays are not attracted to feminine qualities, and thus are extremely unlikely to be pedophiles.

This is backed by 40 years of research. I wish you all would actually educate yourselves instead of blindly believing nonsense that isn't true.

 

[katautumn]

Maybe these boys have strong moral values (and spare me the, gays can't have moral values opinion) and want to be part of organization that has a long history of teaching the types of things the Boy Scouts does. One of my best friends is an Eagle Scout, and he's extremely pro-gay.

I didn't say they don't have morals. I'm saying that sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and say, "okay, enough compromise, already!".

Your point? So it's ok for gay kids to be made to feel horrible, but gosh forbid we hurt the sensibilities of some religious conservatives?

Big difference between getting your feelings hurt because life's unfair sometimes (gee whiz, hate for anyone to learn that valuable life lesson) and putting kids in a position of vulnerability. Just like there's a big difference between a kid who can't hit a ball to save his life being kept from joining the baseball team and letting your toddler play with your neighbor's ten pitbulls. One instance is simply a child learning that not every opportunity in life is going to be wide open to them and the other about putting them in a compromising position.

Gays have always been in the boy scouts. Was there a crazy string of unwanted sexual assaults in those tents I never heard about for all those years?

It's different now, because now they can be "out and proud". They won't have to conceal it.

Which completely proves that you have no understanding of the difference between Sexual Orientation and Pedophilia.

God makes no distinctions. He says He created males and females for the purpose of being united together as one flesh through the marriage union. Everything else outside of that is an aberration, a perversion of His plan, and a direct result of sin nature. You're wanting to argue this from some sort of humanistic, worldly, psychological standpoint. I cannot. The Word of God is my standard and the platform from where I base my opinions. I know that isn't popular, but I refuse to apologize for it.

There are regressed pedophiles, and fixated pedophiles. Fixated have no adult orientation. That means they feel absolutely no attraction to either adult men or adult women. They are only attracted to children. A regressed pedophile is one who is attracted to children, but also attracted to adults. Their adult orientation is almost always heterosexual. They do not engage in relationships with adult members of the same-sex. But they are the largest group that targets young boys. They describe their attractions to young boys to be the same as young girls. Soft, smooth, and hairless. They are attracted to the feminine qualities of the boys. Gays are not attracted to feminine qualities, and thus are extremely unlikely to be pedophiles.

And all of what you described is a sin against God and goes against His design. We can call it fixated pedophilia, regressed pedophilia, whatever. If it involves sexual practices that deviate from what God sanctioned, it's wrong.

This is backed by 40 years of research. I wish you all would actually educate yourselves instead of blindly believing nonsense that isn't true.

And herein lies the reason you say the things you do. You call the Bible a lie and for many of us it is our standard. 40 years of research vs. thousands of years of Bible truth. I'm going to hedge my bets with the Word of God and leave the psychobabble to the lost.

 

[Marius27]

I didn't say they don't have morals. I'm saying that sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and say, "okay, enough compromise, already!".



Big difference between getting your feelings hurt because life's unfair sometimes (gee whiz, hate for anyone to learn that valuable life lesson) and putting kids in a position of vulnerability. Just like there's a big difference between a kid who can't hit a ball to save his life being kept from joining the baseball team and letting your toddler play with your neighbor's ten pitbulls. One instance is simply a child learning that not every opportunity in life is going to be wide open to them and the other about putting them in a compromising position.





It's different now, because now they can be "out and proud". They won't have to conceal it.



God makes no distinctions. He says He created males and females for the purpose of being united together as one flesh through the marriage union. Everything else outside of that is an aberration, a perversion of His plan, and a direct result of sin nature. You're wanting to argue this from some sort of humanistic, worldly, psychological standpoint. I cannot. The Word of God is my standard and the platform from where I base my opinions. I know that isn't popular, but I refuse to apologize for it.



And all of what you described is a sin against God and goes against His design. We can call it fixated pedophilia, regressed pedophilia, whatever. If it involves sexual practices that deviate from what God sanctioned, it's wrong.



And herein lies the reason you say the things you do. You call the Bible a lie and for many of us it is our standard. 40 years of research vs. thousands of years of Bible truth. I'm going to hedge my bets with the Word of God and leave the psychobabble to the lost.

Thousands of years of Bible truth that have changed meaning. The Bible is not the Word of God. That's called idolatry. And claiming people who disagree with you are lost is pretty obnoxious. But I'm not going to bother debating with you further since you made it clear facts and evidence mean nothing to you, only your interpretation of a book translated in the wrong language 2-4000 years removed from its original culture. It's quite hypocritical of you to reject any scientific research that disproves your beliefs, and yet you're making such statements on a product of that very science you reject.

 

[Maren]

It's an absurd demarcation. The Scouts will not ban those who have same sex attraction, the rules of remaining chaste will be enforced.
Ergo, it's like unto the military and it's former policy of don't ask don't tell. What does the BSA gay advocates think is going to happen? Gay sex police making sure the homosexual scout doesn't act on their desires? And if they do? Out? Hardly.

If this was a legitimate claim by BSA, they would argue the same while allowing gay chaste adults to be Scout leaders.

Actually, it isn't an absurd demarcation. The Scouts require all their youth members to remain chaste, not just homosexual youth. Though, I admit, if they kick out homosexual Scouts for having sex they could face a lawsuit if they do not also remove heterosexual Scouts who engage in sexual activity.

While you can argue that it is something of a legalistic argument, they can't require adults to remain virgins. Instead, being "chaste" would require adult members to be married -- and in the US (according to federal law) you cannot have same sex marriages. It is essentially this logic they are using to ban homosexual adult leaders.

Also, doesn't your church also work somewhat on this same idea (without the issue of adult/child)? Don't you welcome homosexuals in your church so long as they remain celibate? Or do you just kick out everyone with same sex attraction? If you church doesn't, are they also guilty of "an absurd demarcation"?

That is not true.

Before Shooting: Southern Poverty Law Center Put Family Research Council on ‘Hate Map’

That link doesn't actually support what you are saying at all. It actually is nothing more than the FRC trying to claim (with no evidence) that the shooter felt justified for attacking them because they had been labeled a hate group -- it says nothing about why the FRC was labeled a hate group, nor does it provide any evidence as to that being the reason they were attacked.

Instead, the FRC was named a hate group based on their “propagation of known falsehoods — claims about [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated.” Included among the reasons are false claims that link homosexuality to pedophilia, false and unsupported claims that gays are out to remove all age of consent laws, and leaders stating that gays should be deported or homosexuality criminalized, etc.

That is not true either.
Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition

Again, this doesn't support your claim at all. I'm not denying the term exists but there are no laws against hate speech in the US. If there were, members of the KKK who demonstrate or speak in public would have been locked up long ago.

Your link does not show any law, nor does it have links to "hate speech" laws; it merely defines it as a legal term. And the reason it only defines it as a legal term is because the US does not have "Hate Speech" laws.

 

[Prayer Circle]

Again, this doesn't support your claim at all. I'm not denying the term exists but there are no laws against hate speech in the US. If there were, members of the KKK who demonstrate or speak in public would have been locked up long ago.

Your link does not show any law, nor does it have links to "hate speech" laws; it merely defines it as a legal term. And the reason it only defines it as a legal term is because the US does not have "Hate Speech" laws.

Whatever you wish to think.

 

[Maren]

Whatever you wish to think.

It isn't what I think. If hate speech laws really existed, you should be easily able to find evidence of them. Laws tend to be easily searchable on the Internet; for example, here is the Florida Hate Crime law (hate speech not included); Florida was picked at random and is a state I have not lived in.

I suppose it is actually, "whatever you wish to think", since you have no evidence that hate speech laws actually exist in the US.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Would you want a 17 year old boy whom is attracted to boys sleeping in the same tent as your 11 year old son?

That's what this entire situation boils down to.

If the scouts can't even teach a 17 year old boy (regardless of orientation) to control himself, then the scouts as a whole are a colossal failure.

That's what this entire situation boils down to.

 

[Lethe]

So when the gay boy advances in the ranks, they'll be blocked for ascending to leadership positions, due to the fact that they're gay.

All this measure does is prove the Scouts bowed to public pressure and violated the tenets of the organization in being inconsistent in the process.

I know this is a little hard for conservatives to understand, but the point of rules and standards and so forth is not for them to be immutable and eternal, but for them to accommodate our best understanding of morality. As our understanding of the world gets better, our rules change.

 

[Lethe]

While those who advocate for gay sin not only refuse to do that, but argue that the homosexual immoral sexual sin should be exempt from repentance, and given special rights and protections and designations under secular law, so as to not only continue , but to prosper, advance, and be afforded special lawful rights due to their sin.

Law does not recognize sin. Never should, and if I have anything to say about it, never will.