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

IMJerusha

New member

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


Good. :thumb:
1, No group should be excluded just because of what they are naturally.
Christians often seem to value testimony when it suits their beliefs but strangely reject the testimony of homosexuals themselves who will almost unanimously claim to have made no choice to be gay. That being gay was just the way it was for them, and fwiw that goes for any gay person I've personally talked to about it anyway.

I'm curious as to your definition of "morally straight"? And one other question, are you gay?

2, If the vote by the BSA bugs right wing Christian fundies then that alone is a good thing imo. :chuckle:
Good on the BSA.

I have to praise Ruach HaKodesh who informed me it would have done no good to open a thread for you as we discussed. Whereas you told me you wouldn't have much to contribute to it, the truth is simply that you've made your choice and will not be swayed.
 

Wile E. Coyote

New member
Christians often seem to value testimony when it suits their beliefs but strangely reject the testimony of homosexuals themselves who will almost unanimously claim to have made no choice to be gay.
And liberals de-value the testimony of those who say that they are gay by choice. Cynthia Nixon says she is gay by choice and does not like others defining her "gayness" for her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090942/Cynthia-Nixon-Im-gay-choice.html

GAG (Gays Against Gay Marriage) also have said that they are gay by choice. But the liberals edit that out.

Take the beam out Alwight!
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
I spent a lot of time as a scout and as a leader. I and my son were tapped for Order of the Arrow at the same time. I've thought long and hard about this, because I care about it, and because I've been disappointed about many things that the leaders have done to scouting, not the least the practice of ignoring sexual predators among adult leaders.

I've done a lot in scouting. Lots of campouts, lots of meetings, and never once did homosexuality enter into it. Not once. At least one of the scouts was homosexual, although we didn't know it. I doubt if he knew it at the time.

Non-issue, really, except for outsiders trying to win a battle in the culture wars.

It's more about posturing and "We win if we can we impose our values on someone else!" kind of thinking. Lots of that on both sides.

It wasn't something Scouting asked for. But they were forced to make a choice. Either way, there would be damage. I suppose they chose the lesser of two evils.

For those of you that don't read pagan, here's what the Barbarian is saying:

A 103 year old youth mentor organization that was founded upon Biblical values whose goal was to turn boys into responsible God-fearing men, SHOULD be able to ( based on a popular vote) turn that organization into a den of sin, where all "values" are seen as equal.
 

alwight

New member
And liberals de-value the testimony of those who say that they are gay by choice. Cynthia Nixon says she is gay by choice and does not like others defining her "gayness" for her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090942/Cynthia-Nixon-Im-gay-choice.html

GAG (Gays Against Gay Marriage) also have said that they are gay by choice. But the liberals edit that out.

Take the beam out Alwight!
I think your mistake Wile is to assume that sexual orientation must be an absolute, clearly one thing or the other, I've never said that. Obviously some people are bisexual or just somewhere in between. Cynthia Nixon as reported in the Daily Mail I notice, not exactly the most reliable of papers imo, claims it was a choice to be gay, really? I don't know what the actual truth is, only she knows that. But for me she must have discovered her own bisexuality later in life with her new partner, which didn't seem to involve being molested by a gay as aCW will no doubt claim.
 

alwight

New member
Alwight,

Cynthia Nixon received backlash from the gay community when she said that she is gay by choice. Why?
Most gay people, like most straight people including me btw, would probably rather not even want to think about having sex with the "other" sex (as appropriate). Clearly most vocal gay people will be in no doubt of their own feelings or in telling us so, but it's the ones making up the silent decent majority imo who are the ones that probably count for more, while in aCW's mind they perhaps don't seem to exist, only all gays being perverts paedophiles and rapists seems to suit his homophobic agenda. :rolleyes:
 

alwight

New member
I'm curious as to your definition of "morally straight"?
I don't understand the question please try again.

And one other question, are you gay?
No

I have to praise Ruach HaKodesh who informed me it would have done no good to open a thread for you as we discussed. Whereas you told me you wouldn't have much to contribute to it, the truth is simply that you've made your choice and will not be swayed.
I gather "Ruach HaKodesh" means "Holy Spirit" in Hebrew, the internet is a wonderful thing, right?
Have you got a direct line btw?
I don't think I could be persuaded to be gay anyway but if Ruach HaKodesh ever wants to speak to me then I will listen and then let you know about my conversion to "theist". ;)
 

Wile E. Coyote

New member
I think your mistake Wile is to assume that sexual orientation must be an absolute, clearly one thing or the other, I've never said that. Obviously some people are bisexual or just somewhere in between. Cynthia Nixon as reported in the Daily Mail I notice, not exactly the most reliable of papers imo, claims it was a choice to be gay, really? I don't know what the actual truth is, only she knows that. But for me she must have discovered her own bisexuality later in life with her new partner, which didn't seem to involve being molested by a gay as aCW will no doubt claim.
First, other sources have quoted Cynthia Nixon too. Second, Homosexuality is clearly a deviation from the revealed will of God. People do NOT have to be homosexuals any more than they have to be adulterers.

Paul said that it is spiritual blindnesss that causes people to "give themselves over" to deviant desires. They deceive themselves into believing "I'm born this way." You know nothing about spiritual blindness. Many former homosexuals have testified that they had foolishly believed your fatalistic view. That's exactly what your view is. It is fatalism.

That said, you know that I do not share aCW's bigoted and hateful methods. aCW is also spiritually blind. Nowhere in the new testament are Christians called to rule sinners by force. He said, "What have I to do with those outside?" We are called to evangelize them. Paul focused solely on the ministry of reconciliation. We know that aCW is NOT about reconcling sinners to God. He is all about ruling them and punishing them and putting them to death. He does not even allow for a sinner to enter a church door:

On a personal note: I assume that you were married in a House of God? If so, HOW DARE YOU TAKE A OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL MAN INTO GOD'S HOUSE AND MOCK HIM BY USING AN UNREPENTANT SINNER AS YOUR BEST MAN!

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3229236#post3229236

How shameful! aCW is NOT a friend of Christ. Christ said that God's house was to be a "house of prayer for many nations" (pagans). Note how aCW is like Fred Phelps of Woodboro Baptist Church:

"You telling these miserable, Hell-bound, bath house-wallowing, anal-copulating fags that God loves them!? You have bats in the belfry!"

Phelps said that God doesn not love them. Cultic!!

The thing that gets me is that the Christian Right cannot see that this hate-mongering only advances the gay cause. I think a lot about this and wonder if the gay agenda would have all the steam it has if Christians had stuck to God's method. Jesus NEVER denounced "fags." They were all around Him. Jesus denounced only the self righteous. Paul too never condemned homosexuals. Paul informed us that they are under God's condemnation, but he tried to rescue them.

Paul said, "judgment begins with the house of God." But the "Christian" Right is so busy with the sin of non-christians they are ignoring their own sin. The world has noted their hypocrisy.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
How shameful! aCW is NOT a friend of Christ. Christ said that God's house was to be a "house of prayer for many nations" (pagans). Note how aCW is like Fred Phelps of Woodboro Baptist Church:

"You telling these miserable, Hell-bound, bath house-wallowing, anal-copulating fags that God loves them!? You have bats in the belfry!"

Phelps said that God doesn not love them. Cultic!!

The thing that gets me is that the Christian Right cannot see that this hate-mongering only advances the gay cause. I think a lot about this and wonder if the gay agenda would have all the steam it has if Christians had stuck to God's method. Jesus NEVER denounced "fags." They were all around Him. Jesus denounced only the self righteous. Paul too never condemned homosexuals. Paul informed us that they are under God's condemnation, but he tried to rescue them.

Paul said, "judgment begins with the house of God." But the "Christian" Right is so busy with the sin of non-christians they are ignoring their own sin. The world has noted their hypocrisy.

Wile:

PLEASE bring your bold faced lies and pro homosexual propaganda back to this thread:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90740

because at last count, there were at least 6 posts of mine directed towards your lies that you didn't respond to.

Come on Wile, grow a spine and come on back and face the truth about the lifestyle and agenda that you support.
 

Lon

Well-known member
I don't think you're being entirely fair.
And I simply say, you trying to placate sin is placating sin.
"Why can't we all just get along" isn't getting my vote and you read his quote first, uncritically (if at all). It was full of disdain.
Both of you feel like scholars on this website of... fools.
He does have some genes in common with you. You both lack insight and intellectual heft, I suspect. That explains it better.
You succeed in looking silly and a bit creepy.
That fact that you fail to notice them is your problem. Why not get educated.


I am endeavoring to meet that complaint in a sufficient manner and believe you are out of line, not recognizing the tenor already set before I redressed it.
I don't think you're being entirely fair.

And there will be no "one size fits all" resolution, here. It will be a unique combination of things, for each of us.
If God's answer doesn't suffice for you, I've got nothing else. I will not compromise.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Er, I had no sexual thoughts until I was about 'puberty.' You know, on the brink between child and adolescence? Think a bit before your guffaws outloud....

But....were you not attracted to anybody before that onset? Not in a sexual way but in a manner where you were seeing girls differently as you were boys? I can recall having 'crushes' on girls and women when I was a child up to puberty. Adolescence simply took it that step further.
 

IMJerusha

New member
I don't understand the question please try again.

What does "morally straight" mean to you?

How do you know?

I gather "Ruach HaKodesh" means "Holy Spirit" in Hebrew, the internet is a wonderful thing, right?
Yeah, I was telling that to Grosnick not that long ago. I guess he doesn't think folks are smart enough to look it up. Thanks for proving him wrong and you've learned something in the process.

Have you got a direct line btw?

To the Ruach?...Yeshua sends Him to those who sincerely believe in Him.

I don't think I could be persuaded to be gay anyway

Gays need to be persuaded to be so?

but if Ruach HaKodesh ever wants to speak to me then I will listen and then let you know about my conversion to "theist". ;)

You will listen but will you hear?
 

alwight

New member
What does "morally straight" mean to you?
Regarding what specifically? I don't think of morality as being an absolute objective (God-given?) thing, rather as relative and personal to each person and circumstance.
Unlike some theists I don't think humans need to be restrained by an invisible godly moral leash.

Later edit: I now understand "morally straight" is a catch phrase from the post below, if I haven't covered all the bases here anyway then by all means let me know. BTW I don't think just being gay is itself a moral issue and neither are teenagers who are and who don't want to be unfairly excluded from the BSA.

How do you know?
I really think I would just know if I had ever looked for or had gay sex.

Yeah, I was telling that to Grosnick not that long ago. I guess he doesn't think folks are smart enough to look it up. Thanks for proving him wrong and you've learned something in the process.
I feel so used. :(

To the Ruach?...Yeshua sends Him to those who sincerely believe in Him.
Nah that's just the way that theists explain away the need for any god specific evidence from there not actually being a god.

Gays need to be persuaded to be so?
No, that was the point.

You will listen but will you hear?
Why so? Must it be vague, arcane and mysterious, involving much prior specific faith and deep understanding?
Why wouldn't it be clear enough for me to understand easily?
But I suppose gods don't really to do "explicit", right? :plain:
 
Last edited:

99lamb

New member
Openly Gay B.S.,
maybe we should ask the Boy Scouts.
bs.jpg
 

exminister

Well-known member
I don't understand how we can be born a sinner without a choice and yet someone cannot be born gay. I think there is hair splitting for no good reason but politics.

I agree with those who say we are so sex absorbed we are pushing it on children. That is what is wrong with this.
 
Top