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

[glorydaz]

Seek counseling. Something happened in your early childhood years.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3393262&postcount=17

He doesn't want counseling, nor would he choose a counselor that could help him. He'd pick one his boyfriend went to that encourages him to accept who he truly is and who he has been since the day he was born. His conscience is seared and it won't be until he's on his deathbed with a raging case of AIDS that he will even consider turning to the Lord. IMHO, of course.

 

[Lon]

Both of you feel like scholars on this website of low information fools. You hike up your own anecdotal evidence like it is gospel and you end up with egg on your faces. Can't you see that?

Hesaid/shesaid Be original. I said it to you first though with a lot less disdain. I don't care if you like us. I care that you listen and you don't.
You are on a Christian website trying to force/shove/cram your morals? Really? One of us has a problem with anecdotal evidence and huge burdens of proof (that really aren't or ever have been available).

No, I've been honest of where I'm at. You take personal affront, as well you should. There is no surprise here at this venture in dialogue for me.

Most boys like to dress up as something masculine and rarely have interest in anything girly. It bores them. There is the reverse trend with gay people.

You hike up your own anecdotal evidence like it is gospel and you end up with egg on your faces. Can't you see that?

He does have some genes in common with you. You both lack insight and intellectual heft, I suspect. That explains it better.

You hike up your own anecdotal evidence like it is gospel and you end up with egg on your faces. Can't you see that?

I was gay from birth. That's an expression, girlfriend, not a literal statement per se.

You hike up your own anecdotal evidence like it is gospel and you end up with egg on your faces. Can't you see that?

I believe I had all the precursers of my sexual orientation at birth.

You hike up your own anecdotal evidence like it is gospel and you end up with egg on your faces. Can't you see that?

My first crush on another boy was when I was five. He was in a play at my school. He had the lead role, Oliver. Once he came over to my house and did some improv comedy in my backyard, and he was nice to me. Your mistake is to deny childhood sexuality altogether because it is not the same as adult sexuality.

Most people who have this confusion had one or two parents that caused the malady to occur (or other environmental influences).
Get this through your head, there is nothing wrong with the female human and you are a fool to think you can only be attracted homosexually. Our sexuality isn't particular, we are simply sexual and sexuality is a choice as well as learned behavior. There is no genetic predisposition that any scientist has ever found or established. Such is...

You hike up your own anecdotal evidence like it is gospel and you end up with egg on your faces. Can't you see that?

▲I'd listen to this guy▲

People like you tend to love to apply graphic adult sexual concepts to children to prove how ludicris the notion of childhood sexuality is. You succeed in looking silly and a bit creepy. There are childish precursers to sexuality in infants even. That fact that you fail to notice them is your problem. Why not get educated.

You hike up your own anecdotal evidence like it is gospel and you end up with egg on your faces. Can't you see that?

You are trying, desperately, to make up a reason and substantiation. The whole of society is trying desperately to help you and to date, to no avail.

What about the kid attracted to his sheep on the farm Uber? Is that 'normal' and genetic to you? Listen to this guy:

You hike up your own anecdotal evidence like it is gospel and you end up with egg on your faces. Can't you see that?

 

[PureX]

Hesaid/shesaid Be original. I said it to you first though with a lot less disdain. I don't care if you like us. I care that you listen and you don't.

You are on a Christian website trying to force/shove/cram your morals? Really? One of us has a problem with anecdotal evidence and huge burdens of proof (that really aren't or ever have been available).

I don't think you're being entirely fair. You view this issue as being governed entirely by ideology and moral codes. But Uberpod is just trying to discuss the practical reality of it.

One of the unfortunate side effects of being a "believer" is that beliefs tend to trump practicality for the believer, to the point that they see life in terms of competing belief systems instead of actual events and relationships. And they don't understand that when they are talking to a "non-believer", they are talking to someone who sees life in terms if actual events and relationships, and not in terms of belief systems or moral codes. At least not initially, anyway.

Actual reality is complex, and there are lots of aspects of it that we don't fully understand, and so we need to be careful about just making blind assumptions based on minimal information just because they reinforce our belief systems. Especially when we're trying to converse with someone who doesn't hold to our belief system.

This may be a Christian web site, but it's clear that it's inviting "non-believers" to come and discuss these issues. So I think it's only appropriate to try and relate to the people we invite to participate, here, in a way that respects their point of view, even if we don't agree with it.

From Uberpod's perspective, this issue is not about anyone's belief system, or corresponding moral codes, it's about trying to determine the functionality of a complex set of ideas and relationships.

So far there is very clear evidence to support the idea that sexual orientation is very often built into us from birth, simply by the fact that there are millions of human beings that attest to having been attracted to one sex or another from as far back as they can remember. And it would be just blind ignorance not to believe what they are telling us. However, the exact source of these feelings remains a mystery. There is evidence of it being both a genetic inclination and the result of social experiences. And as with most things, the truth likely to be a combination of both of these, as well as other less obvious factors. And there will be no "one size fits all" resolution, here. It will be a unique combination of things, for each of us.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Hesaid/shesaid Be original. I said it to you first though with a lot less disdain. I don't care if you like us. I care that you listen and you don't.
You are on a Christian website trying to force/shove/cram your morals? Really? One of us has a problem with anecdotal evidence and huge burdens of proof (that really aren't or ever have been available).

No, I've been honest of where I'm at. You take personal affront, as well you should. There is no surprise here at this venture in dialogue for me.















Most people who have this confusion had one or two parents that caused the malady to occur (or other environmental influences).
Get this through your head, there is nothing wrong with the female human and you are a fool to think you can only be attracted homosexually. Our sexuality isn't particular, we are simply sexual and sexuality is a choice as well as learned behavior. There is no genetic predisposition that any scientist has ever found or established. Such is...

▲I'd listen to this guy▲



You are trying, desperately, to make up a reason and substantiation. The whole of society is trying desperately to help you and to date, to no avail.

What about the kid attracted to his sheep on the farm Uber? Is that 'normal' and genetic to you? Listen to this guy:

Excellent post! (You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Lon again.)

 

[bybee]

I don't think you're being entirely fair. You view this issue as being governed entirely by ideology and moral codes. But Uberpod is just trying to discuss the practical reality of it.

One of the unfortunate side effects of being a "believer" is that beliefs tend to trump practicality for the believer, to the point that they see life in terms of competing belief systems instead of actual events and relationships. And they don't understand that when they are talking to a "non-believer", they are talking to someone who sees life in terms if actual events and relationships, and not in terms of belief systems or moral codes. At least not initially, anyway.

Actual reality is complex, and there are lots of aspects of it that we don't fully understand, and so we need to be careful about just making blind assumptions based on minimal information just because they reinforce our belief systems. Especially when we're trying to converse with someone who doesn't hold to our belief system.

This may be a Christian web site, but it's clear that it's inviting "non-believers" to come and discuss these issues. So I think it's only appropriate to try and relate to the people we invite to participate, here, in a way that respects their point of view, even if we don't agree with it.

From Uberpod's perspective, this issue is not about anyone's belief system, or corresponding moral codes, it's about trying to determine the functionality of a complex set of ideas and relationships.

So far there is very clear evidence to support the idea that sexual orientation is very often built into us from birth, simply by the fact that there are millions of human beings that attest to having been attracted to one sex or another from as far back as they can remember. And it would be just blind ignorance not to believe what they are telling us. However, the exact source of these feelings remains a mystery. There is evidence of it being both a genetic inclination and the result of social experiences. And as with most things, the truth likely to be a combination of both of these, as well as other less obvious factors. And there will be no "one size fits all" resolution, here. It will be a unique combination of things, for each of us.

My dear PureX, I do not have to respect another person's point of view! What I must respect, for the greater good, is his/her right to hold a view with which I differ.
It is a tragedy to me that The Boy Scouts of America, a group formed to help mold young boys into fine young men of good character has been forced to change it's very foundation values due to the power of public opinion.
In any case our modern societie's determination to inject sex into every nook and cranny of our communal existence has become a noxious plague.
"Boy Scout's" are boys! Sexual orientation need not be a topic of conversation. Let children be children.

If a faction of the Homosexual community believe's that children must be sorted out by sexual orientation I am suspicious of their motivation.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

My dear PureX, I do not have to respect another person's point of view! What I must respect, for the greater good, is his/her right to hold a view with which I differ.
It is a tragedy to me that The Boy Scouts of America, a group formed to help mold young boys into fine young men of good character has been forced to change it's very foundation values due to the power of public opinion.
In any case our modern societie's determination to inject sex into every nook and cranny of our communal existence has become a noxious plague.
"Boy Scout's" are boys! Sexual orientation need not be a topic of conversation. Let children be children.

If a faction of the Homosexual community believe's that children must be sorted out by sexual orientation I am suspicious of their motivation.

Very well said Bybee, all wise!

 

[alwight]

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.

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

 

[bybee]

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.

I disagree with you here. The BSA chose to knuckle under to public opinion. They chose to change their basic, time-tested premises and now shall become a different entity.
Whether or not they shall continue as a viable organization with their new premises remains to be seen.

 

[PureX]

My dear PureX, I do not have to respect another person's point of view! What I must respect, for the greater good, is his/her right to hold a view with which I differ.

How can you respect another person's right to hold a different point of view and then ignore or belittle their point of view?

My comment was to Lon, who was not recognizing that Uberpod was not looking at this issue via a belief system, or it's moral codes. I'm not saying Lon must agree with Uberpod, but since TOL does invite "non-believers" to participate in these discussions, we should at least understand and respect the fact that they ARE non-believers, and so will not view these issues in the same way as the "believers" do.

Any fool can claim they respect other people's right to view these issues in their own way, but the validity of that statement resides in their actually doing that. And that means being willing to listen and try to understand their perspective, just as you hope they would do, in return.

It is a tragedy to me that The Boy Scouts of America, a group formed to help mold young boys into fine young men of good character has been forced to change it's very foundation values due to the power of public opinion.

We all understand that quite clearly. Now, how well have you understood Uberpod's point of view? Have you even tried? Do you think there might be some validity to his perspective? Or that you might share some common ground on the issue?

Why invite people onto TOL who have different perspectives and ideas on things if we're not only going to refuse to listen to or understand them, but all we really want to do is ignore and insult them for having shared it? All that happens when we do that, is that we learn nothing, and they learn that we are just a bunch of bullies and ignoramuses.

In any case our modern society's determination to inject sex into every nook and cranny of our communal existence has become a noxious plague.
"Boy Scout's" are boys! Sexual orientation need not be a topic of conversation. Let children be children.

I agree. But the fact is that children do have their own kind of sexuality, whether we like to admit it, or not. And some of them will have homosexual feelings whether we like it, or not. And it's important that we don't create unnecessary trauma for them just because it suits our own bigoted and ignorant belief systems.

If a faction of the Homosexual community believe's that children must be sorted out by sexual orientation I am suspicious of their motivation.

No less so than the religious community who wants so badly to do exactly the same thing.

 

[bybee]

How can you respect another person's right to hold a different point of view and then ignore or belittle their point of view?

My comment was to Lon, who was not recognizing that Uberpod was not looking at this issue via a belief system, or it's moral codes. I'm not saying Lon must agree with Uberpod, but since TOL does invite "non-believers" to participate in these discussions, we should at least understand and respect the fact that they ARE non-believers, and so will not view these issues in the same way as the "believers" do.

Any fool can claim they respect other people's right to view these issues in their own way, but the validity of that statement resides in their actually doing that. And that means being willing to listen and try to understand their perspective, just as you hope they would do, in return.
We all understand that quite clearly. Now, how well have you understood Uberpod's point of view? Have you even tried? Do you think there might be some validity to his perspective? Or that you might share some common ground on the issue?

Why invite people onto TOL who have different perspectives and ideas on things if we're not only going to refuse to listen to or understand them, but all we really want to do is ignore and insult them for having shared it? All that happens when we do that, is that we learn nothing, and they learn that we are just a bunch of bullies and ignoramuses.
I agree. But the fact is that children do have their own kind of sexuality, whether we like to admit it, or not. And some of them will have homosexual feelings whether we like it, or not. And it's important that we don't create unnecessary trauma for them just because it suits our own bigoted and ignorant belief systems.
No less so than the religious community who wants so badly to do exactly the same thing.

Because of my statements you have classified me as a fool. So be it.
My thought is that children may be joined in common endeavors to help build character without injecting sexual practices into the curriculum.
I do understand that they shall be themselves. I do believe that guidance may help them on the road to becoming themselves.

 

[Quincy]

There is just something wrong about young people building an identity around their sexual orientation. I'm all for gay rights and same-sex marriage, but sexual orientation should be an adult matter. This is disturbing.

It's just as disturbing to see conservative religionists focusing on the fact it is some homosexuals flaunting their maladjusted identities instead of seeing it as sexuality has become so intrusive in our society that it has reached youth organizations. Disturbing.

 

[PureX]

Because of my statements you have classified me as a fool. So be it.

I haven't classified you at all. You apparently have done that to yourself.

My thought is that children may be joined in common endeavors to help build character without injecting sexual practices into the curriculum.

I don't see any suggestion that sex be a part of the Boy Scout "curriculum". What do you mean?

I do understand that they shall be themselves. I do believe that guidance may help them on the road to becoming themselves.

They already are themselves, aren't they? Or are you saying that via our "guidance", they may becomes more what you would want them to be?

That's what I think this whole argument is about: one side wants to use the Boy Scouts to "mold" a legion of young heterosexual Christian boys. While the other side wants to use the Scouts to mold a legion of young open-minded, homosexually tolerant boys. When in truth they are already who they are, which is a mixture of all kinds of boys. And what the Boy Scouts should really be about is just helping all those different boys to become intelligent, capable, law-abiding men.

 

[alwight]

I disagree with you here. The BSA chose to knuckle under to public opinion. They chose to change their basic, time-tested premises and now shall become a different entity.
Whether or not they shall continue as a viable organization with their new premises remains to be seen.

The BSA is now more in line with the worldwide scout movement it seems to me, why shouldn't it cater for the secular world at large, it doesn't exist simply to promote one particular or Christian religious view?
Secular society these days it seems no longer condones discrimination against a particular minority group of people or homophobia, a good thing too imo. Why should the BSA exclude those who just happen to be gay or so it would seem to most secular people? Or at least so it seems to those who decide for themselves about it, who don't simply adhere to a strict religious doctrinal view of sexual orientation in lieu of their own.

 

[The Barbarian]

I disagree with you here. The BSA chose to knuckle under to public opinion. They chose to change their basic, time-tested premises and now shall become a different entity.

They became a different entity when they first got into judging sexual orientations. That is not what the Boy Scouts were founded for. It was never an issue at the troop level. We didn't get into people's sexual identities. At that age, kids shouldn't be doing sex at all. Prior to 1978, there was no policy on sexual orientation.

Whether or not they shall continue as a viable organization with their new premises remains to be seen.

Perhaps they are just returning to their roots, as an organization to build character in boys, rather than taking sides in culture wars. The public is tired of it all, and no doubt that had its effect, as did contributions from companies unwilling to offend most of their customers.

 

[bybee]

The BSA is now more in line with the worldwide scout movement it seems to me, why shouldn't it cater for the secular world at large, it doesn't exist simply to promote one particular or Christian religious view?
Secular society these days it seems no longer condones discrimination against a particular minority group of people or homophobia, a good thing too imo. Why should the BSA exclude those who just happen to be gay or so it would seem to most secular people? Or at least so it seems to those who decide for themselves about it, who don't simply adhere to a strict religious doctrinal view of sexual orientation in lieu of their own.

On the other hand, one might ask "Why can't the Boy Scouts define their own mission?"
I don't give a fig about another person's sexual orientation! I'd just like them to keep the fig leaf in place!

 

[bybee]

I haven't classified you at all. You apparently have done that to yourself.
I don't see any suggestion that sex be a part of the Boy Scout "curriculum". What do you mean?
They already are themselves, aren't they? Or are you saying that via our "guidance", they may becomes more what you would want them to be?

That's what I think this whole argument is about: one side wants to use the Boy Scouts to "mold" a legion of young heterosexual Christian boys. While the other side wants to use the Scouts to mold a legion of young open-minded, homosexually tolerant boys. When in truth they are already who they are, which is a mixture of all kinds of boys. And what the Boy Scouts should really be about is just helping all those different boys to become intelligent, capable, law-abiding men.

You are an insufferable person.

 

[PureX]

You are an insufferable person.

It's my job, here.

 

[bybee]

It's my job, here.

A+

 

[alwight]

On the other hand, one might ask "Why can't the Boy Scouts define their own mission?"

They just did.