Rooster7

Matthew 7:12 --- But I think you knew that

CubsReg8, shemgren covers your question pretty well. It's possible to do the job and not be 1st Class (or above), but that's a pretty good yardstick. As for age, its possible to do this job at age 11 or 12, but I'd say 13 is better. It greatly depends on the maturity of the Scout. As shemgren stated, you don't want a Den Chief that will act like one of the boys. You want one that will help your den leader, set the example, and demonstrate leadership. Unfortunately, it has been my experience, most boys over the age of 12 are not interested. A variety of reasons play into this, but probably the two biggest are these: 1) They don't want the responsibility...It is a tough job. 2) They prefer to spend the time with boys their own age. Some 11 and 12 year-olds are eager to serve as Den Chief. It's their opportunity to be "looked up to." Yet, as was already stated, be sure the boy is mature enough to take the job seriously, and to be taken seriously by others. Just my thoughts...

sctmom, You bring up great points. I have befriended many, many folks in Scouting. However, I don't trust any to be alone with my son. The pedophile is an "expert" at gaining the trust of parents...this is how he succeeds so often. However, on the other end of the spectrum, I have no problem being alone with my son on a Scout outing. I think the boys clearly understand the difference. Also, I think it goes beyond the pale of reason. They're our children. We're legally charged to look out for their interest and to protect them. Unless a parent has demonstrated behavior, which generates doubt about his/her character, I see no reason why they cannot be left alone. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

So many people are convinced that their way is the only right way, that maybe the national motto should be changed to "My way or the highway." Or, as an evangelical Christian might bluntly proselytize, "Love, follow, and believe in Christ or suffer eternal damnation". This is especially true for people who think they have "found the answer" on religion, like a few of our regular posters here. I use to despise folks that had an unwavering faith in God. These people would speak about God as if they alone understood Him and the purpose of life. I resented their faith and the implications it had for mine. I couldn't speak that confidently. "What gave them the right to do so? Who the hell did they think they were?" The truth is, I despised them because I envied their confidence. If my faith had been as strong, their statements would not have disturbed me. In fact, if my faith had been as strong, I would have pitied them for not knowing the truth. Since that time, I have searched and prayed for God to reveal himself to me. I now know who God is. While some folks may not like my statement of faith, it should not be construde as an attack on theirs. It is merely a reflection of my confidence in who God is and what He is calling us to do. The Christian faith calls us to be believers, not doubters. God has given me this gift and a commandment to share it. It's that simple. And that attitude has become reflected within the BSA, through the imposition of one type of religious belief as the national standard for adult leaders. I disagree. I have seen many people argue that BSA, as a values based organization, needs to enforce a set of moral standards. These standards are not from one religion (or "one type of religious belief"). They are, for the most part, reflected in the major religions of the world (Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Hindu, etc.). If BSA included every religion, there would be no standards (too many contradictions between the religions). Likewise, if religion were removed from the equation, there would be no standards (no basis for the standards except personal opinion). BSA has adopted a set of standards, which includes the world's major faiths. This policy provides a solid basis for the program, and makes it attractive to the majority (boys and their families) in this country. Catering the policy to make a few feel welcomed, would be at the expense of repulsing many more. For the sake of unity and inclusiveness, the majority can be (and perhaps should be) asked to give up many things. However, the one thing the majority should never give up for the sake of unity and inclusiveness is its sense of morality. Else, you should burn a hole in your conscience and live as if you do not have one. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

We all must understand that we all have opinions like belly buttons... That's funny. I always thought I was stuck with my belly button. I didn't know I could pick and chose. I agree we should treat each other with respect. However, that does not mean I should respect what you believe. There is only one truth. Perhaps, I don't know what it is...perhaps, you do. Regardless, more often than not, peoples' religious beliefs are mutually exclusive. In other words, different faiths are quite often contradictory to one another. To say, "both are right" is illogical. One can know the truth...but one can never pick the truth.

Interesting observation...But how did Daniel feel about his white pants?

I'm not an avowed heterosexual. That is to say, I don't go around telling everyone that I'm a heterosexual. Nevertheless, when I have sex with a female (my wife), I'm demonstrating my sexual preference. I'm not saying that all homosexual's are pedophiles, and I'm not saying that all pedophiles are homosexuals. I am saying, this pedophile demonstrated homosexual behavior. It's important that we don't hide the facts. It's important that this kind of information is collected and analyzed. Otherwise, the truth will not be known.

As you already know, I am not for the local option. Yet, your questions are interesting to me. Here are some more ugly realities to deal with: 1) If such a policy was going to be developed (i.e., for Safe Scouting), how would BSA attempt to enforce it? In other words, would they require us to ask each boy to identify his sexual orientation? Imagine asking each 11 year-old boy that question as he entered your troop. What if he said he wasn't sure? What if he lies about it? 2) Should a self-avowed homosexual Scout ever be allowed to sleep in the same tent with another boy? Would you ask a boy if he was attracted to a particular girl, as a litmus test, prior to allowing him to sleep in the same tent? No, we assume that healthy heterosexual boys, particularly teenagers, are attracted to most girls of the same age. What makes the homosexual boy any different? 3) What if the other boys refused to share a tent with him? Would troops force a boy to share a tent with a homosexual? 4) What if a 17 year-old self-professed homosexual boy and a 12 year-old heterosexual boy shared the same tent? What if mom and dad didn't know anything about it until after the camping trip? 5) What if the same 17 year-old convinced the 12 year-old to have sex with him? Would you say the 12 year-old made "a self discovery"...or would you say he was molested? OH MY! What a tangled web we would weave! These are just some of the questions that popped into my mind (thanks to Bob's conjecturing). Given a little time and imagination, just think of the bizarre and twisted stories that would ooze out of Scouting due to such an "open minded" policy change. God help us should that ever happen.

From the NY Post: YEAR IN JAIL FOR SODOMITE SCOUTMASTER By LAURA ITALIANO May 8, 2002 -- The boy-sodomizing scoutmaster of the Upper East Side's Troop 666 fessed up in court yesterday - but was given a summer vacation from prison, to the anger of his victim's family. Under the surprise deal in Manhattan Supreme Court, married, 42-year- old Jerrold Schwartz pleaded guilty to four instances of sodomizing a scout in the fall of 1996. The boy was only 12 when the abuse began, and four other victims have come forward with credible accusations that are too old to take action on, prosecutors said in court papers. Schwartz will serve at least a year in prison, said Justice Charles Solomon. But he won't start until sometime in August, so, as his lawyer put it, he can "attend to his affairs." Schwartz will spend the summer in Colorado, said the lawyer, Robert Fogelnest. Amazingly, Schwartz, who is free on $25,000 bail, continues to own a tour-bus company there that caters to scouting trips. My questions are: 1) What happen to Youth Protection in this troop? Why didn't it work? 2) One year for sodomizing a 12-year-old boy? Three months for each incident? Who is sicker - the judge or the scoutmaster? 3) Okay, I know this guy is a pedophile. Neverthelesshow come whenever a story such as this is reported, we're supposed to forget the guy's orientation? * * I think the sexual behavior of a masochist is pretty reprehensible too. However, if it were between a man and a woman, I'd call him/her a heterosexual masochist. If it was between two men, I'd called him a homosexual masochist. Yet, whenever a homosexual commits one of these crimes against our children, we're supposed to pretend that he has no orientation. Or just as bad, if the boy was older - say 15 or 16, the mantra is, "If it's consensual, then no crime has been committed." Homosexual activists would purport, "The boy was discovering his sexuality". Sorry, pet peeve of mineSpin the story to either disassociate the bad behavior from your favorite group, or change the nature of the behavior so it's not considered bad. Any way you look at it, a man who prefers to have sex with a male took advantage of a young child. Don't tell me the "slippery slope" doesn't exist. If a man is unwilling to recognize and/or deal with his moral condition, depravity will lead to more depravity.

Quixote, Math has no politics. sctmom, History is all about politics. How a story from the past is presented to our children today, may very well determine who will be president in 20 years. Many look upon conservatives with disdain because we point to the liberalization of our institutions and cry foul. Your complaint concerning your son's history book demonstrates this fact. I hope you're a member of the PTA. I hope you show the same fire there as you do on this board. Better yet, take a good look at the candidates running for your local board of education (next year?). As for your son's grade...obviously, your son would do much better if he got in touch with his feelings ...why memorize all of those boring facts?

I agree with LongHaul and Quixote. This debate/discussion is not likely going to change anyone's mind that has taken a position based on a "core value" (i.e., centered on one's faith and/or sense of morality, or lack thereof). However, I am not arguing to change NJ's mind. My effort and concern in this debate is focused on convincing the "fence sitters" (and I'm assuming this is true for NJ as well). I want to present sound arguments to Scouts/Scouters that are still undecided. If this debate ever reaches national again, I'm hoping there will be more of "us" verses "them" to ensure the policy remains intact. Having said this, I have three quick counter arguments for NJ: In regard to having a standard, my point was focused on BSA as a private organization. Of course, there are different opinions and laws concerning this issue across the nation. Nevertheless, BSA as a values based group should have a consistent moral stance across the nation. And the boys will think about it, contrary to your suggestion. In regard to camping together, it will be become an issue for many troops. In particular, it will be for troops that do not want homosexuals in their ranks. Furthermore, if you think this will only affect a few "fanatical" troops, I believe you're very much mistaken. Finally, your last paragraph in which you invoke the ugly stories and memories associated with racial discrimination is nothing more than a cheap ploy. I'm not an African American, but I know this. Many African Americans take offense to your analogy. Why? Because it compares behavior (a sexual perversion) to a physical trait (race), and the latter has nothing to do one's character. If you want to make this kind of comparison, then talk about "apples and apples" not "apples and oranges". Your comparison is not only flawed analytically, it is grossly inflammatory to people of color. Furthermore, as someone who takes his faith seriously, I find your comparison offensive as well. It insinuates that my position (as well as the position of most others posting on this issue) is based on bigotry and hatred as opposed to morality. Again, a weak and distasteful distraction, created to sway attention from the real arguments. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

CubRgr8, My guess is, the Scoutmasters may be having a hard time finding boys interested in being a Den Chief. IMHO, Den Chief is the hardest leadership position a Boy Scout can take on. As we all know, a bunch of 7, 8, 9, and 10 year old boys can provide plenty of excitement, even for us adults. A dedicated and enthusiatic Den Chief may be hard to come by. Then, to add insult to injury, some den leaders do not treat their Den Chiefs properly. It's a tough job. If you have a connection in a troop, perhaps you can let some boys know that you're interested. Ask them to ask their Scoutmaster and SPL about the possibly of filling the vacancy.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

This shouldn't be anymore complicated than having a brief conversation with the troop's SPL and Scoutmaster. Of course, the Webelos Den Leader and the Cubmaster need to agree as well. To my knowledge, there isn't an age limitation for Den Chiefs. Unless there are other issues, I don't see it being a problem.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

You see this argument as "me versus you" or "us versus them" I may see this as "us verses them", but I think we'll both lose perspective if it becomes "me verses you". I believe in what I'm saying (as you probably do). If I take your response too personally (for the good or bad), I will present a poor argument. In the end, I suspect that you are right in your conclusionyou and I (Rooster and tjhammer) probably have more in common than most other folks, yet we're at polar ends of this debate on this forum. This fact can make it difficult to debate you (as well as some of my friends), because I want the discussion stay friendly (as for the most part, it has been). It's not my intent to offend. For the sake of argument, view homosexuality through my eyes and try to stay with me until the end (before you formulate your counter arguments). What do I believe? It's a behavior. It's wrong. It's immoral. It may or may not be a mental disorder. It may or may not be innate. It can potentially put others at risk (because of the "slippery slope"one can become more and more depraved). Okay(before anyone gets too excited), that's my list of concerns (not necessarily BSA's). If you accept the above list, then one could quite easily equate homosexuality with a number of other vices. For my purposes, I want to use alcoholism. Now, let's revisit your statementIt's also fine if you don't want to "associate" with me because of my belief. If you don't want me in your troop, I'll understand and just start another one across town. Suppose you are an alcoholic. I would not want you to be a Scout or Scouter until your condition was resolved (i.e., recovering alcoholic). In other words, you'd need to recognize your condition, admit to its wrongness, and get on a road to recovery. Nevertheless, I would still be willing to "associate" with you. I have no fear or hatred of you because of this condition. However, I would not want you as an active member of a troop. If you were not willing to recognize and/or resolve your condition, after time, I probably would disassociate myself with you. Suppose you're not an alcoholic, but believe alcoholism is not a problem. Suppose, "some of your best friends" drink a lot and you see no reason to discriminate against them. If you honestly believe this, I would vehemently disagree with you (as we are doing right now over the condition of homosexuality). I would try to convince you that alcoholism is wrongshow you the destructiveness of the behaviorshow you how its an evil that will ruin lives. As long as I'm convinced that you and others are arguing because "you see no evil" then I will always try to be polite and diplomatic in my arguments. Moreover, I would see no reason to disassociate myself with you. Additionally, I would see no reason why you could not be in a troop as a Scout or Scouter. However, if you made your position known within the troop in an overt manner, then I would argue for your removal. You would be subverting an established BSA policy (i.e., homosexuals are not proper role models). On the other hand, if you pursued this argument through proper channels via the BSA (not at the troop level), then I would not argue for your removal. Although, I would still disagree with your position and counter your arguments via any process available to me within the BSA. If I discovered that your motives were less than noble. That is to say, if you demonstrated that you recognized the evils of alcoholism, but were intent on seeking its acceptance, I would probably become much more hostile in my replies (not by design, but as a human reaction). I would have to presume that you prefer a world without judgment (right or wrong)a world without morality or consequences. Which, for many of us, would make living a whole lot more comfortable. I see a philosophy presented by some (not necessarily by you), which would embrace that day. I'm convinced that many folks are willing to accept just about anything, because in the end, they see it as a way to permit them to do just about anything. If you showed yourself to be such a person, I would disassociate myself from you and argue for your removal. So, I hope this clears up my position. As I've said, I don't hate homosexuals. This would be wrong. I view them in the same way as I view alcoholics, adulterers, and drug addicts. Nor do I necessarily want to disassociate myself with someone who supports them. The key word here is "necessarily". It all comes down to motive. This can be difficult to discern at times. For the most part, I try to give folks the benefit of the doubt. If a person ignores a cogent line of reasoning, or if one argues in a circle (repeating points that were already disproved), I tend to believe that such a person has less than noble purposes. I like to think if two moral and logical persons share an intellectual conversation, they'll come to an agreement. Unfortunately, I can't prove this theory. I'd have to be God to truly know another person's motives. Why can we not empower these same parents to make this decision for themselves? Why can't this become a complete non-issue by taking it to the local unit level? First, there would be no national standard for what it means to be a Scout or Scouter in the BSA. Your troop's definition of moral and reverent would be dramatically different than mine. Of course, there are some differences now, but we're talking about a basic tenant (not whether or not one should pray five times day or continually, or whether or not one should go to their place of worship on a Saturday or a Sunday). Second, the founders (and if not them, then the current powers-to-be) want it to be this way. An organization should be able to define itself. If you can convince the majority of a bridge club (and/or the ones overseeing such a club) to let poker players join, then more power to you. However, by all appearances (and thankfully so from my perspective), the current overseers of the BSA and the majority of Scouts and Scouters like the organization as it stands today. It has a national standard for membership. It has a national standard for rank advancement. It has national standards for almost every aspect of the program. Consequently, we all know what it means to be an Eagle Scout. I don't have to be a member of that boy's troop to appreciate and understand his fitness, abilities, and character as an Eagle Scout. At least, that's the goal. When one becomes a Scout, and in particular an Eagle Scout, there should be a definitive meaning and understanding of that event. It shouldn't be something that changes from troop to troop. How would your unit be effected if a troop across town or across the country were to allow a 16-year-old gay Scout to remain a member or admit the gay father of a boy to be an Assistant Scoutmaster for the troop?? First, see the previous paragraph again. Second, we would have contradictory standards. What kind of message does that send to the Scouts? It's immoral in the Mid-West but not on the West Coast. It's okay in D.C., but not in Baltimore. Worse, it's wrong on the south side of "Smallville", but not the west side. Third, we would not be able to share the same facilities. We would not be able to camp together. Imagine the struggle BSA would have trying to balance that logistical nightmare. I don't think it can be done. Forth, imagine the political squabbles that would result between troops, particularly if one troop were given access to a resource, which precluded the other. Imagine the exchange of words between troops supporting membership for homosexuals and those that do not. Don't you think the media would have a field day? Reporters would use it as a catalyst to pit troops against one another? "Scoutmaster John Smith says thisHow do you respond? Fifth, imagine the squabbles within each local troop. What happens when Scouter Jane Doe (having just arrived in Kansas from Berkley) decides that the local troop should change its policy? How much harm could this do to a troop? Sixth, I would be morally against any BSA policy that would encourage a 16-year-old boy to accept and/or embrace homosexuality as his fate. I find this idea to be reprehensible. This, in fact, is one of the ways homosexuals seek to recruit the young. They want to encourage young boys (and girls) to think about homosexuality as something that they may want to embrace. They want to "counsel" confused boys and direct them down that road. I think BSA is taking the wisest course of action, which in my mind, is also the right course of action - Maintain a national policymaintain a national standardprohibit homosexuals from membership in the BSA.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

TJ, Well, this all certainly sheds some light on your perspective and on what specific aspects of the debate you should become educated on. Perhaps. Nevertheless, I must tell you I regularly read the newspapers and periodicals. I watch the evening news and the special reports. Given the day, it is almost impossible not to be "educated" on this subject from all aspects and perspectives. From the evidence that I can gather, homosexuals are intent on promoting their lifestyle until the world accepts it as normal. However, all of nature, common sense, and morality screams it is not so. Prejudiceperhaps, but not without reason. The essence, the basic meaning of this word, is to prejudge. Do I prejudge homosexuals? Yes, I find their behavior immoral and I will not trust my children to their care. If I was to base this judgment on a physical characteristic (such as race), I would be ashamed of this fact. However, my judgment is based on their self-admitted behavior which I'm convinced is a perversion. Hatredno. Certainly there are people who hate homosexuals. In my case, my faith as well as my heart, tells me this would be wrong. Yet, I do find their behavior to be shameful. Fearno. In fact, I doubt that most people actually fear homosexuals. This is a claim, created by homosexuals and their supporters, to maneuver others into accepting them as normal. I, and most of my like-minded friends, are not so naive that we can be controlled by such an manipulative accusation. If I have any fear, it is this - Society will accept the behavior as normal and continue a downward spiral to an amoral world. For many, including homosexuals, this will probably be a time to celebrate. For me, it will be a very sad day. Discriminationonly if it means I'm forced to leave my children in their care. Who's the victim? The self-professing homosexuals who demand the right to teach your child? Or, is it the parents who want control over who and how their children are educated, but is told to yield to the homosexual for the sake of his\her rights? Just like the vast majority of conservatives are not fanatical, right wing, Bible-thumping fear-mongers. Hmmm. Fanatical, as in one who is passionate about what he/she believes? Right wing as in Republican; or as in one who is pro-life, against the welfare state, and pro-family. Bible-thumping as in one who is willing to quote the Bible as if it's truly God's word? Fear mongers as in one who has concerns about the direction the country is heading? If my definitions are rightthen I guess the shoe fits. If you want more ammunition, here's some more. My family belongs to an evangelical church that believes in the Bible. We home-school. We've marched in D.C. for the rights of the unborn. I'm a member of Promise Keepers. I don't own any guns, but I believe in the right to do so. I don't think Dan Quayle was an idiot. I saw him as a victim of the liberal media. I think Ronald Reagan was a great president and a great man. I am extremely happy that George W. Bush is my president. I try to pray for him daily. I suppose I could go on and on, but the point is the same. By many folks' definition, I fit the description of the fanatical, right wing, Bible-thumping fear-monger. I can accept that as long as folks don't add and subtract attributes at their pleasure. In other words, I can accept the label as long as you don't use it as a catchall to infer things about me that may or may not be true. For example, it has been said that a fanatical will compromise his morals to achieve an end. Not true. Most of us believe in moral principle above anything else. Many folks who sit in the right-wing are accused of being racists. Not true. Most folks I know want to share the right side of the isle with all races. The morethe merrier. Some folks like to infer that Bible-thumpers don't read any other books. Again, not true. We're as well educated as the next guy. There are even Christian scientists who can support and argue for creationism as well as any evolutionist. Finally, some folks say "fear-mongers" are indiscriminate, arbitrarily spreading fear for the sake of disharmony. As you might have guessed, this is not true. Discord and anxiety is not our goal. To the contrary, it is our hope that our words will bring unity and focus. Our intention is to act as a lighthouse, not a haunted house (must be some Jessie Jackson in me somewhere). (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I have a strong suspicion concerning the statistic that Eisely quoted. I don't have a factual reference to back it up, but I'm going to say it anyway. I'm willing to bet, as a group, the disparity in ages between the said homosexuals having sex with minors is much greater than heterosexuals. In other words, sctmom makes it sound as if we are talking about high school "sweet hearts" (i.e., a 18-year boy and a 16-year girl). I suspect it's more like a 13 to 17 year-old boy and a 35 to 60 year-old coach, teacher, family friend, priest, etc. Of course, this happens between heterosexuals as well, but I'm convinced it's more prevalent in the homosexual community. I may well be wrong on this...It's only based on my observations in life. I will try to find some references to back up my claim. Someone said in a recent post that homosexuals are not predators (like pedophiles). I think many, if not most homosexuals, are predators. I think their ranks are filled with men (and women) who are militant about their cause. Their cause being - 1) "recruit" the young [i'm sure that'll draw fire] and 2) make the rest of the world accept us. We can go around on this issue forever. I know I will probably be portrayed as narrow-minded or much worse. Yet, I know in my heart of hearts, homosexuality is a sick world (not unlike alcoholism, pedophilia, drugs, pornography, and many other self-consuming vices). I detest it, but I pray for the people that have been drawn or dragged into it. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

You also have a legal right to believe that homosexuality is not a sin and that the BSA is bigoted for choosing to protect its youth from from the influence of a sinful lifestyle...But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Touche'

Can't add anything to that, but another AMEN.

No, belief in the Bible is not required. A Scout is free to believe in whatever faith he so desires. I don't think anyone in this forum ever suggested otherwise. However, I do contend this: BSA founders championed/endorsed Judeo-Christian values. There is a big difference between requiring folks to be a member of one's faith, and requiring folks to believe in the same core values (i.e., reverence for God, truthfulness, treat others as you would want to be treated, sobriety, sexual purity, etc.). I believe there is a set of core values that BSA expects all members to possess. Many of these values, if not all, are rooted in the faiths of Christianity and Judaism. Yet, these values are not exclusive to those two faiths.

I agree with Ed. It's either the Word of God or its merely another book. I believe it is the infallible Word of God. As for it being a choice? I say - Yes and No. Yes. Individuals in this country are free to believe whatever they desire. I wouldn't deny anyone that right. No. It is either true or it is not. What one chooses to believe does not necessarily reflect truth. The truth, as is God, is sovereign. It does not rely on anyone's opinion. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Bob, I am done with my conversation with TJ concerning the "bible" and do not intend to distract from the original topic. However, you said: You will read more gay bashing remarks in this forum than you ever have or ever will hear from the BSA. I urge you to go to the BSA national website and read what the BSA's stand on homosexuals really is. It is represented very poorly in this forum. Since you do not take the time to elaborate, this comment does somewhat irritate me. What exactly are you saying about whom? I have not seen any "gay bashing" on this forum (at least not in this thread). Nor have I seen anyone misrepresent BSA's policy. I find your remark inflammatory and without purpose, or at least without any noble purpose. Speaking for myself (and I have been one of the primary posters speaking out against homosexuality in this thread), I never claimed or implied that my view was a reflection of the BSA policy. If you wish to clarify something, please do. If you're going to make accusation, then be upfront about it. Don't hide behind inferences.

Lighten up Bob. A few words about the Bible are not going to harm you. No one's here to rain on your parade. If you got something to say about United Way, please say it. I'm sure folks are smart enough to pick up where it left off. As for our detour, "forgive" the transgression...no one meant to "pervert" anything.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Pedophilia is by its nature an adult who takes sexual advantage of a non-consenting (read not capable of consent) child. It is therefore immoral and also illegal (this gets back to the earlier debates with DedDad). Homosexuality is not predatory and does not require subordination of will by one party for the other. I think the latter part of your statement is debatable. Regardless, let's say it is a given that homosexuals do not create victims. Also, I will grant you without hesitation that the pedophile in not interested in obtaining the consent of the child (and even if he does, he would still be taking advantage of the child's immaturity and/or fears). Let's re-examine your preposition under that light - It's also intellectually (and religiously) dishonest to believe God made a being with the expectation that they would either "be a sinner" or be sentenced to a life absent of sexual intimacy. Does your proposition mention anything about the morality or legality of the behavior? Actually, it does not. Even if it did, that would be counterintuitive to your defense of homosexuality. Many states still outlaw homosexual acts based on the contention that it is immoral. Your claim is that God would not create a being with the expectation that he "be a sinner" (if he followed his sexual desires) or "sentenced to a life absent of sexual intimacy." This defense, if applied to one group, must be applied to all groups - regardless of legality or morality. Your statement is either true or false. It cannot be true for homosexuals, but false for pedophiles. I am arguing that the proposition is false. We are, in fact, inherently prone to be sinful. This is the preposition of the bible story. We have a corrupt nature. Thus, one must seek redemption through Christ and become born again. And the "God of the Bible" that you follow did send a NEW Gospel to man. In the same scripture you cite (mostly Old Testament) it also condones slavery, sacrifice, punishment (eye for an eye) and a lot of other things most Christians believe were abandoned by the New Testament (or just by time). First, if you read the Old Testament carefully, it does not condone slavery. In fact, there are many things attributed to Old Testament teachings that just are not true. The Old Testament, to my knowledge, does not mention pedophilia. Do you think it is endorsing it? Of course, it does not. Yes, the bible does reference slavery. However, if you want an honest interpretation, read it in context and don't add anything to those verses. For more on slavery and the Bible, reference this link: http://downloads.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/feeasm1851.htm#p30-alif Second, the New Testament does not nullify the law of the Old Testament. It releases us from bondage to it, but it does not negate the God's laws. If it were not for Christ, God's people would still have to make sacrifices. The Old Testament demonstrates to man how futile it would be to attempt to live by these laws with a corrupted nature. Additionally, the New Testament demonstrates to man that even if we could outwardly live the life that the Old Testament demands, we would still fall short because of what is in our hearts. Christ's sacrifice enables his people to stand before God with clean slates and pure hearts. Not because they earned it, but because they sought and accepted Christ's sacrifice. Thirdly, there are plenty of references in the New Testament that condones homosexuality as well. It's inconceivable to me how anyone could believe that and still permit the Bible to be translated, revised for political correctness and updated time and again. This is a very ironic statement. There are plenty of bible translations that have stated true to the original text (which were in Hebrew and Greek). The ironic part is this - Most bibles that have not stayed true to the original text (and "were revised for political correctness") are the liberal translations that condone the sinful lifestyles of the day (i.e., homosexuality). So, yes, I agree that these people are amazing. It is inconceivable that folks are so willing to change God's Word simply to achieve some level of security, however false it may be (i.e., so they can sin without any sense of guilt, shame, or condemnation from their self-proclaimed faith). The Mormon Church believes in an entirely new gospel, one that succeeds even the New Testament and was "God given" earlier this century. Do you accept that? Do you know what the New Testament says about "adding" to God's Word? Do you know how this book was supposedly revealed to mankind? In short, I do not believe Mormons are following the same God as other Christians. It's likely that most Mormons would say the same about other Christians - else we would see no need to convince one another about the truths of the Bible (or in their case, the book of Mormon). Regardless of how I feel about the Mormon faith, your original statement is not supportable. In fact, I don't really believe ANY part of the Bible is infallible, I only believe in the foundational teachings of Christ. Why believe in the foundational teachings of Christ? If the Bible is fallible, why believe in the story of Christ at all? You are telling me that parts of the Bible cannot be trusted as truth. How can anyone determine what parts are trustworthy? How do you know what parts are tainted by man and false? Your position is much more indefensible than mine. You are one that seems to be picking and choosing. Yes, I believe in the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Are there interpretations that one cannot or should not trust? Yes. However, if one does a little bit of research, it is not difficult to find a Bible, which has stayed faithful to the original texts. You surely don't accept all of the Old Testament as relevant and literal? Is all of it relevant? Yes, I believe it is. Is all of it relevant to every believer? May be not. I can't say how every verse is applicable to every believer. I do believe each verse has a purpose. If one reads the Bible in earnest, you will discover that there are parts that are symbolic. However, it is apparent when this is the case, because the teachings and stories of other verses will make it clear to the reader. Still, I believe most of God's Word is difficult, if not impossible, for many to understand because they have NOT truly sought God. God reveals truth to those who seek Him. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

It's also intellectually (and religiously) dishonest to believe God made a being with the expectation that they would either "be a sinner" or be sentenced to a life absent of sexual intimacy. TJ, Your statement defends pedophilia as much as it does homosexuality. How do you make the case for one and exclude the other? God made all men, including pedophiles. Per your preposition, "intellectual/religious dishonesty" is also victimizing pedophiles, not to mention a number of other sexual deviations. But it is at least refreshing to realize that official doctrine of that Church has come to grips with the innate nature of homosexuality... it's a step in the right direction to reckoning man's bigotry with God's will. Are talking about God's will or the homosexuals' will? The God of the bible does not defend homosexuality; it condemns it. Anyone who says otherwise has twisted Scripture to serve his/her purposes. Slontwovvy, The quotes you presenteddo they represent the teachings of the whole Church? Is this from Rome or the American Catholic Church? I am curious. Does anyone remember George Carling? He used to do a great comedy routine about the Catholic Church's view on sin. The gist of it was this - If you thought about sinning, planned a sin, and executed a sin, you really committed three sins. In other words, just contemplating homosexual acts would be a sin. As funny as the routine was, I agree with this teaching. Which by the way, this is further proof for man's need for an atoning sacrifice and redemption - Christ. Without out His gift, we are forever stained with sin. Our own thoughts, no matter how hard we might try, will condemn us. OGE, I grieve for all the young (and old) victims of pedophilia. I certainly can't say I know how you feel, nor would I ever try to guess. This is a horror, of which, only you and other victims can provide testimony. While I would never claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles, I do believe both are sins of a sexual nature. Furthermore, I believe once a man descends down a road of sin, particular of a sexual nature, he is capable of becoming even more corrupt. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

jmcquillan, For the record, I was never offended by your queston. I am a bit perplexed by the notion (not just your's, but TJ's as well) that the Catholic Church openly accepts gay (although celibate) priests. Perhaps there is more openess to this idea in the United States than I ever heard. TJ stressed that "...the American Catholic Church has long allowed gay priests." I am truly amazed if this is true. When I was practicing Catholic, I saw no evidence that the Church would ever accept that change. Can someone tell me, what Catholic churches do allow homosexuals to be priests, and how many of the 40 million American Catholics do they represent? I'm convinced that it must be a small minority, but I could be wrong.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)