NJ - This one is for you. Gay debate rages on...

[NJCubScouter 1389]

ProudEagle, with all respect, I think that your focus on the definition of "homosexual" in the BSA policy is misplaced. The phrase in question is "avowed homosexual." Since "homosexual" is modified by "avowed," the question as to whether one is homosexual is really only relevant if one is also "avowed." That fact allows the BSA to avoid most of the definitional issues attached to "homosexual." In other words, the BSA allows the gay person to define himself or herself as such, or not. If you say you're gay, then you are an "avowed homosexual," and if you don't, you are not, regardless of the fact that you may actually be gay.

 

So the key word really is "avowed," and we have had discussions here on several occasions about what that means. Again, it is almost self-defining. If people in the BSA find out that you have declared that you are gay, then you are "avowed." If only your parents and a few friends know about it, and none of them are talking, then you are probably not "avowed." The tricky situations include one that was presented by a member of this forum (who I haven't seen posting for awhile) who said that he had informed several Scouters of his orientation but he knew that these individuals would keep his disclosure confidential. It is similar to the old question about the tree falling in the forest, if nobody hears it, does it make a sound. If a few people do hear it, but they don't tell anybody, then it made a sound but the general public doesn't know it made a sound. On the other hand, if you post about it on an Internet forum that 2 or 3 billion people can read, but you don't use your real name, then did the tree make a sound? I think I gave an opinion on whether the person in question was "avowed" but at this moment I'm not quite sure what my opinion was. It isn't an easy one.

 

Someone else made a comment about a gay person being asked about his sexuality and acknowledging it. I just want to say that the BSA has made clear that Scouters and Scouts will NOT be asked about their sexuality. In fact, I believe there was a case where someone (a camp staffer I believe) WAS asked, in violation of the policy, "admitted" it, was fired, and then after some process was reinstated because the question should not have been asked in the first place. The implications of this are interesting. It means that one has to be "avowed" without having been asked, in order to be terminated. The BSA's policy is a true "don't ask don't tell" policy, as opposed to the military's current policy, which is really more like "Sometimes ask, don't even say anything that might lead to suspicion, which will then be fully investigated."

 

Of course, as I have said many times, I disagree with the policy and believe it should be a matter of unit option. But as long as the policy is what it is, we might as well all be clear on what it is.

[dsteele 20]

NJ --

 

I think I had a random bad memory event that projected the image in my brain of James Dale showing up to a gay rally in his uniform prior to his removal as an adult volunteer in the BSA. I was wrong about that.

 

I think I've seen pictures of him wearing the uniform after being removed as a leader, but I'm not sure about that.

 

DS

[silver-shark 10]

"I get the distinct impression, from the way you have asked the "question," that you asked it to make a point rather than to get an answer. But I'll answer it anyway. The answer is, of course: Never. It is not appropriate for Scouters to discuss their "private" lives with the Scouts."

 

I'm not trying to pick on you personally NJ, but trying to make a point about the way that some folks look at things like the Scout Oath and Law.

 

Your response to my question seems to indicate that as Scouters, (people that are to live by the same set of standards as the boys, namely the Scout Oath/Promise and Scout Law, OR HIGHER) it is not acceptable to avow anything of a sexual nature to OUR Scouts in the form of a discussion, but that it is OK to avow things of a sexual nature to children inside or outside of scouting in this age group, or slightly older, in the form of a newspaper interview, or by handing out information at a ralley.

 

This seems to be inconsistent with the manner in which Scouting came to the U.S. Without the mentallity that Scouting is a way of life, allday, everyday, the unknown scout would never have helped William Boyce all those years ago.

 

I'd be interested to know how many people in or out of the Scouting age group were reached by James Dale's message, of a sexual nature, not merely avowing his homosexuality, but tempting others to either embracce or accept HIS preferred, sexual, lifestyle.

 

I, and many others have a problem with this at multiple levels.

 

First, as a Christian, I beleive that the Holy Bible is the Word of God, given to man by Himself, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, throughout the history of mankind. Further, that it is the absolute Truth and our roadmap to eternal life.

 

Second, if one were to remove all references to the sins of sexual impurity, or sexual vice found within it, such as homosexuality, fornication, adultery, prostitution, etc... it would look like a big hunk of swiss cheese. The Bible clearly teaches us that these things are immoral/sinful, and that unless a person repents and turns away from these things they will not have eternal life.

 

Thirdly, Jesus gives a very stern warning against leading others, especially children, into temptation in "The Gospel According to Matthew 18:6, when He says,

 

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in and acknowledge and cleave to Me to stumble and sin [that is, who entices him or hinders him in right conduct or thought], it would be better (more expedient and profitable or adventageous) for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be sunk in the depth of the sea." Verse 7 goes on to say, "Woe to the world for such temptations to sin and influences to do wrong! It is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the person on whose account or by whom the temptation comes!"

 

With his temptations and enticements to sin or explore sin in this sexually impure/immoral manner, I personally believe that James Dale, and others like him are no better than a barker outside of a strip club in the seedy part of town enticing you to "Come on in and enjoy the show."

 

Do all people in Scouting believe as I do? No.

 

Has the BSA gone after homosexuals, banning all of them from it? No.

 

The BSA doesn't have a problem with homosexuals until they AVOW their homosexuality, thus stating either directly or indirectly that they find it to be a morally acceptable way of life, thus being a contradictory role model to MANY within the Scouting Movement.

 

Does this mean that I hate or dislike James Dale or others like him? Of course not! I don't want anyone to miss out on the opportunity of eternal life, but there is a price tag associated with it and that price tag is repentance. Through God's Grace (which He freely gives even to sinners) there is no sin that can't be forgiven if the sinner sincerely repents and turns away from the sin.

 

If Christians disliked or hated sinners we wouldn't let them in on this, we'd merely let them flounder their fleshly lives away instead of spreading this message.

 

Climbing down from soap box now,

 

silver-shark

 

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"Please read my words closely - "

 

Please read the Bible closely. I don't have access to the original Greek but the KJV says, "if you lust after a woman in your heart, you have committed adultery."

 

If you are daydreaming about nubile young women, that's lust hence you have committed adultery.

 

 

[silver-shark 10]

Goodmorning Fat Old Guy.

 

I can see how some people could have slightly differing views of how to interpret the passage that you are referring to, in Matthew 5:28.

 

The thing is, that all one has to do is wholeheartedly repent and turn away from this way of thinking. I'm sure that this is what Jimmy Carter has done.

 

The avowed homosexual however, is not only continuing to justify in his or her mind that their behavior is acceptable, thus continually refusing to repent, but they are attempting to drag other people down with them when they try to justify this.(This message has been edited by silver-shark)

[Rooster7 11]

FOG,

 

We're probably splitting hairs, but...

 

My intention in the previous posts was to illustrate someone who's been tempted with sinful thoughts, but rejects them not just as a course of action, but as thoughts that one would knowingly keep in ones mind and heart. As for the daydreaming - that term leaves open a number of possibilities. I probably should have found another way to describe the temptation. Obviously I'm not God, so I can't say when a person's daydreaming crosses over into an embracement of a sin. I believe many men are tempted, but as soon as they become consciously aware of their wondering thoughts, they reject the sin. I'm convinced that this is not what Jesus meant. I believe Jesus was referencing an individual who willfully holds a sin in his heart. A question that only God can answer is What did Jimmy Carter do when he confronted himself with the lust that he apparently had in his heart? Did he embrace it and continue to daydream about women? Or, did he reject those thoughts? There are many in this world that think that they will not be held accountable for thoughts - only actions. I believe that was the point that Jesus was making. The Old Covenant "only" held people accountable for their deeds. Jesus was saying, you must also consider what is in your heart.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Rooster7 11]

FOG,

 

BTW, what is "nubile"?

 

Let me try to break this down some more:

 

1) You go to the beach.

2) There are women on the beach dressed in very revealing swimsuits.

3) You notice these women.

4) A thought enters your mind, "Man, that's a beautiful woman!" (or something of the sort)

 

At this time, I don't think a man is lusting in his heart. I think he's simply processing what's in front of his eyes. However, I do believe that if we're alive in the spirit at all, at this particular moment, typically one realizes that he needs to make a conscience decision. Do I continue to go with these thoughts wherever they may drag me (and as men, we all know where that will be)? Or, do I reject this journey? Do I say, "This is not going to honor God. I am about to cross over a line where I know I will ultimately sin - if not in the physical world, then in the spiritual world - in my heart."

 

So, are we still in disagreement?

[acco40 95]

Rooster7,

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. You view homosexuality as something one "does", I view it as something one "is."

[Rooster7 11]

acco40,

 

I think that's an over simplification of what I said.

 

I'm saying, it's what you take into your heart that will ultimately define who you are, what you stand for, and who you want as your Lord. It's your choice to embrace or reject sinful thoughts. It's your choice to embrace or reject righteous thoughts. God calls us to righteousness. You can fool your friends, family, and neighbors, but you can't fool Him. God knows your heart. He knows every thought and desire that your heart produces. You can pretend this is about "mother nature" or genetics, but I have no doubt it's more about sinful desires and our willingness to turn from them and accept God as Lord and Savior. So, we can debate this til the cows come home, but in the end - He will judge us all and it will be a righteous outcome.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Hunt 11]

God can judge us by what we "are," and by our inmost thoughts, feelings, and desires--but I don't think human institutions should try to judge people that way, but should concentrate on what they do. Even judging people by what they say is dicey--consider the following hypothetical statements, and consider which ones would result in BSA removing the adult leader from his or her position:

"I am a practicing homosexual."

"I am a former homosexual, but now I'm celibate."

"I am a former homosexual, but now I'm cured."

"I am a celibate homosexual."

"I am a practicing bisexual."

"I have certain homosexual urges, but I'm basically heterosexual."

"I am heterosexual, but I occasionally engage in homosexual behavior."

"I am heterosexual, but I think there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality."

"I am homosexual, but I am undergoing psychiatric treatment to cure me of this disorder."

"I am not a homosexual, but I live with a person of the same sex in a platonic relationship--and we're going to adopt a child together."

"I believe that I'm genetically homosexual, but I have overcome my genetic programming and I'm in a happy heterosexual marriage."

I don't envy the person who has to enforce BSA's policy.

[NWScouter 9]

Silver Shark,

You have pointed out the great paradox in this whole debate. Whose religion is the norm the BSA is following? You proclaim your definition of Christianity as the basis for the rule on homosexuality. There are many Christians that would disagree with many of your statements of Christian belief. The Boy Scouts encompasses many other faiths here in the US and around the world that are not Christian. To define and defend a stand based on your religious beliefs ignores that diversity.

 

[Rooster7 11]

I think "avowed" is pretty straight forward (no pun intended). It's people who dislike the policy that want to make it complicated. If the policy were against avowed alcoholics, no one would even try to play the word game.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Rooster, once again you feel free to impugn the motives of others, but if someone questions your motives, you raise a big ruckus and start new threads with peoples' "names" in them. Evidently your indignation over "personal attacks" only runs in one direction.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Rooster says:

 

So, we can debate this til the cows come home, but in the end - He will judge us all and it will be a righteous outcome.

 

So why not just let him? And save the judgment of mankind for those people and acts that do actual harm to others?

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

In my last post, him = Him, if you like.

 

I personally feel much more comfortable leaving the issue of the morality of consensual conduct in His hands. The very fact that there is such deep division among mankind on this issue suggests to me that we are not really up to the task.