Gay parents influence on kids

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

When a person's intent is to understand the Bible, it is not an act that approximates ignoring the Bible. The act of casting dispersions (i.e., eternal damnation) on alternate interpretations inherently is based on a religion/god of fear driven by an insane desire for sameness. The centuries old Ecumenical Councils used a similar style to reign in the heretics but it generally was done with force instead of words. The present day fear is that words will turn into force. The sword of God will be wielded by those who have taken it upon themselves to divide the lambs from the rams to let the slaughter begin yet again.

 

Obviously, Heaven doesn't belong to one person, belief, denomination, church, or faith as has been advertised. It appears that no one person has a lock on God. God has made his presence known in every corner of the globe throughout all times. It is a tribute that we pay to the greatness of our country that tolerates those differences. It is something to be admired. It is something that we may lose. It is something that many hate.

 

[Hunt 11]

"Obviously, Heaven doesn't belong to one person, belief, denomination, church, or faith as has been advertised."

 

I don't think that's obvious at all. It certainly could be that only one is right--the problem is determining which one. Furthermore, even if many roads lead to Heaven, that doesn't mean ALL roads lead there.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Rooster, you could be right, but I just can't see how BSA could come along and say that they're non-sectarian, but then say, for example, that they're going to implement all of the beliefs of, say, Catholicism, in their policies. Maybe the wording of BSA literature would allow for that, but I don't think it's within the spirit of what BSA tells everyone. And from a more pragmatic view, if they were to do that, wouldn't a whole bunch of folks quit?

 

And while we're discussing if many roads lead to God, or if just one road leads to God, wouldn't it be interesting if through generations of meddling and manipulation of God's message, it ended up that none of those roads ending up leading to God?

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

The idea is that in our country any person can choose any road to heaven or none and be protected from those that think otherwise. All roads go someplace or they did at one time, thus the practicality of building them. If 100% of the roads did not lead to God, then the ride would still be worth it. The words attributed to God can transport a person into heaven while one remains standing on this big meatball. It is ideas that bring God into one's life and remakes an individual into a saint bound for heaven. Assurance is generally not validated until one enters the door, and few return to explain the process, so it is a faith that keeps one traveling but like I said in this country, one does not even have to start their engine and that is a blessing.

FB

[packsaddle 753]

stlscouter, I am embarrassed on your behalf.

 

TJ, I think your handedness analogy is a reasonably good one. However, I think perhaps that a better analogy would be to the unpredictable occurrence of musical or artistic prodigy. The story of David Helfgott comes to mind. Such wonderful gifts to humanity clearly have a genetic component to them but we are far from understanding the mechanisms. Same for intelligence - obviously heritable to some extent but also far from understood. Society cannot force these gifts into existence but society can allow them to blossom. Or kill them with repression.

I too, agree with the local option idea. I would include the atheist membership as well.

 

I usually defer all the questions surrounding the myths to Prometheus. I understand he has some free time.

[stlscouter 10]

Packsaddle-thanks for being embarassed for me

 

While the esoteric posts here are all well thought out, the practical aspects expressed by others cannot nor should they be discounted. I have heard thes concerns expressed by others in similar conversations around campfires and believe that these folks are genuinely sincere. Until their concerns are addressed and answered fully they will not be moved away from the position that gay practioners are not appropriate in Scouting. Religion, philosophy, and spiritually merely provide a framework in which to operate, there needs to be a format to apply it to the real life situations we encounter in Scouting.

[johndaigler 10]

Most practical standards already exist. There would need to be very few changes made to G2ss or any BSA policy in order to allow homosexual scouts and scouters.

 

This isn't a policy about reality - this is about judgements. Like the judgement that the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is age . . . of course, if true, that would be the same difference between heterosexuality and pedophilia . . . Or the judgement that there exists a homosexual recruiting team . . .

 

 

anyway,

 

What about Units sponsored by Episcopal Churches or about Episcopal Scouts and scouters? I know Unitarians have dealt with (and seem to be working out their shared issues with BSA) - but, some of the Anglican Churches have chosen new directions in recent history. Are (some) Episcopalian priests not acceptable Scouters? Has there been any noticable impact on these Units?

 

and,

 

How would a cross-town Unit that invites homosexuals and/or atheists negatively impact Scouts and Scouters in a Unit with a more closely held membership policy? Other than, of course, allowing more funding to trickle down to that unit through regained contributions from United Way etc.

 

jd

[stlscouter 10]

johndaigle-notice I said -practioners-. Units sponsored by the UU and the Esicopal Church would still only have to have the COR as a registered member of the BSA not he whole church body. Sponsoring organizations are as varied as the Scouts they sponsor- VFW, America Legion, PTO etc I am sure that these groups have Gay members also, but their COR as a member of the BSA cannot be gay.

 

I should think that the agreement on practical application of philosophy(etc) would begin with no sexual activity at all-now the trick is to define sexual activity. Remembering of course the now famous "I did not have sex with..." and "I depends on what the definition of 'it' is."

 

I am reminded that the American Association of University Women includes in its definition of sexual harrassment the word "learing" and that only the person making the claim think that someone had been learing at them makes that claim true.(This message has been edited by stlscouter)

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

The A. A. U. W. did not go far enough. Their statement should have included that the thought of leering is enough to have one's head chopped off and pounded into pudding and spread like jelly onto a thin wafer for an afternoon snack. One can never be too careful with such behaviors.

[tjhammer 10]

More on topic to this thread, it seems one of the salient points made -- and since glossed over -- is this: no credible study has ever shown any significant difference in the children raised by gay parents vs straight parents. If anything, many studies have shown the kids tend to be better adjusted to society.

 

If kids being raised every day by gay parents are not more likely to be gay themselves, or suffer problems, or be molested, or "lack morality", it seems ignorant to think the influence of a gay Scout or leader would cause any of those things to happen.

[Rooster7 11]

TJ,

 

One can't help but notice that the "no credible reports" are not noted by name. Nor is the report that shows that such children are better adjusted.

[tjhammer 10]

Rooster, I referenced some of those reports (and how to find more) in the very first post on this thread, though I realize that was several pages ago.