Boy Scouts: Duty to GOD and my country

[Dragonfly]

If I knew how to punish the organization without hurting the kids I'd do it but the two go hand-in-hand. Now that homosexuals are allowed in the Scouts (as they are in government schools), my fear is that the Scouts will now become just another soap-box to spread the homosexual message of "equality" and "acceptance" (as they do in government schools).

Frankly, I'd like to see the Scouts disbanded at this point.

This is just nonsense.

#1 - gays have always been in scouts

Same as they've always been in the military, sports, churches and all walks of life.

#2 - Government schools?????? What's that mean? Please explain.

#3 - are you afraid "the gay" might be contagious?

#4 - What exactly is "the homosexual message"? And why are you so frightened of it? (see number three)
What's wrong with equality and acceptance? Does a straight kid set up a better tent than a gay kid? Does a straight kid shoot a straighter (pun intended) arrow than a gay kid?

#5 - Do you feel the same way about black kids, or brown kids, or yellow kids mixing with the white kids?

#6 - Can a Muslim freely join the Scouts and not incur your wrath?

 

[The Baron]

This is just nonsense.

Hardly.

#1 - gays have always been in scouts

Secretly, yes.

#2 - Government schools?????? What's that mean? Please explain.

Also called “public schools”. A school you attend where you don’t have to pay tuition.

#3 - are you afraid "the gay" might be contagious?

Considering the gay people I hang-out with it seems unlikely.

#4 - What exactly is "the homosexual message"? And why are you so frightened of it? (see number three)
What's wrong with equality and acceptance? Does a straight kid set up a better tent than a gay kid? Does a straight kid shoot a straighter (pun intended) arrow than a gay kid?

The message is just as I defined it regarding “equality” and “acceptance”. Surely you’ve noticed the message of pro-gay alliances has, in fact, been one of “equality” and “acceptance”, yes?

And, no, it is not appropriate to teach young boys that sin is “acceptable” or that a gay “lifestyle” is equitable to a heterosexual one. They certainly are not.

#5 - Do you feel the same way about black kids, or brown kids, or yellow kids mixing with the white kids?

Nice try. “Obviously” I’m homophobic so “obviously” I must be a racist, as well, huh?

Attacks and name-calling are a sure sign of intellectual bankruptcy. You’ll have to do better than that.

#6 - Can a Muslim freely join the Scouts and not incur your wrath?

As far as I’m concerned, yes.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Your attitude isn't Christian.

Yea so. I dont identify as christian.

 

[Aderleth]

If I knew how to punish the organization without hurting the kids I'd do it but the two go hand-in-hand. Now that homosexuals are allowed in the Scouts (as they are in government schools), my fear is that the Scouts will now become just another soap-box to spread the homosexual message of "equality" and "acceptance" (as they do in government schools).

Frankly, I'd like to see the Scouts disbanded at this point.

Why is teaching kids not to hate each other for no logical reason such a big problem for you?

 

[The Baron]

Why is teaching kids not to hate each other for no logical reason such a big problem for you?

At no time have I even remotely suggested that children be taught “hate”. What I am suggesting is that it is inappropriate to teach children that homosexuality is “normal” or that it is equivalent to the God-designed union of one male and one female.

It is also inappropriate to teach children to “accept” a sin. Keep in mind this is not the same as “accepting the sinner” (which we all are).

 

[Aderleth]

At no time have I even remotely suggested that children be taught “hate”.

You're taking issues with equality and acceptance. If children aren't being taught to accept people for who they are, the only other possibility is that you'd prefer that they not accept people for who they are. You'd like children to be intolerant. Maybe that's not hate, but it ain't far off. :shrug:

What I am suggesting is that it is inappropriate to teach children that homosexuality is “normal” or that it is equivalent to the God-designed union of one male and one female.

It is also inappropriate to teach children to “accept” a sin. Keep in mind this is not the same as “accepting the sinner” (which we all are).

So in a nutshell, you'd like both schools and the boy scouts to eschew facts (like the fact that homosexuality is normal) and instead teach your version of religious morality. Yeah that sounds reasonable.

 

[rhinefire]

It is now official policy when the scouts camp out eating wieners is mandatory.:roll:

 

[The Baron]

You're taking issues with equality and acceptance. If children aren't being taught to accept people for who they are, the only other possibility is that you'd prefer that they not accept people for who they are.

So far I’ve been talking about “lifestyles” and not people and I’ve been pretty clear about it. I have no problem with accepting people as we often “accept” individuals in spite of who or what they are.

My problem is in teaching children that homosexuality is morally acceptable. It is not. It is a sin.

You'd like children to be intolerant. Maybe that's not hate, but it ain't far off. :shrug:

Not at all. If I’m talking about teaching children “Christian” principles that is going to have to include “Love thy neighbor” and “Love thy enemy” (which is not to suggest that gay folks are the “enemy”). Personally, I can’t think of a better example of “tolerance”.

And for the record, you can’t “tolerate” someone until you disagree with them.

So in a nutshell, you'd like both schools and the boy scouts to eschew facts (like the fact that homosexuality is normal) and instead teach your version of religious morality. Yeah that sounds reasonable.

1. Homosexuality is not “normal”.

Normal - “the usual, average, or typical state or condition.”

As homosexuals only makeup approximately 2% of the population they are, by definition, not “normal” (and that is a quantitative and not a qualitative statement).

2. Yes I would like both schools and the scouts to teach that.

3. They are either going to teach “my version” of morality or yours. I’d prefer mine.

 

[iliveonramen]

Boy Scouts of America, an organization founded on the basis of morals and doing what is right, can just forget about the third line of the scout oath, "...to do my duty to God and my country..." Starting in 2014, gays are going to be allowed in scouting despite the fact that homosexuality is an abomination towards God. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." - Leviticus 18:22. BSA's decision to allow gays prompted the Southern Baptist convention to pull support from Boy Scout Troops along with other denominations. 70% of Boy Scout troops are chartered by churches which means the new gay policy will have a great effect on Boy Scouts. "I am very sad to say that it seems as though (Boy Scouts) are moving away from the principles they were founded upon," Wes Taylor, pastor at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Newport News, Virginia. BSA's decision will prove to be a great stepping stone in the destruction of morals and Christian values.

Other Leviticus quotes....

Leviticus 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death
20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death
You also forgot to mention 20:13 ends with "they must be put to death".

 

[Aderleth]

So far I’ve been talking about “lifestyles” and not people and I’ve been pretty clear about it. I have no problem with accepting people as we often “accept” individuals in spite of who or what they are.

The two things go hand in hand. If you can't accept the lifestyle, you're still judging the person.

My problem is in teaching children that homosexuality is morally acceptable. It is not. It is a sin.

According to your religion. Should schools also be teaching children that they shouldn't worship other gods? Or that everyone must get baptized? Both of those things involve sins. Why are you fixated on homosexuality? I've actually been curious about this for a while now. There are quite a lot of things taught in school that are sins, but the one that seems to get by far the most attention from angry Christians is homosexuality. What's up with that?

Not at all. If I’m talking about teaching children “Christian” principles that is going to have to include “Love thy neighbor” and “Love thy enemy” (which is not to suggest that gay folks are the “enemy”).

Congratulations: you support the leftwing pro-gay agenda.

Personally, I can’t think of a better example of “tolerance”.

Then you need to get out more.

1. Homosexuality is not “normal”.

Normal - “the usual, average, or typical state or condition.”

As homosexuals only makeup approximately 2% of the population they are, by definition, not “normal” (and that is a quantitative and not a qualitative statement).

There are several definitions of the word normal. You're focusing on the one that talks about statistically average things. If you think that schools are or have been teaching that homosexuality is statistically average, you're sorely mistaken. In general, when schools (and, y'know people in general) refer to homosexuality as normal, they most likely mean one of these definitions:

1 - Not abnormal, regular, natural
2- Psychology - Free from any mental disorder; sane
3- Biology - Of natural occurrence
-dictionary.com

3. They are either going to teach “my version” of morality or yours. I’d prefer mine.

The difference being, of course, that teaching your morality is a violation of the constitution, whereas teaching mine is not. Guess you're out of luck.

 

[Paschendale]

The moment I was old enough to understand the implications of what I was saying, duty to god and country, in that order, bothered me quite a bit.

The honest truth is that Boy Scout troops have had gay members and leaders for years, just now they don't have to lie about it. Same with atheists. Same with lots of people that bigots get their panties in a bunch about. Scouting teaches a lot of great things, like teamwork, outdoors stuff, and a dedication to service in the community. None of that requires preaching religion or cutting people out. The BSA can only be improved by divesting itself of discrimination.

Nothing Christian about accepting the gay life style and agenda.

One more reason not to accept the Christian life style and agenda.

 

[captainawesome]

Yea so. I dont identify as christian.

Then you have no expertise.

 

[captainawesome]

So far I’ve been talking about “lifestyles” and not people and I’ve been pretty clear about it. I have no problem with accepting people as we often “accept” individuals in spite of who or what they are.

My problem is in teaching children that homosexuality is morally acceptable. It is not. It is a sin.



Not at all. If I’m talking about teaching children “Christian” principles that is going to have to include “Love thy neighbor” and “Love thy enemy” (which is not to suggest that gay folks are the “enemy”). Personally, I can’t think of a better example of “tolerance”.

And for the record, you can’t “tolerate” someone until you disagree with them.



1. Homosexuality is not “normal”.

Normal - “the usual, average, or typical state or condition.”

As homosexuals only makeup approximately 2% of the population they are, by definition, not “normal” (and that is a quantitative and not a qualitative statement).

2. Yes I would like both schools and the scouts to teach that.

3. They are either going to teach “my version” of morality or yours. I’d prefer mine.

Not sin.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Then you have no expertise.

What expertise do I need to know right from wrong?

 

[captainawesome]

What expertise do I need to know right from wrong?

If you claim to know what Christianity says you should actually be one.

 

[CRUE CAB]

If you claim to know what Christianity says you should actually be one.

Really? I didnt know you had to be a Jew to understand the Jewish religion and race. Or any other religion or race.
Right is right and wrong is wrong.

 

[Dragonfly]

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Correct.

And punishing children over something they have no control over is wrong. Dead wrong.

Therefore - the Scouting organization, by allowing gays to be involved, did the right thing.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Correct.

And punishing children over something they have no control over is wrong. Dead wrong.

Therefore - the Scouting organization, by allowing gays to be involved, did the right thing.

And will collapse from your version of the "right thing".

 

[Dragonfly]

And will collapse from your version of the "right thing".

If the Scouting organization collapses, and I doubt it will, it most definitely won't happen because it's allowed gay kids to participate.

(You keep forgetting that gay kids, and gay everything else has been a part of society (and nature) since the dawn of time.
So far we all seem to be doing quite well.)

But if it does, then it wasn't very worthwhile in the long run any way.

 

[The Baron]

The two things go hand in hand. If you can't accept the lifestyle, you're still judging the person.

I may, if fact, be judging the lifestyle (and it’s actually the Bible judging it), but I really don’t have a problem with the folks.

According to your religion. Should schools also be teaching children that they shouldn't worship other gods? Or that everyone must get baptized? Both of those things involve sins. Why are you fixated on homosexuality? I've actually been curious about this for a while now. There are quite a lot of things taught in school that are sins, but the one that seems to get by far the most attention from angry Christians is homosexuality. What's up with that?

I’d be happy to address the issues of idolatry, baptism and homosexuality within the church if secular-socialist would do the same. However, they feel compelled to address homosexuality within the schools. As such, why shouldn’t I?

And perhaps a better question would be “why are secular-socialist so compelled to address homosexuality within the schools”?

Congratulations: you support the leftwing pro-gay agenda.

Hardly seems that way.

Then you need to get out more.

Oh, PLEASE! If you can think of a better example of tolerance than “love thy enemy” then, by all mean, do share!

There are several definitions of the word normal. You're focusing on the one that talks about statistically average things. If you think that schools are or have been teaching that homosexuality is statistically average, you're sorely mistaken. In general, when schools (and, y'know people in general) refer to homosexuality as normal, they most likely mean one of these definitions:

1 - Not abnormal, regular, natural
2- Psychology - Free from any mental disorder; sane
3- Biology - Of natural occurrence
-dictionary.com

1. You’re link--if you even bothered to post one--doesn’t work.
2. You’re first definition is in direct contradiction to the definition I posted and to which I provided a link.
3. Quite a bit of disagreement there, but that’s another debate.
4. Just how do you suppose it is of “natural occurrence” when, by design, it is quite unnatural.

The difference being, of course, that teaching your morality is a violation of the constitution, whereas teaching mine is not. Guess you're out of luck.

Fine. But that means there is to be no teaching of morality of any sort…including yours which seeks to “normalize” homosexuality amongst our young and in our culture.

 

[The Baron]

Not sin.

Ya lost me. Homosexuality is a not a sin? Based on what? Where are you going with this?

 

[Dragonfly]

As Christians, I thought it was against protocol to judge others....

Let he who hath no sin......

and all that....

 

[The Baron]

As Christians, I thought it was against protocol to judge others....

Let he who hath no sin......

and all that....

Obviously you don't have it quite right. Keep trying.

 

[Aderleth]

I may, if fact, be judging the lifestyle (and it’s actually the Bible judging it), but I really don’t have a problem with the folks.

Then you shouldn't have any problem with the dual doctrines of acceptance and equality.

I’d be happy to address the issues of idolatry, baptism and homosexuality within the church if secular-socialist would do the same.

They do by omission. In most public schools you learn about multiple religions and are thereby enabled to make up your own mind, rather than simply accepting (e.g.) Christian doctrine. This is no different from teaching kids that homosexuality is a real-world phenomenon and that homosexuals are no better or worse than anyone else.

And perhaps a better question would be “why are secular-socialist so compelled to address homosexuality within the schools”?

How can they not? Homosexuality is a part of the world. When kids ask questions about why bobby has two mommies, are they supposed to just tell kids to shut up and pretend that's not the case?

Oh, PLEASE! If you can think of a better example of tolerance than “love thy enemy” then, by all mean, do share!

Your religion has prompted you to take issue with equality and acceptance. That is not the most tolerant position under the sun.

1. You’re link--if you even bothered to post one--doesn’t work.

Type dictionary.com into your browser and it'll work just fine.

2. You’re first definition is in direct contradiction to the definition I posted and to which I provided a link.
3. Quite a bit of disagreement there, but that’s another debate.

Like I said, there are several definitions. The one you want to focus on is the one that makes the least sense to use in this context. Obviously homosexuals aren't a statistical majority. Neither are people with green eyes. Doesn't mean that either thing isn't normal in any way that actually matters.

4. Just how do you suppose it is of “natural occurrence” when, by design, it is quite unnatural.

Not so much, no. Homosexuality has existed in basically every human culture in the world, and in quite a lot of animal species for as long as anyone's paid attention to such things. Since it occurs in nature, it is, by definition, natural. A quick google search will point you to numerous websites that confirm this fact, but for example:

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Fine. But that means there is to be no teaching of morality of any sort…including yours which seeks to “normalize” homosexuality amongst our young and in our culture.

Teaching my morality amounts to not teaching morality at all.

 

[The Baron]

Then you shouldn't have any problem with the dual doctrines of acceptance and equality.

You’re playing--or attempting to play word games. My comments stand.

They do by omission. In most public schools you learn about multiple religions and are thereby enabled to make up your own mind, rather than simply accepting (e.g.) Christian doctrine. This is no different from teaching kids that homosexuality is a real-world phenomenon and that homosexuals are no better or worse than anyone else.

Learning of other religions is school is one thing (and one I don’t think anyone has a problem with). But the teaching of values (i.e. homosexuality is normal) is quite another.

How can they not? Homosexuality is a part of the world. When kids ask questions about why bobby has two mommies, are they supposed to just tell kids to shut up and pretend that's not the case?

These kids have parents who are far better equipped to address these issues with their children that the state.

Your religion has prompted you to take issue with equality and acceptance. That is not the most tolerant position under the sun.

So you’re unable to find a better example of tolerance that “love thy enemy”?

Point, mine.

Type dictionary.com into your browser and it'll work just fine.

So from your very own source, “normal” means “conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.”

Once again, at only 2% of the population, homosexuality is by definition not “normal”.

Like I said, there are several definitions. The one you want to focus on is the one that makes the least sense to use in this context.

I’m using the primary (first) definition given by your source and mine! How is this focusing on the one “that makes the least sense to use in this context”?

Obviously homosexuals aren't a statistical majority. Neither are people with green eyes. Doesn't mean that either thing isn't normal in any way that actually matters.

Green eyes are a variation. Homosexuality is a sin.

Difference.

Not so much, no. Homosexuality has existed in basically every human culture in the world, and in quite a lot of animal species for as long as anyone's paid attention to such things. Since it occurs in nature, it is, by definition, natural. A quick google search will point you to numerous websites that confirm this fact, but for example:

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

1. Yes, homosexuality has existed from, at least, Old Testament times and probably long before that. All this means is that sin has existed from the earliest of times…so?

2. Yes, animals engage in homosexual acts. They also eat their young and kill their mates so since these are “natural” acts then, by your logic, there is no problem with people doing the same things, right?

Teaching my morality amounts to not teaching morality at all.

If you’re going to teach that the homosexual lifestyle is an equal and permissible lifestyle with heterosexual relationships then you are teaching a type of morality that is not welcome.