Thursday, June 17, 2010

Gay Boy Scouts...

Philadelphia's threatening the Boy Scouts of America unless they get rid of their ban on gays joining their group of little boys.
Do you think the following quoted statement is the real reason?
"The city of Philadelphia wants to end its $1-a-year lease to the local Boy Scouts chapter unless it rejects a Boy Scouts of America policy banning "avowed" gays. The city says the national rule violates a local law banning discrimination on sexual-orientation and other grounds."
I haven't much to say on this, except I think it stinks that they're being threatened financially for not allowing gay kids in their group. Do you think having gay kids ('gay kids'?) in the Boy Scouts would be a problem for the rest of the kids? Does the huge majority matter at all? And, if not, must they acquiesce because their attitudes are considered wrong by a few?......or maybe the gay kids might want to start a gay group of kids?
What do you think?

z

107 comments:

Anonymous said...

Let the damn gays sue the girl scouts or join them... instead...why the hell would they want to be around little boys anyway? Ooops! It's obvious why they're unwanted.

Always On Watch said...

Does the huge majority matter at all?

Nope. Not in this Age of Moral Relevancy and Political Correctness.

MK said...

They simply want to force the homos upon the majority. If they get their way, they'll simply destroy that club, which wouldn't be a bad second prize for a leftist.

Let the homos form their own clubs, but then no one would want to join them now would they.

Speedy G said...

The Boy Scouts haven't given in, and I doubt they ever will.

Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverant

Beth said...

My son is in Cub Scouts and I am a leader in it, as far as I know the scouts themselves are not screened for sexual preference, the leaders may be though for obvious reasons to protect the boys.

soapster said...

"My son is in Cub Scouts and I am a leader in it, as far as I know the scouts themselves are not screened for sexual preference, the leaders may be though for obvious reasons to protect the boys."

There is quite a different thing between a homosexual and pedophile. Let us be reminded of that.

I've no concern about the homosexual issue at all. What is problematic is not specifically homosexuality but when one allows it or any other such thing to serve, not a part of who you are but rather allows it to define them wholly and completely.

Ducky's here said...

The city gives an organization a financial subsidy. That organization can't discriminate against part of the population, simple.

Stop discriminating or lose the subsidy.

The kids will do fine. The only segments of the population still scared of gays are evangelicals and the military.

Ducky's here said...

Ah, we did have the inevitable post conflating homosexuality and pedophilia. More well reasoned thought from the far right.

FrogBurger said...

I don't see the problem as long as a gay kid behaves normally i.e. doesn't harass another kid sexually. It's that simple.

Anonymous said...

Philadelphia lives up to its name: "The City of Brotherly Love".

Waylon

Anonymous said...

Adam & Steve don't reproduce, they recruit.

I don't care when adults have the choice, but young children are much too vulnerable, as well as impressionable. Leave them alone.

Silvrlady

Elmers Brother said...

why don't they start their own group...call it, I don't know...WHAM!

Elmers Brother said...

Stop discriminating or lose the subsidy.

that's the problem when you let the government subsidize you.

find another place Boy Scouts and tell Philadelphia to go screw itself. About 90% of them I read aren't even fit for military duty.

Elmers Brother said...

higher statistically

As a community, however, gays and lesbians attempt to distance themselves from pedophiles despite statistics that show a higher ratio of young victims for homosexual males compared to heterosexual males as well as a higher per capita ratio of offenses. By definition, however, pedophilia is neither a homosexual nor a heterosexual condition.

As with homosexuality, there is no conclusive genetic link for pedophilia, suggesting the potential that both share stages of development that have strong environmental components. At the risk of generalizing, homosexuals and lesbians lack healthy same-gender identification; pedophiles lack a healthy ability to feel connected in their position as adults among other adults. Perceived as rejected by the adult world, fixated pedophiles find children to be trusting recipients of their attention and eventually of their sexual advances.

The male pedophile lacking healthy same-gender identification as well as a tangible connection to the adult world is most apt to have male victims. The male pedophile secure in his gender identification but feeling out of control in the world of adults—especially in terms of developing intimate relationships—will be more likely to have female victims. In both, however, the element of control is a primary focus whether that control is through emotional manipulation or physical violence.

Both homosexuality and pedophilia share an arrested sexual and emotional development. While similarities exist that might promote arguments for the link implied in the question, one condition does not necessarily lead to the other.

Elmers Brother said...

I'm just curious duhkkky do the Boy Scouts meet at Catholic Churches?

Z said...

Always On Watch, it's pretty staggering that on so many points, the minority's winning against the will of the majority.

Beth, that's an excellent point. Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, they're not screened, I'm sure of that.

soapster, you say "What is problematic is not specifically homosexuality but when one allows it or any other such thing to serve, not a part of who you are but rather allows it to define them wholly and completely."
Gayness certainly usually doesn't define a person completely in any way...except, I have to admit I HAVE known many gays whose gayness DOES define them; their career choice, their clothing, their viewpoints, their speaking patterns, it just does. Not many, but in my fields of endeavors, you'd be blind not to know which are the obvious gays.

The other problematic thing is the behavior young people do; straight kids will try it on the opposite sex; why wouldn't gay kids try it on their same sex of choice? Especially kids with no maturity? WHY NOT?

Ducky, can you show which post conflated homosexuality with pedophilia? I missed that. thanks.

Ducky's here said...

About everthig Elmo (who spent so many years with Major exclusively around men) has posted.

Z said...

Ducky, the only person who posts around here is me. Everyone else comments.
And, Elbro seems to have just quoted from expert information.

If there is a gay man tempted in any way to have sex with boys, I'd like to think that he had integrity and would stay as far from boys as much as possible. Sadly, we hear too much of the opposite.

This is a question of erring on the childrens' side, is it not, everyone?
If there's a doubt, if there's a thought that any boy or gay adult leader, could molest a young kid, why throw them together?

Elmers Brother said...

About everthig Elmo (who spent so many years with Major exclusively around men) has posted.

wow duhkkky thanks for the thoughtful comeback

I didn't conflate anything, as a matter of fact the quote I posted supports some of what you said

but then expecting you to read it is a lot like suggesting that you would have any progeny

Elmers Brother said...

About everthig Elmo (who spent so many years with Major exclusively around men) has posted.

uh...excuse me duhkkky but women do serve in the military now

Craig and Heather said...

Z said:
The other problematic thing is the behavior young people do; straight kids will try it on the opposite sex; why wouldn't gay kids try it on their same sex of choice? Especially kids with no maturity? WHY NOT?

Seems that the problem is of greater scope than sexual orientation.

The predation of children by other children is serious regardless of whether it the perp is of the same or opposite gender.

H

soapster said...

"The other problematic thing is the behavior young people do; straight kids will try it on the opposite sex; why wouldn't gay kids try it on their same sex of choice? Especially kids with no maturity? WHY NOT?"

Be that as it may Z, this is what separates Republicans and Libertarians. I'm a Libertarian. Republicans by definition tend towards a belief that government has a role in enforcing social mores and a conservative social agenda (pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc.).

Elmers Brother said...

just google gay scout leader arrested and see what you come up with

Brooke said...

Since when do little kids decide if they're gay? Sounds like parental projecting to me.

Z said...

True, Heather, any deviant behavior is wrong, particularly on innocent kids. BY ANY sex.

Soapster, that's probably true. I'm just trying to protect children as much as possible...I can't imagine that's a problem for Libertarians...
would you just 'treat' the situation on a 'address them as they happen' basis? Or ignore problems?

Elmers Brother said...

I just don't know what prevents them from starting their own scouting program?

It's merely an attempt to destroy the Boy Scouts, either through litigation, harrassment or public ridicule.

Z said...

that's quite a list, Elbro.

It's a real shame when kids are placed in a situation in which they might be hurt.....
As a Conservative, I understand we can't be making laws for every single thing that happens in any regard.
Brooke has a point, but I have known gay men who knew very early on that they were different, that they didn't respond to things as their straight friends did. These same gay men were probably in the boy scouts and wouldn't have thought of molesting a fellow troop member.
But, opening the doors to openly gay troop leaders or members in the Boy Scouts just seems as silly as gays in the military, where straights might feel uncomfortable in a camping or showering experience, and trust me, I've heard plenty of that. These guys aren't anti gay and have gay friends, they just choose not to be naked with them.
I have VERY much liked many gay men in my life, very honorable men...this isn't an easy discussion for me.

Z said...

Elbro "It's merely an attempt to destroy the Boy Scouts, either through litigation, harrassment or public ridicule."

I have a feeling you're right. Anything time-honored, dignified, upstanding and of value must be torn down by a group of people with values based on feelings and a higher power they'd call "ME".

soapster said...

After the fact Z or as they come up. The problem isn't with potentiality. Hell if we crafted legislation (well we sort of are already but that's beside the point) to thwart potentiality at every turn, we'd all live in bubbles to be sure.

Perfect example is cell phone use while driving. Is the problem cell phone use or is the problem an accident caused by cell phone use and subsequent distraction? The latter of course.

Craig and Heather said...

I'm a Libertarian. Republicans by definition tend towards a belief that government has a role in enforcing social mores and a conservative social agenda (pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc.).

I tend toward Libertarianism myself and don't appreciate the govt trying to tell me what is and is not moral.

However, I also have to admit that all law is based in someone's idea of what is moral. Prosecution of murderers, thieves, rapists etc is based in a generalized agreement that those activities are immoral (wrong, harmful etc)and that those who break this code of ethics need to be apprehended in order to maintain the safety of others.

A society in which individuals are not self-governing will tend to spiral into a state of anarchy if there is no external restraint leveled upon those who have no self-control.

When a society shoves out God and His standard of morality as THE standard, man becomes nothing more than an evolutionarily advanced animal, every man's opinion becomes equally relevant, and the ones with the most power end up forcing the weaker ones to subject themselves.

Heather

soapster said...

"However, I also have to admit that all law is based in someone's idea of what is moral. Prosecution of murderers, thieves, rapists etc is based in a generalized agreement that those activities are immoral (wrong, harmful etc)..."

I disagree completely. The justification of laws against murderers, thieves, and rapists doesn't have its foundations on a societal morality or "generalized agreement". It is not a social right or a social mores that are being broken by said criminals, but an individual right. The right to live; to exist. The most fundamental right for which no other rights exist.

highboy said...

The myth that ducky is spreading about not being able to discriminate due to allowing a subsidy is exactly that: myth. If that's the case, no government organisation would be allowed to separate men/women bathrooms. Its just that simple. Receiving a government subsidy doesn't mean an organisation is not allowed to pick and choose who its members are. Discrimination is a fact of life. The government does it, all organisations do. Women's volleyball in high school gets government money, yet men aren't allowed to join the team. Its that simple. No Constitutional principle is being violated by giving a subsidy to an organisation that doesn't allow certain types of people. As for the stupid shot at the military: unless you're going to allow me to share a rack with a woman, don't expect me to share one with a gay man. Sexual draw is the entire reason genders are separated in the military to begin with, so unless we're going to start taking showers with heterosexual women, don't expect us to take showers with homosexual men.

Elmers Brother said...

it's the government trying to tell the Boy Scouts what to do not the opposite. The Boy Scouts as a private organization should be allowed to decide what is right for their organization.

Z said...

H "When a society shoves out God and His standard of morality as THE standard, man becomes nothing more than an evolutionarily advanced animal, every man's opinion becomes equally relevant, and the ones with the most power end up forcing the weaker ones to subject themselves."....through LAWS and MORE LAWS.
So true....and exactly what I meant by my last comment "I have a feeling you're right. Anything time-honored, dignified, upstanding and of value must be torn down by a group of people with values based on feelings and a higher power they'd call "ME"."

soapster...so we don't ban the cell phone, we ban the behavior of those with the cell phone...at least in California, where you can't talk on a hand held cell phone while driving!
It seems to me the left's always been the party so desirous of protecting everyone from even the least possible potentiality.....laws, laws, laws......

LEGISLATING MORALITY..who HAD to when most people used to put God first? There was a certain protection in that, a certain conscience that made young people behave better, which made adults care what others thought and so they thought twice, etc etc..it's a HUGE subject, for sure.

soapster said...

"When a society shoves out God and His standard of morality as THE standard, man becomes nothing more than an evolutionarily advanced animal, every man's opinion becomes equally relevant, and the ones with the most power end up forcing the weaker ones to subject themselves."

Again I disagree. The acceptance of God is not a requisite for morality Heather. Every ponder how it is that a horde of Zebras, Elephants, Gazelle, Birds, Lions, etc. can all drink in unison at the same watering hole on the plains of Africa? It is an inherent thing that humans also have.

My reason for not killing you in cold blood have nothing to do with the acceptance of God or not. It is predicated upon the fact that I myself wish to live. As I pursue my desire to live my life so too do I equally respect your right to do the same.

Elmers Brother said...

It is an inherent thing that humans also have.

and where did this inherent 'thing' come from.

This we believe came from God...we are created in His image.

I suggest a read of C.S. Lewis' Mere Chrisitianity.

highboy said...

"Again I disagree. The acceptance of God is not a requisite for morality Heather. Every ponder how it is that a horde of Zebras, Elephants, Gazelle, Birds, Lions, etc. can all drink in unison at the same watering hole on the plains of Africa? It is an inherent thing that humans also have.

My reason for not killing you in cold blood have nothing to do with the acceptance of God or not. It is predicated upon the fact that I myself wish to live. As I pursue my desire to live my life so too do I equally respect your right to do the same."

The problem there Soap is that belief in God answers the question as to where that inherent right to live comes from. In an atheist world, its an amoral universe and morality isn't even a factor. If its simply a meaningless mechanism of coexistence than it doesn't answer the question of moral obligation, which has to be there for something to be moral/immoral. You have no answer as to why you have a right to live other than you have a desire to do so. While I may suffer consequences for not allowing you to do so, that does mean I'm obligated. Your existence and life would have to be a moral issue, but in an atheistic world there is no moral issue to life, there is just life. I'm therefore not obligated in any way to respect yours, regardless of what consequences society may wish to impose. Your life has value to you, that doesn't mean it has inherent value that all must acknowledge.

Elmers Brother said...

We as humans are created by some being who also dictates, through our conscience, how we ought to behave.


All of humanity feels the weight of some Law of Human Nature, which dictates to everyone's conscience a common sense of Right and Wrong, yet all of us fail to live up to it. Although instincts also persuade us in some course of action or another, this Law can override or promote instincts in a way that superscedes instinct. Attempts to justify the Law by reasoning fail with circular reasoning, but it is nevertheless true. Two opposing views exist on the creation of the Earth, and the Religious view proposes that God gives us this Law within us to suit His purposes. If God exists and has dictated His morals as Law to us, we are condemned by it, because we do not keep it.

Elmers Brother said...

Our 'inherent' nature is to kill one another and disobey God. Just as it is the lions to kill a zebra the next time they're not at the watering hole.

soapster said...

"and where did this inherent 'thing' come from.

This we believe came from God...we are created in His image."


Personally, I'm not one for mysticism. My existence is an axiomatic concept. It needs no further exploration or explanation in my view.

Elmers Brother said...

Personally, I'm not one for mysticism. My existence is an axiomatic concept. It needs no further exploration or explanation in my view.

then where did this 'thing' come from?

Z said...

that lion would just as soon kill the gazelle as drink with it :-)

Z said...

Elbro..sorry, I hadn't seen your comment first :-)

soapster said...

"Your life has value to you, that doesn't mean it has inherent value that all must acknowledge."

They don't need to acknowledge it. All they need is to be conscious of the fact that initiating force against someone results in an equal and opposite reaction. Thus, they don't initiate force because they themselves know consciously that they wish to live and that they haven't the desire or inclination to risk their own survival.

highboy said...

"Personally, I'm not one for mysticism. My existence is an axiomatic concept. It needs no further exploration or explanation in my view."

No soap, you DO have a need for an explanation, if you're going to assert that you have a right to life, inherent in all human beings, which is exactly what you have asserted. Such a statement demands an explanation or its absolutely meaningless.

soapster said...

"then where did this 'thing' come from?"

That is a rhetorical question for which God as an answer satifies many.

highboy said...

"They don't need to acknowledge it. All they need is to be conscious of the fact that initiating force against someone results in an equal and opposite reaction. Thus, they don't initiate force because they themselves know consciously that they wish to live and that they haven't the desire or inclination to risk their own survival."

Then you're retracting your statement that you have a right to life, and are amending it to "I want to live".

Elmers Brother said...

They don't need to acknowledge it. All they need is to be conscious of the fact that initiating force against someone results in an equal and opposite reaction. Thus, they don't initiate force because they themselves know consciously that they wish to live and that they haven't the desire or inclination to risk their own survival.

which is why we have no murderers

soapster said...

"... if you're going to assert that you have a right to life, inherent in all human beings, which is exactly what you have asserted. Such a statement demands an explanation or its absolutely meaningless. Such a statement demands an explanation or its absolutely meaningless."

I exist here, right now, right on this earth. That is the axiom. I have a right to life. This does not infer that I will live. What it means is I have a right to take the necessary action(s) required to sustain myself so long as I can.

soapster said...

"which is why we have no murderers"

Not everyone lives consciously Elmers.

Elmers Brother said...

which is exactly my point...it a conscience that keeps us from murdering and that conscience comes from somewhere or Someone

highboy said...

"I exist here, right now, right on this earth. That is the axiom. I have a right to life. This does not infer that I will live. What it means is I have a right to take the necessary action(s) required to sustain myself so long as I can."

No, your existence does not grant you some right to live. Sorry, that claim needs some sort of demonstration. You keep asserting that you have a right to life, inherent within you, yet you don't ascribe to mysticism. If that's the case, then you'll have a hard time selling that you have a right to live at all. That right has to stem from something, rights don't just exist because you want them.

Craig and Heather said...

soapster said
It is not a social right or a social mores that are being broken by said criminals, but an individual right. The right to live; to exist. The most fundamental right for which no other rights exist.

In our country societal recognition of rights have been based in a recognition of individual rights. You can disagree with me if you like. It's still a (sort of) free country.

Life is not an inherent "right", but a privilege which God has granted all whom He has created. Those who recognize God as Creator and Final Authority will desire to honor the order He has established.


Every ponder how it is that a horde of Zebras, Elephants, Gazelle, Birds, Lions, etc. can all drink in unison at the same watering hole on the plains of Africa? It is an inherent thing that humans also have.

Animals did not rebel against God's order. Man did. Our sense of right/wrong has been corrupted because man chose to remove himself from under God's direction and try to figure things out on his own.

My reason for not killing you in cold blood have nothing to do with the acceptance of God or not. It is predicated upon the fact that I myself wish to live. As I pursue my desire to live my life so too do I equally respect your right to do the same.

As Elmers Brother suggested, the inherent reason for not killing me came from somewhere. The concept of "do unto others as you would have them do to you" is not the way animals look at things. And this is a secondary command that follows "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength."

The desire to be nice to others is meaningless without having it's foundation in who God and what is our relationship with Him.

As the Author of all Life and Who's very nature dictates what is and is not moral, God deserves top billing and absolute reverence at all times.

To try to claim for ones own self a sense of goodness that is only possible because man was created in God's image is plagiarism in the most blasphemous sense.

Even in our messed up culture, most of us here would agree that unrepentant plagiarists ought to be prosecuted.

Heather

Craig and Heather said...

What it means is I have a right to take the necessary action(s) required to sustain myself so long as I can.

And without any higher-reigning authority than "self" this can lead to murder,theft, abuse of others if circumstances so dictate.

"Do unto others" won't cut it when life is approached from an animalistic survival of the fittest mentality.

H

Elmers Brother said...

and none of us follow our conscience, we all fall short.

highboy said...

The fact of the matter is if this is a world that just exists, than existence can't be a moral issue. Morality is not even a factor. Period. In an amoral universe, there is no right/wrong action, there is just action. There is no right to life, there is just life. If its taken than its taken. Unless an atheist can demonstrate where an inherent right to life comes from, than that right doesn't exist just because someone wants it to.

Elmers Brother said...

Enemy-occupied territory-that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage.

Craig and Heather said...

and none of us follow our conscience, we all fall short.

And some ignore conscience much more readily than others.

Which brings us back to a need to have external govt of some sort.

H

Z said...

H "And some ignore conscience much more readily than others.
Which brings us back to a need to have external govt of some sort."

VOILA

Ducky's here said...

Does anyone find it interesting that those like elmo and major will be among the first to want to restrict access in this case but will also be the first crowing about how they were the first to be out there protecting everyone's rights?

Fact is that people fight for their own rights and we learn this in our history through a variety of movements since the Civil war and in fact the military (like with the attacks on the bonus army) and local police are very often a force of repression.

Ducky's here said...

Well Heather, i don't claim "goodness" for myself but I claim existence.

Existence before essence. Christian existentialists like Marcel. It's tough to expect that the Bible is going to be sufficient in dealing with a materialist, technology driven capitalist system that didn't exist at the time of its writing.

Do you believe Leviticus should become our case law (i.e. Christian sharia)? If not, how can we justify picking and choosing as we pick the one verse about homosexuality but reject commands for stoning certain offenses.
In other words, I encounter true Christian fundamentalists and wonder if they secretly desire implementation of their form of sharia.

Elmers Brother said...

Does anyone find it interesting that those like elmo and major will be among the first to want to restrict access in this case but will also be the first crowing about how they were the first to be out there protecting everyone's rights?

homosexuality a right, sure. Trying to destroy the Boy Scouts for some supposed wrong...NOT

Ducky's here said...

No freedom from discrimination you hypocrite.

What you want to defend is a freedom for your little Christian Taliban to run rough shod over everything.

Sorry budgie boy but too many people have fought to overturn the discrimination for hypocrites like yourself and major and mustang to be any kind of a force. Now, if you believed your talk it might be different but it's clear you don't.

highboy said...

"No freedom from discrimination you hypocrite.

What you want to defend is a freedom for your little Christian Taliban to run rough shod over everything.

Sorry budgie boy but too many people have fought to overturn the discrimination for hypocrites like yourself and major and mustang to be any kind of a force. Now, if you believed your talk it might be different but it's clear you don't."

Talk like that is exactly why less and less people take liberal hacks like you seriously. There are no Constitutional rights being violated by the Boy Scouts not allowing gays, yet you mouth off about discrimination, while ignoring the fact that subsidies under no law have the string attached that organisations can't choose their own members. Are you going to stop separating male/female restrooms? Are you going to force boy scouts to allow girls as well? If not, cut the garbage and get some coherency.

Elmers Brother said...

No freedom from discrimination you hypocrite.

What you want to defend is a freedom for your little Christian Taliban to run rough shod over everything.


do you think a white guy could join the African American Accountants Association?

or a heterosexual join the NAMBLA?

discrimination is nothing more than making a choice and the Boy Scouts have chosen not to have gays as Scout Leaders. Now if you can't deal with that than why don't you start your own Gay Boy Scout troop? or better yet stop financially supporting a group that protects people that prey on little boys.

Elmers Brother said...

ah yes duhkkky when I joined the military and took the oath I promised to only defend the rights that I agreed with...

All of us had this separate list that we took when we went in to take the oath. The enlisting officer suggested that we all read them aloud so that all of us could hear them.

what a maroon.

Ducky's here said...

highball, try the sixteenth amendment.

You far right Libertarians are a hoot when you start in on your vaunted Constitutional knowledge.

This is funnier than the time mustang tried the "Letters of marque"defense. You really need to know your limitations.


elmo, if Nambla is using public funds or facilitates and they turn you doen then you could prevail in court but you'd be too embarrassed to bring suit and let the family know where you spend your time. Stop punching outside your weight, also.

Ducky's here said...

I'm sorry, highball. I meant 14th amendment.

You can see the obvious Freudian mistake here caused by dealing with a Libertarian. Throws you off.

Elmers Brother said...

In other words, I encounter true Christian fundamentalists and wonder if they secretly desire implementation of their form of sharia.

Roman 1 duhkkky

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

highboy said...

There's nothing in the 14th Amendment ducky that means an organisation can't choose its own members simply because of a subsidy. Once again, unless you're going to be consistent and tear down ALL barriers separating gender, sexual preference, and skin color, which means no more separate restrooms, no more gender based sports, unless you're going to go all the way, stop talking out of your ass. No civil liberties are being violated.

Elmers Brother said...

elmo, if Nambla is using public funds or facilitates and they turn you doen then you could prevail in court but you'd be too embarrassed to bring suit and let the family know where you spend your time. Stop punching outside your weight, also.

and if money were the sole reason why not just charge the market value for the use?

stop with the overdone boxing metaphors, it's stupid AND stop pretending this isn't about an agenda and not about rights

as I said in the beginning the Boy Scouts should just move and pay whatever they have to pay then this silliness will stop (yeah right)

Elmers Brother said...

well duhkkky are you going to stop financially supporting the Catholic Church?

are you going to demand they no longer use Catholic Churches to meet?

Elmers Brother said...

and for your information duhkkky NAMBLA does use public facilities.

Z said...

Elbro "as I said in the beginning the Boy Scouts should just move and pay whatever they have to pay then this silliness will stop (yeah right)" So true, it'll never end.

But, you can't say that because it makes sense to the left that this is the ONLY problem PA had with the situation :-)

Your logic on the rest of this is airtight..thanks.

Elmers Brother said...

you know you're really twisted duhkkky

In California, the very essence of not being gay is becoming illegal. I mean think about it San Francisco, you’re telling young boys it’s illegal to learn how to be Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent. But, it’s perfectly legal and OK to offer young boys to older men for their sexual gratification. You can’t go to the library to learn to Be clean in my outdoor manners, Be careful with fire, Be considerate in the outdoors, and Be conservation minded. But, you can go to the local publicly funded library to get molested. And, of course, you’re certainly not allowed to encourage kids to Do A Good Turn Daily, but you’re certainly allowed to encourage your kids to do a good trick daily.

Elmers Brother said...

But, you can't say that because it makes sense to the left that this is the ONLY problem PA had with the situation :-)

sense? you're right Z, as long as you are a moral relativist then one can make sense of anything

Elmers Brother said...

elmo, if Nambla is using public funds or facilitates and they turn you doen then you could prevail in court but you'd be too embarrassed to bring suit and let the family know where you spend your time. Stop punching outside your weight, also.

duhkkky did you find your sense of humor in the cracker jack box with your secret decoder ring too?

Craig and Heather said...

Do you believe Leviticus should become our case law (i.e. Christian sharia)? If not, how can we justify picking and choosing as we pick the one verse about homosexuality but reject commands for stoning certain offenses.
In other words, I encounter true Christian fundamentalists and wonder if they secretly desire implementation of their form of sharia.


Ducky,

I'm a Gentile Christian, not an Orthodox Jew and your protest is proof positive that you are sadly ignorant of the point of the OT scriptures.

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all of the OT Law.

John 2:2 And He is the propitiation concerning our sins, and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the sins of all the world.

Christ is the whole point of the OT writings. The OT Law gives a good picture of what humanity is in comparison to HIM. It is even possible to track the breaking of the Ten Commandments in the account of the Garden rebellion. And the sacrificial system looked forward to the time He gave up His own life so that we can be made right with God.

Gentile believers were not required to adhere to the OT law as such. That does not mean we ignore the standards of right and wrong that are laid out there.


Every sin, Ducky, including those committed by active homosexuals, has been laid on Christ. And He paid the price in full. He did it willingly because not only is God righteous and just, He is also merciful and the embodiment of LOVE.



But those who refuse to acknowledge their wrongness, won't confess that He alone is righteous and ignore the need to accept the forgiveness He freely offers will continue to sit under the penalty that is imposed for rebellion against God.

A stubborn refusal to come to Him for forgiveness leaves a person cut off from the Life that He is.

Heather

Ducky's here said...

Well praise be that you aren't a dominionist.

However, why hang on to the one verse in Levitius, maybe not you personally but its common among evangelicals, when the issue of homosexuality (or sexuality for that matter) isn't really addressed in the Gospels.

Again, I belog to a sect concerned with the application of the gospels to our daily life.

Craig and Heather said...

Romans 1 is absolutely amazing.

The Biblical mandate against homosexuality makes more sense when you read in light of the pictures God's given us.


Marriage and family have been given to us from the beginning as a picture of Christ and His Bride.

The woman exchanged her assigned role (as helper for the man). Feminism is a counter picture which rejects the natural order of Christ the Bridegroom caring for the Church, His bride.

The man then tossed aside the directive he had been given to work and keep the Garden while leaving the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" alone. Instead he joined another creature (Satan) in rebellion against the Creator. Generalized emasculation and active homosexuality (male or female) both distort the God-given picture of Christ reigning and properly caring for what is His.

Divorce also destroys the picture.

When there is no proper marital union, children either suffer or are never brought into being. From an earthly perspective, child abuse and abortion mirror the destructive spiritual effects of man's continued rebellion.

Man's primary offense against God is:

they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him,

The stuff we do wrong comes from an arrogant attitude of thankless disregard for God and His generous provision. That goes for Adam in the garden, the Israelites who were miraculously liberated from bondage but refused to trust God and those today who continue to spit in the face of Christ.



H

Craig and Heather said...

No, I don't consider myself to be dominionist.

However, why hang on to the one verse in Levitius, maybe not you personally but its common among evangelicals, when the issue of homosexuality (or sexuality for that matter) isn't really addressed in the Gospels.

I don't hang my view of homosexuality entirely on Leviticus or Romans. My previous comment offers a bit of explanation of my perspective.

Again, I belog to a sect concerned with the application of the gospels to our daily life.

It's good to desire to make practical application of Christ's teaching.

But you need to understand Who He IS before any effort on your part will make any difference.

Craig and Heather said...

Ducky,

I just thought of another thing:


when the issue of homosexuality (or sexuality for that matter) isn't really addressed in the Gospels.

Jesus was talking primarily to Jews in the Gospels. He is the same God who gave the Mosaic Law to them and He clearly said He did not come to destroy any part of it (Matthew 5:17). The Jews already were aware that sexual deviancy/adultery is not okay, so Jesus didn't need to backtrack for them.

Paul was commissioned to go the the Gentiles (former pagans) and his writings DO address homosexuality. Those early gentile Christians would have been coming out of a morally decadent climate very similar to what the US is becoming.

Heather

Elmers Brother said...

The Biblical mandate against homosexuality makes more sense when you read in light of the pictures God's given us.

This is where duhkkky has a basic misunderstanding about conservative Christians. We don't believe the government can impose a Christian version of Sharia Law. We pray that it becomes an internal repentance and therefore no outside influence is needed. Nor do we hope the government will do it barring the much prayed for revival. Romans 1 details the consequences of that continued refusal to repent. The natural consequence of our rebellion is evident.

Craig and Heather said...

We don't believe the government can impose a Christian version of Sharia Law. We pray that it becomes an internal repentance and therefore no outside influence is needed. Nor do we hope the government will do it barring the much prayed for revival.

Absolutely.

The sticky political position conservative American Christians are in stems largely from the fact that individual citizens have been given a responsibility concerning our quality of leadership and the maintenance or alteration of US laws.

It is impossible to externally force others to conform to a Christian ideal of morality via legislation. However, Christians who recognize pro-homosexual rulings as being a slam against the person of Christ cannot, in good conscience, agree with those decisions.

It isn't so much a matter of hating gays as it is a desire to honor God.

H

Elmers Brother said...

It isn't so much a matter of hating gays as it is a desire to honor God.

so right

Elmers Brother said...

secular humanism is an imposed religion

Z said...

"It isn't so much a matter of hating gays as it is a desire to honor God."

It has absolutely nothing to do with hating anybody...it's all about loving everyone enough to want God's plan for them.

Craig and Heather said...

secular humanism is an imposed religion

With Darwinistic scientific data and human philosophy forming the basis of it's liturgy?

And almighty man being the central figure of worship?

When each man is his own god, you definitely need a heavy-duty external force to keep people from just doing whatever comes to mind.



H

Craig and Heather said...

It has absolutely nothing to do with hating anybody...it's all about loving everyone enough to want God's plan for them.

Of course it isn't about hate, Z.

But that is the stink bomb that always gets thrown by people who don't (or choose to not) understand that it is possible to care very much about a sinner while still disapproving of an act of sin.

H

Craig and Heather said...

secular humanism is an imposed religion

HA!

So much for separation of church and state.

H

Ducky's here said...

"Lord, forgive my little jokes on thee,
and I'll forgive your great big one on me."

--- Robert Frost

Z said...

you shouldn't be so hard on yourself, Ducky :-)

beamish said...

Ducky,

It seems to me that increased opportunities for the societal acceptance of feces-churning faggots like yourself would stymie the Catholic Church's priesthood recruiting efforts by broadening the number of professions that are amenable to the gay community. Doe we really need less Catholic priests, florists, dance choreographers and film critics just to make room for gay Scoutmasters?

Elmers Brother said...

So much for separation of church and state.

The Humanist Manifesto calls humanism a religion 20+ times.

Elmers Brother said...

But that is the stink bomb that always gets thrown by people who don't (or choose to not) understand that it is possible to care very much about a sinner while still disapproving of an act of sin.

One only has to be a parent to uderstand this concept very well.

Craig and Heather said...

Ducky:
"Lord, forgive my little jokes on thee,
and I'll forgive your great big one on me."

--- Robert Frost


So, you and Robert Frost believe God needs to ask your forgiveness for something He's done wrong?

I really don't like to push into people's private affairs, but there have been not so subtle suggestions made here that this topic agitates you because you are something other than an "open minded" pro-gay "straight" person of semi-religious bent.


When reference is made to "the gays", does this include you as one of that number or are you doing the typical liberal "we need to approve of any and every sort of sin by which any person wants to identify himself" thing?

H

Craig and Heather said...

The Humanist Manifesto calls humanism a religion 20+ times.

Ironically, Karl Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses" out of one side of his mouth while declaring from the other that man needs "to recognize as the highest divinity, the human self-consciousness itself." What could be more intoxicating than a religion that loudly proclaims to be breaking people free of religious boundaries?

Even more striking,atheistic humanism is the ultimate end of man's satanically inspired bid for power in the Garden.

"Be god for yourself" is exactly what the temptation was.

How can anyone think the Bible is irrelevant to today's issues?!?!

Heather

Elmers Brother said...

Marx contended that religion only favors the ruling class:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.


In other words, religion functions as a force to anesthetize the pain of oppression by assuring eternal life, making pain honorable and preventing change. Marx was adamant that the working class would one day rise up against its oppressors and overthrow them.

What I find ironic is that he found refuge not in some class utopia but in capitalistic England.

Max Weber on the other hand didn't blame religion entirely and instead of blaming Jews ala Marx, he blamed the Calvinists. Weber was influenced by Marx, but was not a Marxist and believed that religion, and in particular Calvinism, influenced the rise of capitalism, because it placed an emphasis on work ethic and in effect turned capitalism into a religion. Some liberal Catholics liberation theologians rail against Calvinism’s orthodox doctrine of God that manipulates Him, in their view, in favor of the capitalistic social structure. Liberation theology takes much of its genesis directly from Marxism and Neo-Marxism.

Craig and Heather said...

Marx was adamant that the working class would one day rise up against its oppressors and overthrow them.
What I find ironic is that he found refuge not in some class utopia but in capitalistic England.


It appears Mr. "champion of the working man" was quite a reprobate himself. But at least we can see the practical application of his ideology at work.

Still, regardless of what Marx thought or tried to convince others to believe, the human being was designed for worship. If we aren't worshiping God, we will default to something else as Paul pointed out in Romans 1.

Liberation theology takes much of its genesis directly from Marxism and Neo-Marxism.

Interesting. But perhaps not surprising as there seems to be a definitive common thread that runs through all belief systems.

Your statement reminds me of a little worldview comparison I recently did.


If you ever have a few spare minutes, I'd welcome your input on my conclusions.

http://onmysoapbox2.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/theology-matters-brief-worldview-survey/

Elmers Brother said...

I left a comment, but it didn't show up. do you have to approve it first?

Craig and Heather said...

Thanks.

First comment has to be approved. Our computer pooped shut down on us about an hour ago, so I didn't get the e-mail message yet.

Will check...

Craig and Heather said...

Oops our computer didn't poop. I was thinking like a mom. :S

H

highboy said...

I think ducky just told everyone he's gay. At least that's what the implication is of referring to that ridiculous quote in this context. Either way, Jesus Himself said the Law was fulfilled in Him. It says in the Gospel "each man should have a wife". There are no references, repeat NO references at all in the Gospels, of same sex couples in reference to anything related to marriage or sexual activity.

Speedy G said...

The Scouts won in Court. They're staying in their HQ and the gay lawyers will be paying (w/taxpayer $$$ no doubt) their legal costs.

Diederick said...

Obviously there is no argument but a religious one behind the BSA's ban on homosexuals. Rendering the BSA quite an outcast in the world of scouting, since it is only them and all Arab scouting organizations who ban homosexuals.

The problem is that people are (wilfully) ignorant about homosexuality. 'They' think homosexual men are paedophiles, that homosexuality is contagious and that it can be cured. Which is all complete nonsense of course.

Then again I don't see why people would want to join the BSA, instead of a European style scouting organization.

highboy said...

Yes dietrich, there is an argument other than religion, though religion would more than suffice since BSA is a religious organization. The fact of the matter is, male scout leaders are not allowed to be Girl Scout leaders. Why? Because of sexual tension. Sexual tension is the reason we separate the genders in public restrooms, toilets, the military, etc, and its the same with scouts. A male homosexual has no business taking little boys into the woods the same as a male heterosexual has no business taking little girls into the woods. As for why people join: they do more work for America and society than just about any organization on the planet.

Anonymous said...

Данный пост — одно из немногих исключений, когда читаешь с интересом и что-то для себя выносишь. Спасибо Вам. Добавлю в избранное[url=http://voronezh.recikl.ru/].[/url] :)