Boy scout oath and what the handbook states it means:
http://www.usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/bsoath.asp
http://www.usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/bsoath.asp
toldailytopic: Boy Scouts vote to allow gay members. Good decision or bad decision?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
IMJerusha
New member
As Angel posted, "morally straight" is and always has been an integral part of the Boy Scouts oath. Moral behavior is dictated by God. Immoral behavior is identified by God. Moral behavior is that which is right (straight) versus that which is immoral or wrong (crooked). The BSA has always been a bastion of good and it is the saddest day to watch them abandon the morality God has given us. Nothing....NOTHING they do from this point on can be believed or honored because they have abandoned the very core of Scouting, God. It blows my mind that folks can actually say that it is impossible to walk away from God. The BSA has walked away from God. They have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie."
By gay standards (being born gay) that doesn't mean you aren't gay. You just haven't come out yet....at least by gay standards.
I feel so used.
Ah, you'll get over it!
I don't need to explain away the lack of evidence because everywhere I look I see evidence of God. You haven't given God a chance. One small step of faith will be rewarded but you can't be bothered. Why should He prove one single thing to you?
If the gay standard is that gays are born gay, then no gay person needs to be persuaded. You missed the point.
Absolutely not. That's what's so incredibly awesome. He's been right in front of your face all along.
Why wouldn't it be clear enough for me to understand easily?
But I suppose gods don't really to do "explicit", right?
You're expecting something a lot tougher than what it is. It's so clear and simple that a child can understand it. Faith is a simple choice; a thought, a whisper of hope. You're like a bull in a china shop! Be still....
The Scouts just depoliticized their organization. The ban on gays is a recent phenomenon. Before that, no one expressed any concern about it. In most cases, if a scout was gay, he probably wasn't old enough to be aware of it, and if he was, he almost certainly didn't think the Scouts were a group in which to express it.
It should be a non-issue, but there's political agendas on both sides of the question, eager to make scouting a battlefield. And so one side lost. And scouting lost. They should never have let themselves be drawn into it in the first place.
It should be a non-issue, but there's political agendas on both sides of the question, eager to make scouting a battlefield. And so one side lost. And scouting lost. They should never have let themselves be drawn into it in the first place.
Arrested development is part of the psychopathy of homosexuality.
Lon
Well-known member
I think I just loved people. It wasn't until about puberty, as I said.
I would say a good role-model of a feminine mother does teach us something but then again, as I said, that message didn't really take fruition until puberty. Girls were kinda 'icky' until then, though I liked a few enough if they were okay with boy stuff like worms and small pets and dirt and stuff.
alwight
New member
Hopefully I’m on the right page now
. I understand what you say that for you morals are Godly and absolute. However I otoh don’t think gods have anything to do with human relative (not absolute) morality and that what is deemed as moral can indeed vary and change to some extent with the times (moral zeitgeist).
Clearly in Biblical times the owning of slaves was considered moral while the Bible gives advice on how to deal with and treat them. If you are going to adhere strictly and literally to the Bible and never change with the times then owning slaves would be considered as “morally straight” today.
IMO the BSA is simply trying to keep up with modern morality, it is not walking away from any god. Again I realise that you think morals are absolute and come from your God but I hope you also will understand that many people, perhaps even the majority these days accept that morality is of human origin and probably is simply an evolved trait plus nurture and/or meme.
The Scout Movement in most other countries to my knowledge does not discriminate against gay scouts or indeed scout leaders but still manages to survive and to have good moral standards. It’s not a religious organisation and should be available to all, yes even atheists. Here in the UK the scouts are sponsored by many large companies who clearly will have many gay staff who are not likely to continue with that support imo if gays were discriminated against. I don’t know but I suspect for the BSA too sponsorship deals would be at risk if they hadn’t voted as they did.:think:
Nonsense, I can remember my physical reaction to the first copy of Playboy I discovered and that no amount of naked guys has ever had that effect on me I can assure you.:nono:
Nah we have probably simply evolved to believe in gods imo, which is why there have been so many wherever there are humans.
When I look around I see fierce competition and cruelty in nature while natural disasters, congenital dysfunction and disease speak of a natural world not one made for humans afaic.
Could my view of things be any more different to yours I wonder? Perhaps you just can’t see all the nasty things that I seem to see, along with at least some beauty and wonder of course that I also see, but I would expect that too from a natural world.
Apparently so then. As above I was never persuaded either way sexually it just was that way for me. I choose to believe others testimony who overwhelmingly say the same imo, gay or straight who generally have no reason to lie about it. They could all be good liars perhaps but I rather doubt it.
So has all the human misery, disease etc... What specifically would you claim is clear inescapable evidence of God?
You seem easily convinced anyway, perhaps too easily? :think:You're expecting something a lot tougher than what it is. It's so clear and simple that a child can understand it. Faith is a simple choice; a thought, a whisper of hope. You're like a bull in a china shop! Be still....Why wouldn't it be clear enough for me to understand easily?
But I suppose gods don't really to do "explicit", right?
Where is there any God-specific evidence, something that couldn't simply be explainable by natural physics?
No, something quite simple, specific and innocuous, if supernatural, could easily convince me, yet it doesn’t seem to happen, so why should I accept one faith or god over another, or indeed over none at all as being the more reasonable and rational based on what I see?
Lon
Well-known member
:doh: I said "God's" that's certainly not all about me
99lamb
New member
Trouble for the Boys Scouts of America, began at the 2000 DNC National Convention when they were targeted by gay delegates,booed by the gay delegates as being a bigoted group, a hate group for not allowing openly gay scouts.
The gay agenda is to make the Boy Scouts change to suite them (normalization, acceptance). Not to have an openly gay scouting group of their own, but rather attack an institution (the face of wholesomeness) , and through enough political pressure, demagoguery, and slander force acceptance. This is the incremental approach, first gay scouts, then you will have openly gay scout leaders.
The gay agenda is to make the Boy Scouts change to suite them (normalization, acceptance). Not to have an openly gay scouting group of their own, but rather attack an institution (the face of wholesomeness) , and through enough political pressure, demagoguery, and slander force acceptance. This is the incremental approach, first gay scouts, then you will have openly gay scout leaders.
Huckleberry
New member
If homosexuality is a sexual disorder, something developed during one's natural adolescent development...well, that'd be how one can be born a sinner but cannot be born gay.
True, there is. But I don't think arguing against this "born gay" thing is hair splitting at all. There's little to support it and it's very obviously intended to absolve homosexuals of any responsibility for their behavior in the public eye.
I find it disturbing how well this has worked despite the glaring logical disconnect there. What does the one have to do with the other in the first place?
Then I would expect you'd side with the Boy Scouts on this issue. Do you?
alwight
New member
People are born with arms and legs and the apparatus to sexually reproduce that without a desire to use it would mean no babies and rapid human extinction.
What then is your evidence that having genetically acquired these physical sexual attributes before birth that it would then be left entirely up to the individual's choice to have sex and not feel genetically compelled to as other creatures seem to be that don't have the human capacity to make intellectual choices?
Presumably you could "switch sides" so to speak if your religious beliefs indicated that your present "choice" was a sin, right?
Huckleberry
New member
I haven't asserted or even suggested that we aren't born without any sort of drive to reproduce. I haven't touched on that particular at all, as far as I can tell.
What I have done is offer the example of homosexuality being a sexual disorder developed during puberty in order to answer how our all being born sinners does not necessarily allow for being born gay.
I think it's a little ridiculous that this even needs be addressed, as it's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not a homosexual is responsible for their behavior...they would be as responsible whether born that way or not...but it does unfortunately seem to an important point to many, for some unfathomable reason.
So if we've established that it's theoretically possible that homosexuals are, in fact, human beings and are not only capable of taking responsibility for their own behavior but actually should be held as accountable for it as the any other human being...I suppose we can move on to actually treating them like any other human being, at least hypothetically.
Is it a good decision by the BSA to even vote on allowing gay members, when this not only stands against the very values they were founded upon and is, in fact, an obvious concession to political pressure, primarily by homosexual activists? I say no. Obviously no. And if homosexuals are fully capable human beings I don't even have to feel guilty about that or feel as if I'm being mean to some underprivileged minority whose behavior I must make allowances for. I can recognize them as capable human beings and more properly suggest they get off their duffs and either go form their own such organization or make use of those that already exist in abundance, rather than behaving like spoiled children.
PureX
Well-known member
Yes, it was a good decision to vote on the issue, because the BSA, just like anyone other organization, could always be wrong. They could have been founded on principals that were based on ignorance and prejudice, and were then teaching the same ignorance and prejudice to the boys. And that would need to be exposed and changed.
Also, they were not being subjected to "political" pressure. They were being subjected to social pressure. It is the society that they presume to serve, that is pressuring them to change their policies. So it makes sense, then, that they should take such social admonishment, seriously.
Adulterers are also human beings. And it was an act of consent.
Huckleberry
New member
Good point. Were they voting on whether the underlying principle here was wrong, though? Because if not...then this vote betrays that presumably right principle, does it not?
Agreed, but it's a step or two from taking social pressure/admonishment seriously to voting on the matter. I don't see BSA reexamining the moral issue itself and determining that their position is or even may be morally wrong. That would justify a vote on the matter. Anything else is placing social pressure above the moral foundation that largely defines them. In that they would betray themselves.
The only way that I think you could call that a good thing would be if you disagreed with those principles in the first place, and so considered anyone betraying those principles to be a good thing. In other words, the BSA betraying what it otherwise considers a right moral principle is not a good decision for them at all. It's a good decision for those that oppose them.
Then adulterers should be held responsible for their behavior as well. Sad that needs to be said but, if so, then let it be said. And to consent means, in part, to accept the consequences. Again, so be it.
PureX
Well-known member
Your argument assumes that they did not vote their conscience. I see no reason that I should assume that to be the case.
Also, one must consider their primary purpose. It is not unreasonable that they might decide to forgo a secondary purpose in support of their primary purpose, as conditions dictate such changes.
I'm not a boy scout, and have no connection to the BSA, but they appear to me to be doing the right thing for their organization, and for the society in which they hope to be of service. Are your objections based on your own religious/moral imperatives? And if so, wouldn't that be a rather selfish criteria upon which to judge them?
Huckleberry
New member
http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/results.aspx
That's their statement on the issue. I don't see much about examining the moral issue itself and quite a lot about doing what is convenient for the organization. I can't respect that decision.
The relevant religious/moral imperative of mine here would be something along the lines of "do the right thing, whatever the consequences". BSA does not do that here, so I'm comfortable disagreeing with their decision on that basis.
Let's be clear here. Let's put aside the issue of whether the change voted upon represents a morally right decision or not. Whether they are wrong now or they were wrong before. The fact is that they don't seem to have asked that question at all. They quite clearly base their decision of what is right and wrong on what is convenient for the organization. This was not a moral decision.
Organizations claiming a moral foundation of any sort do not behave this way. Decisions and behavior like this are what cause morally grounded organizations to become...organizations. BSA takes another step toward that with this decision.
PureX
Well-known member
But I don't think you get to make that call for other people. And there are certainly reasonable arguments against such an organizational policy.
Maybe they didn't make the decision on a moral basis, but rather a functional basis, i.e., carrying out their primary purpose (whatever that is). Either way, I think you're using your moral imperatives to judge their decision. And I don't really see the value or logic in that.
Well, you have a point, here, but I think you may be over-estimating the BSA's intent to push their moral values on the boys, rather than encouraging the boys to determine and stand up for their own moral values. I'm sure it's a mixture, but still ...
alwight
New member
So perhaps you will agree that a desire to have sex at least would in all probability have to be genetic and that at least the majority would be likely to find the opposite sex desirable?
Firstly I disagree that you can simply assume homosexuality must be a disorder. But even if it is a disorder then imo it is rather more likely to be a genetic one rather than some unknown event occurring during puberty, perhaps conveniently so, that some Christians can claim it a sin? (just my sceptic's suspicion perhaps.)
From what I at least understand from gay people they simply tend to find the same sex more desirable sexually much as heterosexuals similarly do the opposite sex. So in effect it doesn't really matter how a sexual tendency comes about in the young, it simply occurs as a natural unconscious honest process.
I would presume that Christian "sin" requires a conscious choice to do wrong, but then again how does that square with the idea of being born bearing the sins of some guy called Adam, nobody told be not to eat a forbidden fruit? :idunno:
So maybe sin not actually a choice to do wrong after all more pot luck?
Anyway I can't believe that anyone could actually change their sexual preference, even bisexuals who may choose partners from either sex could not simply decide to change that.
It seems to matter if you think that homosexuality is a sin, and that sin is always a bad and culpable thing presumably, but then again if sin can be innocently acquired at or before birth then I personally wouldn't worry about it too much.
Yes we can move on, but we should also tolerate other people who may think or who just are different to us. Personally I wouldn't blame anyone for having a responsible private adult homosexual sex life if that is what they want, it's also none of my business.
I don't quite know why you seem to doubt that homosexuals are fully human beings? :think:
I have experienced this somewhat "apartheid" mentality from other Christians which seems highly counter-productive to me in a modern society.
Anyway, despite its Christian based origins the BSA seems to want to be a secular organisation, not least perhaps because, if the UK scout association is a guide, it wants secular support and sponsorship from secular companies, after all they perhaps have a financial and fiscal need to be secular.
If however the BSA is entirely funded by conservative Christianity then fair enough afaic they won't be requiring any secular funding or sponsorship so they can make their own rules on who is allowed in.
OTOH a new, more secular version of the BSA might well arise and find secular funding and sponsorship deals rather useful, providing it is open to all. IMO large secular public companies rather tend to be successful and rich because they are in tune with overall general public opinion and its wants, perhaps because they have to be.
Huckleberry
New member
Um...okay. Who said I did? :idunno:
As anything else. Nevertheless, that is their organizational policy.
"The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."
Your use of "moral imperatives" here makes my scratch me head a bit. I don't think the term fits. If you mean that I'm making a moral judgement of the BSA decision...well, yes. Obviously.
I'm not sure how one can judge anything as good or bad without making a moral judgment. Pretty sure that's not possible. What's your real objection here?
No, it's not actually a mixture at all. They're pretty clear about it. They spell out exactly what moral values they'll be "pushing" on their members right there in the mission statement and vision statement.
Mission & Vision
Mission Statement
The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.
Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
Scout Law
A Scout is:
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent
Vision Statement
The Boy Scouts of America will prepare every eligible youth in America to become a responsible, participating citizen and leader who is guided by the Scout Oath and Law.