Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

I was a Boy Scout (and still am an Eagle Scout) and there's nothing in the Scout codes or laws that prevents a gay scoutmaster. There's a pledge to be "morally pure", but being gay isn't immoral, and the Boy Scouts of America are not Biblical literalists, nor a Christian organization.

Marriage by definition is a heterosexual union which was probably recognized by the State in order to protect women and children. It doesn't matter if the marriage produces children. The idea is to protect the children and encourage raising them in wedlock, and so the State has a compelling interest to encourage wedlock among heterosexuals.Homosexual sex does not produce children so the same State interest is not there, even if there are exceptions where gay couples have children either via adoption of from prior heterosexual sex.End of story.If you want to debate that, please do so and quit ignoring the argument. Unlike you it seems, I understand the other side, and frankly I am not even convinced of the best course of action, which is one reason I tend to think of civil unions as a good compromise.But your pedantic arguments make the one you are ignoring more persuasive.

Well, they feel there is something in their code, whether morality or whatever, that prevents gay scoutmasters, and as far as I am concerned they should be free to discriminate in that fashion if they equate homosexuality as a sin.You may argue that plenty of people felt it was morally wrong to hire black folks or some such, and it is true that there is a grey area in that the government had now mandated specific morality in that area, but the State had a compelling interest due to specific, grievous, longstanding abuse of minorities to take away people's rights to choose to hold moral beliefs in that area, if you want to dignify such racism as moral beliefs, in discriminating against minorities in their businesses and organizations. There needed to be a correction of unjust discrimination against people of color.Imo, the threashold just isn't there here. The Boy Scouts as a private organization should be free to govern according to their own morality, as they perceive it to be, without government interference. Homosexuals, and indeed no one, has a right to insist on being a scoutmaster unless that person adheres to their standards, and since their moral standard excludes homosexuals, that's the way it should be.Liberals and homosexuals are free to create their own "scouts" that discriminate in turn against anyone that advocates homosexuality is a sin.Heck, as far as I am concerned, southerners can create groups banning Yankees and vice versa, or whatever, as long as race is not a deciding issue.It's meant to be a free country, and you better have a darn good reason for taking away people's freedoms to do what they want within thier own organizations.

What's funny is, you're against "changing the definition of marriage", but your definition changes with every new post.Culture has already redefined marriage as a union between loving, consenting peers. It's time for the government to catch up with that. But the interest is there, because gay couples are producing children by various means, and they have a right to expect the same level of help in raising them that hetero couples can recieve.It's absolutely ludicrous of you to close your eyes and pretend that gay people can't be parents. If gay couples are raising kids then the state interest is there. Unless you believe that children raised by homosexuals don't deserve the same protection? My arguments are pedantic, now? Look, you're the one who's more concerned about definitions of words than the welfare of children. If you had no refutation to my arguments it would have simply been better had you not posted.

No, they don't. Look, I'm telling you. I was a Boy Scout. I held leadership positions. There was nothing in any rule, formal or informal, about "no gay scoutmasters."Some parents had a hissy-fit about a gay scout leader, their troop and council leaders sided with the parents over the individual, and the courts upheld their right to do so. You can pretty much kick anybody out of Scouts for any reason, it's a private organization and you can eliminate whatever members you want if you can get everybody else to go along.There's no rule about not having gay scoutmasters. I mean, you can have gay scouts, why couldn't you have a gay scoutmaster? But they don't, though. BSA is not a theological organization. They don't make statements about what is sin and what is not. And that's fair enough. But I'd just as soon you stopped impugning the noble organization of Boy Scouts with these erroneous charges that the BSA codes prohibit gay scoutmasters. It simply isn't true.

I had heard you cannot officially even have gay scouts.I think you are just making a mistake here, crash. In fact, one of the main arguments I have heard is that the scouts are, in fact, too discriminatory since they even ban gay scouts and some feel that is mean or harsh.I've never really been into the Boy Scouts, nor my kids, so it's not been an issue with me, but as far as I am concerned, they can admit or refuse anyone they like, at least if not's based on race, and their we draw the line as a soceity and I think that's a good thing.

Crash, the more I hear your side, the more I think it is wrong and this whole thing is more about government mandating morality and choosing biblical morality as second-class status.In general, I have been for civil unions because it avoids the entanglement with religion since marriage is a religious institution as well as a social one, but nonetheless civil unions can accord the same rights as marriage to protect homosexual couples.It's clear to me that many proponents of gar marriage are not concerned with homosexual people's rights, but use it as wedge issue to try to involve the government in condemning biblical morality as seen by conservatives.Sorry, but you are losing this one and it has a lot to do with your tactics. But that's the thing. Culture defined by what people believe has not redefined marriage. Most are against gay marriage, and many are against homosexuality, period.So you are wrong.The only concern should be redressing any injustice, and frankly making gay couples feel good by defining thier unions as a marriage is not the government's business, and hopefully most gay couples are not looking to the government for validation anyway.

As far as I can tell, students still sing carols in school. There are lots of Christmas displays on public property. (Well, not now, but check back in December).

Plenty of displays have been legally challenged and removed. Kids have been banned from singing carols at school or school-related events. My daughter was asked to pick her favorite holiday song to perform as a 3rd grader, and when she picked Silent Night, they told her she could not do that one. Such stories are quite common.There has been a sustained, coordinated and uncalled for attack to create hostility towards religion in general and to seek to denigrate any religious-based values as improper.The push for gay marriage, while possible having some impetus outside of that anti-religion campaign, is nonetheless a part of that.

Some have. But many continue without challenge. I guess it depends on whether they are seen as an establishment of religion. As far as I know, this is mainly school decisions. Some schools have over-reacted to first amendment cases. That is the story that the religious right tells. But it is false. It's my impression that the push for gay marriage is coming from the gay community, and is happening within the churches as much as elsewhere.The religious right likes to paint a picture of religion under attack. Its a false picture.

It's a convincing picture to me so I suppose what they are doing is working.Trends are often global. In Canada, a pastor was recently arrested under hate speech laws for preaching that homosexuality is a sin.The way it looks to me this whole issue is being drummed up as a political exercise to a certain extent. I am not saying the homosexual community is not for gay marriage for themselves, but the issue seems closely allied with groups intent on denigrating and demonizing people that believe homosexuality is wrong.Maybe is this was not part of a package so to speak, it would be more accepted, but it is for whatever reason, and consequently is being rejected by the public, which is evidenced by the fact most Americans are against gay marriage.

False. This was brought up by Faith in another thread and debunked there.edited to add:Faith makes the claim here Message 190, 3^rd last paragraph.
I report the results of a quick google here Message 197
Faith can't support her assertion and retracts the claim here Message 200This message has been edited by DrJones*, 08-21-2005 02:23 AMThis message has been edited by DrJones*, 08-21-2005 02:24 AM

---

*not an actual doctor

I think I speak for many when I ask you to point me to where you are being forced to marry a homosexual?In fact your statement is just plain hypoctitical and contradictory. Out of your mouth you attempt to justify ramming your values down someone elses throat and out the side with the vertical smile you talk about co-existing peacfully? What kind of twisted mega-weed are you smoking? And, once again we wonder whether you will ever understand that homosexuality IS normal. It happens across species. I guess if I looked at it from your view, God would seem to have a sick sense of humor, eh?It might be my humble opinion, but the social conservatives (as you call them) don't need anyones help. They do quite well enough demonizing themselves.

(edited to delete double post)This message has been edited by DBlevins, 08-21-2005 03:21 AM

---

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
..........Carl Sagan

I read every single word within any post of yours, or anyone else's, that I respond to. I may make an error while reading, missed meaning or something, but I read everything.I'm not sure what "crystal ball" gives you such insight that you "know" I don't read your posts, but you ought to get your money back.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)