Eagle Scouts Return Badges in Protest of Gay Ban

  • Share
  • Read Later

When the Boy Scouts of America reaffirmed its policy of excluding openly gay members last week, it couldn’t have known that the decision would spark its highest-ranking members to defect. Yet a growing number of adult Eagle Scouts have been returning their hard-earned badges to the organization, along with heartfelt letters of protest.

In June, the Boy Scouts said it was reconsidering its anti-gay membership policy after one Scout presented officials with a Change.org petition bearing more than 300,000 signatures in favor of changing the policy. Though the organization said it would review the policy as a formality — with no plans to actually change it — the recent decision to uphold the standard was nevertheless a blow to many.

Since then, grown Eagle Scouts — the highest rank attainable in the Scouts — have renounced their Scout awards, which are badges earned at age 17 after many years of dedication and community service. One such Scout wrote about his decision in a letter to the New York Times:

My adolescent experience as a Boy Scout was an indispensable and joyous journey, and I shall always treasure it. Camping every summer taught me skills — including interpersonal understanding of diverse and often feisty individuals — that were foundational.

Therefore, it is painful yet necessary for me to renounce my Eagle Scout award and my membership in the Scouts and its affiliated Order of the Arrow. I can no longer be an “alumnus” of a group that has reaffirmed its bigotry.

Many others have posted their letters of protest online, with their missives calling attention to buzzwords like ethics, morals and equality, traits that many of these renouncing Scouts say they learned in Boy Scouts, many wondering if the organization indeed supports these standards.

With a growing flurry of Scouts renouncing their awards, we only wonder if America’s most famous Scout might follow suit.

MORE: The Boy Scouts Want Your Son to Become a Hipster

62 comments
ClairBourne
ClairBourne

But they knew the BSA was anti-gay when they earned the badges!  It always has been!

MadMagyar
MadMagyar

Those who advocate for the "accuser" (Lucifer) in espousing or apologizing for homosexuality are literally aligning themselves with the enemy of Mankind.

Chadwick Harvey
Chadwick Harvey

The returning of badges in protest to the BSA is an act of cowardice, not of courage/

http://www.policymic.com/artic...

RC
RC

Poorly written article which served more to illustrate the point of its opposition than the point it tries to make. A quick review of the comments below it can easily show that most of the readers have a firmer handle on the principle than the writer did.

Marc Luxenberg
Marc Luxenberg

The BSA national office no longer represents scouts of good will.  A secret committee and a non-public, possibly non-existent, report on sexual orientation are anathema to the Scout Oath and Law.  Such actions are not TRUSTWORTHY, HONEST nor BRAVE, but instead reek of political machinations directed by the two big financial supporters of the national office.  

The handful of men in the Irving, TX  headquarters are out of touch, but more likely, just in-bed with their deep pocketed friends in high places.  It is up to motivated eagle scouts to take back their beloved organization.  

RC
RC like.author.displayName 1 Like

When I was 19 my religion was revealed to former associates of mine in

the B.S.A. and I was threatened with the removal of my  rank if my

religious status was not removed from my personal profile. Aside from

this, I spent 13 yrs overall in the scouting programs claiming such

awards as the "clean sweep" in cub scouts on up to eagle status by 18

with all but 13 of the offered badges in total.

"Morally straight" was and still is a reference to the path of the

straight and narrow. A direction to be unwavering in ones morals and

ethics. It has never referred to the sexuality of an individual or any

preferences thereof.

The policy of prejudiced is a shameful stain and holds to reinforce arguments that have no base in reality or the meaning behind the purpose of scouting. As an adult now with 2 sons, I pass on my teachings from my time within the organization individually. I

wish I could find it in my heart to encourage them into a scouting

program, but I find the official stance of the B.S.A. counter to the

character of the men I wish them to become.

I support the young boys still involved in scouting, and I support the

leaders and patrons across the world that help forget them into

upstanding men. I can not support the official policies of the

organizations structure. Diversity and knowledge are imperative in

teaching. The concept of banning individuals based upon the concept of

their being innately wrong or unnatural flies in the face of every other

teaching of the oath, law, and motto.

The purpose of the scouts is to teach character and give direction to

all boys so that they may grow into adults capable of wisdom and

purpose. To deny that chance to any stands starkly counter to this end.

There are few religions in this world that hold ones sexuality as

tantamount to the righteousness of their soul. Yet these few, habitually

dictate to the rest what should be considered wholesome or worthy. The

B.S.A. is a multi-faith organization claiming not to be biased towards

these teachings and allowing room for all, yet playing the side of

hypocrisy when convenient. These are not the lessons I want my children

to see, nor the ideals I was taught to aspire towards. For if ALL men

are created equal, then we should all treat one another as such. Holding

to ALL tenants of the scout law.

To be TRUSTWORTHY - That no man nor woman shall have reason to question your honor or merit.

To be LOYAL - In such a way that your heart and mind hold true to those people and ideals you profess to care for.

To be HELPFUL - So that your heart aches to ignore those in need, and

that you strive to work for the sake of others and the world. To be

useful and a help rather than hindrance to others.

To be FRIENDLY -  To hold open the mind and heart to all you meet

regardless of race, social standing or alternate call for prejudiced. It

is unfriendly to look down upon another, for all scouts are brothers

and all humanity part of our extended family.

To be COURTEOUS - Extending your respect to all you come across be it

men, women or children. To be polite is a policy of honor. Under no

circumstance is a scout to show disrespect to another even in times of

anger or disagreement.

To be KIND - Inflicting no pain or cause for such with undue need or light thought.

To be OBEDIENT - As any good solider. A scout has call to duty. Obey the

orders given by those to whom you have claimed allegiance.

To be CHEERFUL - As holding both hope and optimism for the world in

which you live, Passing on neither negativity nor ill will to those who

watch you throughout life.

To be THRIFTY - and not wasteful of the resources given by your earnings or the natural conditions around you.

To be BRAVE - Knowing without showing fear in the face of adversity.

Willing to stand and face those things that plagues your heart the most.

To be CLEAN - Of a pure mind and heart forsaking temptation to engage in

pettiness, gossip, or things that may bring tarnish to your honor as a

scout, a man, and a person. A man who is clean of mind and action knows

no shame.

and lastly you are to be forever REVERENT - Respectful of both your

beliefs and those of others. You are to hold proper veneration and

courtesy in all appropriate situations for the sake of yourself and

others, regardless of faith, belief or circumstance.

BE PREPARED.

You are to make yourself prepared to accept and face any and all

opportunity or obstacle that comes your way, so that you may be ready to

take action for the benefit of self and others.

 

On my HONOR I will do my best to do my DUTY, to God (whichever you

profess private belief towards) my country, and to OBEY THE SCOUT LAW.

(all of it)

To HELP OTHER PEOPLE AT ALL TIMES; (all people) To keep myself

physically strong, (so that you may be prepared to do your utmost)

MENTALLY AWAKE (use your brain actively) and MORALLY straight. (Do not

wander from the path of the straight and narrow of your ethics or

morals)

Along with everything else I learned in scouts... The B.S.A. is failing

to uphold or adhere to their own teaching and have allowed their intent

to be perverted thru the rhetoric of an aggressively prejudiced group of

religious extremists who have twisted their own faiths to fit their

fears. To allow such a dishonor to continue blackening the soul of this

institution of growth and learning is a deplorable tragedy of which no

good can come.

My badges and accomplishments no longer represent the state of the

B.S.A. but rather what it once meant to me. It is bittersweet now to

look upon them, yet I can never forget that it was my time spent in my

own troop that taught me how to stand against what is now being

perpetrated by that very same organization. I would hope that all of my

brothers would open their eyes to this and take action. Just as true

patriotism is the strength to stand for ones government in right, and

against it in folly, true loyalty should be the same in order to protect what we hold dear from itself or those who would see it corrupted.

Mark A. Griffin
Mark A. Griffin

We will continue to see many organizations stand for their beliefs with pride and they shall be rewarded accordingly. I applaud them. It is not a mystery on why the greatest country in the world is now evolving to the bottem of the heap. But maybe just maybe we are hopefully awakening as a Nation. God help us.

RC
RC

Yet again there are words being put into my mouth as well as ignored from it. I am not talking about gay marriage. I am simply talking about homosexuality in a biblical sense. 

The passages I speak of are in the bible therefore biblical. Some of them are the same ones to which you have referred. Aside from that. 

 I believe that the only way to demonstrate to you the biblical validity is to do as you have and point to the exact passages to which I am referring. The difference of course being the correct translations and context vs the common misconceptions.

FIRST Leviticus 18:22

direct Hebrew translation

And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is a despising.

 

This is the correct translation of Leviticus 18:22. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed. Culturally, a woman's bed was her own. Other than the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were even restrictions on when he was allowed in there. Any other use of her bed would have been considered defilement.  The passage is a warning against married men cheating on their wives with other men.

Now before addressing Romans allow me to put some context in place. The ancient Greek and Roman concept of what was “normal” and what was moral was quite different from ours. Although such concepts as sexual orientation had not been named, in behavior, both the Greek and Roman empires expected everyone to be bisexual. 

There were very specific cultural rules regarding how this worked. A woman, for example, had one husband, and was not permitted sexual contact with any other male. But sexual contact with other women was permitted and even expected. 

For men, the rules permitted him wives, and perhaps concubines, depending on his wealth. But an adult man would also be “attached” to an adolescent male, to whom he would be teacher, mentor and lover. Any man or women who had relations with only one gender would have been thought odd or even abnormal. Church history documents that same-sex marriages existed, and continued, in the Christian church up until around the 13th or 14th century

 It was in the context of this society that Paul spoke. Romans chapter one, as a whole, deals with pagan Rome’s attempts to turn the creation into a god, worshiping the things created rather than the One who created them, and their attempt to remake that creation in their own design, by ignoring the inborn sexual orientation of the people, and expecting them to live bisexually. This chapter is not about homosexuality vs. heterosexuality, but rather about the error of trying to change the way we are created. 

and now the properly translated passage

Romans 1:26-27 -  “Through this, God gave them over to passions of dishonor; their women exchanged the natural use into one against their nature, likewise also the men left the natural use of the female, men in men, committing an indecency in their pure lust, receiving in themselves the necessary reward for their error.”

  First Corinthians 6:9 "Or haven’t you known that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be misled; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor soft ones nor those who lie with males."

First let us adress the term "soft ones" The Greek word malaki (mala-KEE) is a plural noun, derived from the adjective malakos (mala-KOS). The adjective means soft or fine, but is restricted in its use to describing material or clothing. It describes the type of clothing worn by wealthy people. This statement is an allusion towards those who deny work and gain wealth at the expense of others. Other synonyms for this would be "soft hands"

Now let us focus on the last part of this passage. "those who lie with males" ... Ordinarily, to determine if a Greek noun is masculine or feminine, one looks at it in the nominative case with the definite article. Problem being that the word used in these two verses never appears with a definite article... at all, anywhere. This is important. Greek nouns are declined according to case. That is, the ending of a noun changes to indicate how the word is being used in the sentence. 

So how is this weighed? First, when properly translated, Scripture contains no prior condemnation of homosexuality, and the Hebrew Old Testament contains the record of two same-sex marriages, neither condemned by God. Secondly in 1 Corinthians, the word is in the nominative case, and the ending is clearly a feminine ending. This would suggest that the word is referring to women lying with males, thus representing a condemnation of female promiscuity outside of marriage, as the word for fornicators and adulterers are in the male sense.

Then of course we have the passages of I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46; II Kings 23:7 in conjunction with Deuteronomy 23:17, which all use translations of the Hebrew word "Qadesh." which refers a  temple or cult prostitute -- that is a prostitute in a Pagan temple. This word is translated in alternate context to mean a male prostitute traditionally used in a pagan temple.

In the 17th century this word was translated to the term "Sodomite" which having undergone many contexual changes within its etymology had come to mean at the time "unnatural" sexual acts of any type, including anal sex, oral sex, etc. as defined by the current incarnation of the church before the King James revision.

Now for Matthew 8:5-13

"5 And Jesus having entered into Capernaum, there came to him a centurion calling upon him,

6 and saying, `Sir, my pais hath been laid in the house a paralytic, fearfully afflicted,'

7 and Jesus saith to him, `I, having come, will heal him.'

8 And the centurion answering said, `Sir, I am not worthy that thou mayest enter under my roof, but only say a word, and my servant shall be healed;

9 for I also am a man under authority, having under myself soldiers, and I say to this one, Go, and he goeth, and to another, Be coming, and he cometh, and to my servant, Do this, and he doth [it].'

10 And Jesus having heard, did wonder, and said to those following, `Verily I say to you, not even in Israel so great faith have I found;

11 and I say to you, that many from east and west shall come and recline (at meat) with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the reign of the heavens,

12 but the sons of the reign shall be cast forth to the outer darkness -- there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth.'

13 And Jesus said to the centurion, `Go, and as thou didst believe let it be to thee;' and his pais was healed in that hour.

 amp; Luke 7:1-10 later on tells this same story over again using the word Pais yet again. 

The cultural and historical setting Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 addressed when they tell the Centurion and pais story is vitally important. BOTH Matthew and Luke use the Greek word pais to describe the Centurion's relationship with his “servant.” They used the word pais at a time when that word had definite same sex meaning when used as they used it, to refer to the relationship between a Roman Centurion and his "beloved" servant.

Of course the scholarly understanding of the word "Pais" is as follows. "The junior partner in homosexual eros is called pais (or of course, paidika) even when he has reached adult height and hair has begun to grow on his face"

Shall I proceed?

Matthew 19:10-12

"10 His disciples say to him, `If the case of the man with the woman is so, it is not good to marry.'

11 And he said to them, `All do not receive this word, but those to whom it hath been given;

12 for there are eunuchs who from the mother's womb were so born; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who kept themselves eunuchs because of the reign of the heavens: he who is able to receive, let him receive.'"

In the original texts of the Bible a “eunuch” is termed saris (Hebrew, Old Testament)

or eunouchos (Greek, New Testament). However, both these words could apart from

meaning a castrate. In translations of ancient texts, "eunuch" may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate. 

"Eunuchs who from the mother's womb were so born"

Dr. Robert Gagnon, prolific anti-gay, evangelical Christian author, admits on his website, "born eunuchs" in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined, which incidentally puts to the lie the oft-repeated claim that the ancient world could not even conceive of persons that were congenitally influenced toward exclusive same-sex attractions." - Dr. Gagnon

In rare cases, eunuch could refer to one born with genital defects which make siring children impossible, although this condition is not mentioned in scripture. This is the closest the Bible ever comes to any refference towards hermaphrodites.

According to Jesus, this is a natural state of being having been inborn to the individual.

Earlier on God tells Solomon that the Eunuch is blessed for his faith and shall receive a place in heaven more suitable for his mind.

 Now knowing all of that consider the following. God stated in Genesis Verse 18: "It is not good for the man to be alone". This shows the importance that God gives to committed relationships. For a heterosexual, the only suitable companion is a person of the opposite gender. For a homosexual individual, the only suitable companion is a person of the same gender. To say that gays and lesbians should not form committed relationships is to say that it is good for people to remain alone. 

Ahh but I have not yet adressed Sodom or Gomorrah... Right you are but a the passage is long I will refer you here http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/... to read it. It is quite clear that their destruction was over rampant violence and RAPE, not homosexual behavior. They turned from god and did un natural things to the flesh. Which includes rape, homosexual prostitution, adultery and murder, but not loving homosexual union.

So, now that you know you have a few choices... 1 - Find someone else capable of the translations and get a second opinion (though I have source checked with other scholars already) 2 - Refuse to believe the true word and continue living by the corrupted versions passed down for a few centuries now. 3 - Re evaluate what you thought you knew, and accept the truth of the message you proffess faith in.

WilliamBarnes
WilliamBarnes

@RC The bible (of every last religion in every last nation) was written by men, using writing tools. not God. if you'd care to TRY to PROOVE your bigotry drivel (can't be done, dildo), you'd probably get more people to listen. Stop trying to poisin people's minds.

MadMagyar
MadMagyar

Maybe you ought to try reading what Jesus spoke - Aramaic. Reads nothing like "Hebrew" or Greek.

Mark A. Griffin
Mark A. Griffin

I appreciate your attempt to prove your conviction, it must have taken you an incredible time to put this together. Your explanation is not Biblical and contains several flaws. I am not buying your argument, but again I respect your attempt to support your convictions. God bless and keep up the good fight as you search for truth and light in your relationship with God.

RC
RC like.author.displayName 1 Like

It is a great thing to see members of the organization stand for their beliefs and return their badges. I applaud them. It is sad to see the organization itself spout such hypocrisy. It is not a mystery on why the most prideful country in the world is falling to its earned place. But perhaps if we woke up as a nation then we could rise to the ideals we claim to value so highly. 

I think that may be a bit more suiting as a statement.

Mark A. Griffin
Mark A. Griffin

I believe We are falling because we are turning from God. Our fault not his. What is so awesome is it is not to late to fix this, God forgives. Want to help fix it and join me in redemptive peace? It's not hard, just requires humbling ourselves and believing. Have a great day.

Naida Marie
Naida Marie

Stand strong BSA.  Please don't let bigots force you to change your policy that has been in effect since the beginning.

RC
RC

Since the beginning... hmm...  You know Baden Powell the founder of the Scouts was in fact Gay right?

MadMagyar
MadMagyar

Not "fact" - as so many gay apologists as yourself claim. Tim Jeal's book (and his publisher's legal department probably warned him against this) makes no such claim, but merely sets up a lot of circumstantial "evidence", allowing people to come to their own conclusions (in their own minds). Otherwise they could be sued for libel - as could you and everybody else who has said this on the internet. Read the definition of libel in a law dictionary and consider your words and possible consequences before publishing.

Andy Hao
Andy Hao

 Why try so hard to get accepted ?

RC
RC

Well as a parent who has boys, and as a former Eagle scout I just wish there were an organization I could feel confident about my boys entering where they would learn the things I did but without reinforcing bigotry while doing so. My boys so far as I know up unto now are both straight, but I would not want them to think it is ok to discriminate against someone else because they are not. 

Mark A. Griffin
Mark A. Griffin

It is a private group, I don't understand what the issue is. Private groups have the right to exclude individuals that don't fit the profile for membership. I can't join certain groups because I am not a Women, Hispanic, Black etc.

Christopher T. Dubowicz
Christopher T. Dubowicz

While the group CLAIMS to be PRIVATE, it DOES accept PUBLIC money.  THEREFORE it is NOT a PRIVATE organization, as such ......  While in the USAF the SPS sponsored an EXPLORER POST for young adults on my base.   We were ALLOWED to use any/all facilities for our functions and there was an AFR that covered what services could/could NOT be provided by the USAF ...............................

Mark A. Griffin
Mark A. Griffin

That's a good point Chris.  I agree all organizations that receive public money should all adhere to the same standard set forth by the guidelines.  The BSA should set the example and return the money.  Than maybe the rest of the groups that might be receiving  public  money and excluding women, blacks, straight people  etc.  will do the same.  Have a great morning. 

RC
RC

The main issue for me personally is the hypocrisy entailed within the decision by comparison to what they claim to teach. I go into great detail about this in my post.

InmanDO
InmanDO

"On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my Country; to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; and to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

RC
RC

Obviously you were never properly taught what that means. Find my post and educate yourself.

rdfInOP
rdfInOP

I don't understand the long-term effectiveness of returning the badges to the BSA.  They will simply discard them and move on.  It seems to me that people should send those badges to some organization that will add them to some sort of display.  A few thousand eagle badges in a window or on a wall might have more effect than those same badges in a landfill. 

RC
RC

It could simply be a way of explaining to the organization why they wish to sever ties. Eagle Alumni receive regular updates and request for donations throughout their lives from the B.S.A. (which is very very high on symbolism btw) This type of action should have a large impact in a cultural sense to the community of involvement even if it does not directly affect policies or change in the higher structure.

Jim Guinnessey
Jim Guinnessey

I was only a Tenderfoot eons ago but how can anyone know who is a Gay boyscout or not unless the scout wants to "come out?" Maybe the Scouts should have separate teams for scouts who are openly Gay?? I applaud the Eagle Scouts who denounce the Scouts recent (and hidden) vote on ostracism of Gay Scouts. Even the founder of the Scouts worldwide, a Brit, was Gay.

RC
RC

Well, the biggest problem is a lot of scouts finish the program and wish to stay on as leaders or instructors, but if they feel that their personal lives have to be completely hidden in order to do so, then they are likely to leave the fold. This can have a negative impact on the quality of teaching the next generation receives. It is almost always best when a former scout goes on to teach what they have learned. The sense of camaraderie knowing that your leader has done what you have and experienced these lessons first hand in a similar environment is quite impactful. Many skilled individuals I know personally have made just such a decision, and I can not help but support them.

Hans
Hans

@MadMagyar:disqus I had a defensive response planned to your comment, until I read you became an Eagle Scout at the age of 14... as a former Boy Scout, I've learned that just about all children who become Eagle Scouts at such a young age were rushed into it and don't truly understand the honor. The same seems to go for you. The Eagle Scouts returning their badges may not have taken the OATH as to heart as you, but they've demonstrated that they have their own set of morals and opinions that they plan to follow, regardless of what the BSA says.

MadMagyar
MadMagyar

There was no "rush" about my progress. I was merely blessed with far above average intelligence and a couple of very supportive parents. My Mom was a Den Mother when I started in the Cub Scouts, and my Dad was a Commissioner. Had I grown up in the 70's or 80's I would have been called a nerd, as the main focus of my studies were in the sciences and various electronic technologies (many neighbors who were available for merit badge conseling were often engineers in the local Southern California aerospace industries). We also went camping a lot, so earning the basic merit badges was very easy. Our family was not particularly religious, but my brothers and I were familiar with the basics of the Bible and those stories from children's books were a part of our early education. Maybe full understanding of "honor" didn't set in until later, but we knew what an oath was, and we took it seriously. Being tapped out (for Order of the Arrow) was something very special to us. I went on to the Explorers, as well, and when married became an assistant Scoutmaster, so my dedication lasted beyond adolescence.

I was not baptized (in the RC Church) until age 19, though. That was after a profound conversion experience, which was very transformative. It was at THAT point that I knew what was really meant by those words I'd repeated so many times when "just a kid". It also became very clear just how important the morals and ideals passed along from generation to generation amongst Boy Scouts really are - because it was clear that even the Churches have fallen away and basic family values were and are being attacked on all sides. The scandal of pedophile priests (and pastors of other flocks in churches) is tearing that tradition apart. It's almost as if the Boy Scouts has been an under-the-radar reservoir of basic morals and family values teaching.

One only needs to look at the attacks the LGBT purveyors of immorality have heaped upon every basic human institution to see where this is all going. That "lifestyle" is about nothing more than hedonism and unbridled lust. I'd almost say it was demonically inspired in its militant frenzy. It's a learned behavior, nothing more, and it's killing this society, and not merely with rampant transmission of HIV. I coined a word to describe homosexuality and have used it since the early 70's, because if allowed to run its full course, it will spell the end of humanity altogether - which, in essence, is what the chuirches teach is the desired end result of "the Accuser" (variously named Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, etc.). That word is bio-illogical, because it goes against our most basic biological programming.

I was a scientist for most of my career, much of it spent in the fields of medicine and biology and if there's one thing I learned in all that time, it's this: The simple purpose of DNA is to survive, and replicate. It's about life, and the continuation of life - procreation. We were blessed with the sense of pleasure in loving our biological complements primarily for this purpose and personally I'm quite happy about that.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, denies this basic purpose of DNA. It is about nothing more than sex . . . and death of the species, spiritual as well as physical.

RC
RC

btw if you are wondering where Jesus blessed homosexuals, there are 2 passages. One in which he blesses a centurion and his "pais" Which in ancient greek basically translates to what we would call a "twink" today.  Secondly he addresses the issue while taking a stance against divorce. He refers to Eunuchs who were born as such. In the ancient world this referred not only to those born inter-sexed, or with genital deformity but generally also towards individuals who did not have attraction for the opposite sex which were recognized and married as the sex of their own choosing. 

Meanwhile divorce rules are very very clear and he was deeply opposed.The other statements made biblically in acceptance of this and condemnation of lust are made in the old testament, which as any good christian should no, simply holds no real relevance after Jesus created the new covenant.

MadMagyar
MadMagyar

Try reading it in what Jesus spoke - Aramaic. Reads a lot different than "Hebrew" or Greek.

RC
RC

An allowance in the gene pool that creates productive and loving individuals without the desire or means to procreate is in fact a positive necessity that curbs the problem of rampant overpopulation and squandering of resources. If allowed to "run its course" the population being comprised of homosexual individuals will allow for the care of unwanted children through adoption without adding strain to our planet.  Multiple species engage in homosexual behavior, one need only spend some time on a farm to see this. Many species in our world even change sex according to the demands of their survival. These are no more evil than the urge to survive.

Jesus blessed the prostitute and the homosexual for taking up needed places within human society so that sin may be alleviated and lust quenched without leading to detriment. Faulty translations have been around for years tainted by men with agendas ungodly in their own right. What was cursed by the bible was rampant lust leading to rape, and men laying with men to satisfy their desires alone.

 In the ancient world gay couples were not considered homosexual as any man professing to be female was simply treated and considered as such by the society around them. They were considered no different from a heterosexual couple. Investigation into ancient practices clearly shows this time and time again. Also while not explicit the bible actually speaks of the loving homosexual relations between men several times as the phrase "specially loved by" translates from many of the original texts. 

Furthermore, every single translation involving Jesus has agreed on the following components. It is not our place to judge. All sin can be forgiven. All people are sinners. The act of professing otherwise or judging is considered a sin in itself no less than the act of fornification outside of marriage.

Regardless of any of this, the B.S.A. is not a christian organization, nor jewish, muslim, hindu etc... It is an open faith organization simply preferring its members know some form of faith intimately. They teach others to respect the beliefs and rights of all men. To turn around and deny rights to a group because of someone's personal prejudiced is hypocritical in the simplest definition of the word.

I hope you may find reconciliation between the faith you have been taught and the truth of the faith you proclaim. As you become mentally awakened to these matters perhaps your opinions will change for if not then it is not your faith holding you from acceptance, but your own prides and fears which are a detriment to your spiritual being in Gods eyes.

MadMagyar
MadMagyar

I, for one, thanked the committee members for their decision. As an old Eagle Scout, and Order of the Arrow member, I understood what the last two words of the OATH we first took at age 11 meant - an oath we took very seriously. Those two words still mean the same thing, though society has tried to change the definition and meaning of almost every word in our language in the ensuing 50 years. Apparently Terry Perlin, Kelsey Timmerman and other Eagles who've turned in their awards in protest didn't understand that, or held mental reservations when they took the Oath, and were therefor undeserving of the award to begin with.

The three parts of the Oath are to (first) God, then country and to one's self - in that order for a reason. The Boy Scouts of America is first a "religious" organization, and always has been, for that reason, to help young boys establish a moral compass to guide themselves through the rest of their life. If parents have some other purpose for their young children, then they should direct their kids to some other organization, and accept the sometimes unintended consequences of their decisions.

I know of no major world religion or spiritual belief that permits immorality, save one, but then I don't expect that so-called "religion" to ever accept the ideals of scouting - in the traditions of the BSA, that is. As scouts, we were taught to respect the rights and choices of others. But we were never required to associate with anybody who held beliefs, ideals, traditions and morality outside of ours.

Finally, the BSA is a FAMILY-oriented organization. Homosexuality is about as polar opposite a belief as you can get from that.

Note to author: a scout can achieve the Eagle award at any age, upon completion of the requirements, not "at age 17". I earned the award, the first in my troop, when I was 14 - and it was darned difficult to do back then.

BettyDI
BettyDI

I think these former scouts showed great courage in standing up to the corporate fatcats who run the BSA franchise. They taught them too well.

RC
RC

You were obviously mis educated on what that last part meant and have made your ignorance on the matter abundantly clear. Perhaps your leader did not know better, or failed to clarify, but regardless. your comments have made a fool of you. In addition, a family of any structure is still a family, and the B.S.A. does allow boys raised by same sex couples to engage in scouting. Therefore recognizing the family unit itself. They just don't allow for gay scouts or leaders. 

I have always questioned "Eagles" who "earn"  the rank before 15 simply because of required advancement timeline set forth for the reaching such a goal. Two of the ranks before eagle require a 6 month staying period each before the next advancement, not to mention the holding of the required troop positions would have had to begun at tenderfoot, when no scout is qualified to fill position beyond patrol leader... unless you started before the minimum age, it simply doesn't add up mathematically.

John Forsthoffer
John Forsthoffer

Good for them. More people need to stand for what they believe. 

Mark A. Griffin
Mark A. Griffin

They will John, don't worry about that. Many will begin to stand tall. Judgement is coming.

RC
RC

I challenge you to point out a single non biblical, non historical or faulty argument within the information. Plain simple and open, what are you talking about? Every piece of information presented is traceable, provable and correct. simply choosing not to believe it does not make it erroneous.

RC
RC

"Your argument is not Biblical"

 Actually it is. 

 "I would be careful to what you profess, professing something as the word of God is far greater a sin than committing that sin your own self. " 

Which is precisely why I used the proper biblical translation as my argument, instead of the currently accepted and preached rhetoric.

Most Christians are hardly anti gay, anti sin maybe, but not anti gay. 

I did not call all Christians anti gay. the use of "Anti gay Christians" was to make that distinction between those that are vs those that are not... Who I would simply call Christians or "true Christians"

 "You are welcome to believe homosexuality is not sin, many just don't agree."  

Then it is their misinformation about their own faith. That is the correction I am making. Though it is off topic from the Scouting issue, there is much misinformation on the true christian stance regarding homosexuality. I privately emailed you this earlier, but would like to openly post it here now for all who are not u.t.d. on the conversation. 

"Just so that everyone who has to deal with an anti gay christian can have the facts behind them... I would like to put forth the following information. please share as much as you want.

   First off, in the ancient world gay couples were not considered homosexual as any man professing to be female was simply treated and considered as such by the society around them. They were considered no different from a heterosexual couple. But were usually referred to as whatever sex they proclaimed or others would proclaim them as natural born Eunuchs. Investigation into ancient practices clearly shows this time and time again. Also while not explicit the bible actually speaks of the loving homosexual relations between men several times as the phrase "specially loved by" or "specially beloved" translates from many of the original texts. Several texts say this in a roundabout way yet there is one in which Jesus blesses a centurion and his beloved "pais" Which in ancient Greek basically translates to what we would call a "twink" today.

Yes folks Jesus himself blessed a GAY couple. Secondly Jesus addresses the issue while taking a stance against divorce. He refers to "Eunuchs who were born as such"... As mentioned, in the ancient world this referred not only to those born inter-sexed, or with genital deformity but generally also towards individuals who did not have attraction for the opposite sex which were recognized and married as the sex of their own choosing. He also goes on to talk about Eunuchs who were made thus by men (as our modern translation goes) people who do not marry for sake of their closeness with God etc. But he does specify the general expressive words used in the ancient world to define Homosexuals as being excluded from his condemnation of divorce and goes on to allow them a place in heaven. 

Meanwhile divorce rules are very very clear and he was deeply opposed.

 Furthermore, every single translation involving Jesus has agreed on the following components. It is not our place to judge. All sin can be forgiven. All people are sinners. The act of professing otherwise or judging is considered a sin in itself no less than the act of fornication outside of marriage. 

The other statements made Biblically in acceptance of this and condemnation of lust are made in the old testament, which as any good christian should no, simply holds no real relevance after Jesus declared the new covenant. That's why you're allowed to eat pork and wear mixed fabrics without being bound for hell.  

Faulty translations have been around for years tainted by men with agendas ungodly in their own right. (King James who rewrote previous second and third hand translations so he could get divorced.)    

"Effeminate" men were praised next to prostitutes so that those without lust for women or love for other man may have a way. This was so that sin may be alleviated and lust quenched without leading to detriment. What was cursed by the bible was rampant lust leading to rape, and men laying with men to satisfy their desires alone. The translation here that has been construed as homosexuals actually referred to straight men who would engage in homosexual behavior for money. This is mostly explored in Leviticus. Jesus does perform the action of blessing later on with a short reference towards the original stance. Jesus blessed the prostitute and the homosexual for taking up needed places within human society.   

Now for the final bit which is bound to come up. Many  "believers" won't believe you. They will claim that they have read it, their pastors have read it, they will spout off with the translations that have been passed down and retouched for over 500 yrs.

How could these things be true?

I wasn't raised that way!

That's a lie!

etc...  The reason they don't know these things is because the Bible as they know it has been changed as many times as it has been read.

None of the books were written down until hundreds of years after the death of the last apostle. Several thousand manuscripts were then written, none of them said exactly the same thing. When Rome converted to Christianity, a council was convened to decide which of these they wanted the people to follow. They formed what Catholics know as the Bible after picking and choosing between these thousands of documents, several of which they simply threw out. (These are included in the Bibles of several other countries for example Ethiopia) 

Now according to the faithful, that council was God guided to pick these and form the Catholic church... However Hundreds of years after that those Bibles got re translated by hundreds more people and put into new languages... Then from those translations, a guy named King James of England got some guys to edit a bunch of things into the way he liked them so he could get divorced. It didn't pass parliament... So he got some guys to do some more editing from the formerly translated and re translated bits until parliament said yes... Then the book kept going until another company either re translated that version into modern English or your pastor translated a poorly translated document from old English into modern English himself at which point you heard it in church growing up...

So, if you want to know the closest possible version to the truth... You need to read the Books from multiple countries, learn Latin, compare ancient translations, make corrections to the newer translations you own (like I spent soooo much time actually doing in my youth) and pray that you can actually get a quarter of it right.  

Please share this, copy it paste it, get it wherever you need to because I am sick and tired of the people spouting off with things they don't know about. Its like listening to a bad game of telephone going from the deaf, the blind, the vengeful and faithful alike until it's hardly recognizable. 

Glaring example within the English translations. "Red" Sea... Old English long E = Reed Sea = portion of northern Nile delta which dries up twice a year and is filled with crocodiles which literally "swallowed" the Egyptians in their pursuit of the slaves. 

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"  "witch" = old English "Wic" = country dweller = medicine maker = what we refer to in the modern world as a doctor. Tada! a passage about having faith that God will heal you becomes a free reign for persecution of other religions and practitioners of traditional ways... and we get what from that? An inquisition and people being burnt alive... Coincidentally we also get the word for a bundle of sticks being used to refer to homosexuals because apparently somebody thought they were important enough to even go on the fire, but had to go below it..."

Mark A. Griffin
Mark A. Griffin

Your argument is not Biblical. I appreciate your zeal and your attempt to support your position, but it has no Biblical substantiation. Here is an explanation that supports the act as sin. I hope it helps. Have a great Saturday.

While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

RC
RC

without putting too fine a point on it, the only way for anyone to follow the ways of Christ for those of that religion is to turn from judgement of others and offer forgiveness and acceptance while leading a righteous life. 

I have a post about this further down the page, but it is a little known fact that Jesus not only blessed a gay couple, but recognized homosexuality as a condition from birth. I can give the specifics on this in greater detail as I have written a brief page on this for others facing "anti gay" christians.

Andrew Gnagey
Andrew Gnagey

Why does everyone just ignore the passages they don't like and focus on the ones that suit their purpose? 

Gosh, I see long haired male Christians all the time...

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (l Corinthians 11:14).  

No pant suits,  ladies.

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God”--Deuteronomy 22:5

How much is tattoo removal?

"You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you.  I am the Lord”--Leviticus 19:28 

...the list goes on. Stop picking and choosing.

Mark A. Griffin
Mark A. Griffin

 Your argument is not Biblical, I would be careful to what you profess, professing something as the word of God is far greater a sin than committing that sin your own self. Most Christians are hardly anti gay, anti sin maybe, but not anti gay.  In fact I have many Christian gay friends that don't argue that there lifestyle is sinless.   You are welcome to believe homosexuality is not sin, many just don't agree.  God be with you.

RC
RC

It still stands that though there are Christians in the B.S.A., it is not a Christian organization therefore has no support for claiming a stance taken by the majority of Christians in this country. As long as the Scouts is a multi faith organization accepting religions that do not exclude homosexuals within their ranks,  then their policy is more of a civil rights violation than a moral stance.

Wise_Woman
Wise_Woman

There has never been ONE study to support the idea that homosexuality is genetic. Therefore, I am NOT a bigot to oppose this lifestyle. Nor do I hate anyone. I prefer the "don't ask don't tell" approach. Go Boy Scouts. 

RC
RC

For the children who have yet to identify any form of preference this time of their personal development is already difficult. The added stress of hiding their thoughts and feelings out of fear is an unhealthy choke to be placed upon them.

In my later years within my troop I met and dealt with many younger scouts which I knew to be struggling with their sexuality. They were  not sure yet who they were, but none the less they were bullied at school and uncomfortable in many situations, but they knew that in our troop we would tolerate none of that, and were comfortable enough to learn without distraction. Years later one of them honored me by letting me know that it was the strength we had given him as a troop, which gave him the courage to eventually come out.For many boys the scouting program is central within their lives. It is a place of refuge and learning where they feel safe to express themselves to their leaders and peers. What happens when that young man must shoulder the fact of knowing that if his status were revealed or questioned then he would become unwelcome in a place which he has come to know as family?For an adult leader, the "don't ask, don't tell" position would be incredibly difficult and unfair. Many scouting trips welcome leaders to involve their families. Your scouts may come to your house at times to learn, they often become close friends with your children. It would be nearly impossible for someone to hide their life itself.

RC
RC

Ignoring for a moment that you are entirely wrong, let me pose this in a different sense... Faith is not genetic yet if you were banned for yours would you not fight it?

AmandaFraher
AmandaFraher

 Ummm yes, there has been a study. Many, in fact. You just don't pay attention, because you /want/ to be a bigot. Love is love and a beautiful thing, hetero or homo sexual.

justaadad
justaadad

my father, myself, and my son are gay--we didnt know each other for many years. no choice here--just one awesome family. and sorry--many studies--youre on the internet--use it. thanks for not hating but i prefer to tell-like you just did.

Afghamistam
Afghamistam

You don't hate anyone. You just don't want people to enjoy the same rights and pleasures as you do based purely on who they're attracted to.

That makes you a bigot.

Furax01
Furax01

wise_woman - Actually, that's not correct.  A simple Google search will locate many studies that show there is collected, rational evidence of a genetic/evolutionary foundation for homosexuality (National Institute of Health, for example...).  There is not one study that definitively and conclusively finds homosexuality genetic in ALL cases.  This is logical, as environmental factors can contribute to many things (e.g. psychological behavior, disease/illness, behavioral changes), including sexual orientation.

However, just because it doesn't account in all cases of homosexuality, doesn't mean it's not genetic.  Not all people get cancer, even though there are both genetic and environmental factors that contribute and/or cause it.  People don't require both to get cancer necessarily, some get it for one or the other causal factor.

It addition, just because you feel your supposition is correct (even though the logic is flawed and you didn't provide any proof of such claim) that doesn't absolve you from being a bigot.  To oppose a lifestyle is to oppose a lifestyle, period.  

Because that lifestyle exists in secular society, and that you oppose it directly, that makes you a bigot, by definition.  You're biased against a defined section of citizenry and don't believe they have the same rights and privileges that you enjoy - that's bigotry.  "Don't ask, Don't Tell" may be comfortable for you, but you're not being put into the position of having to worry about it, assuming you're heterosexual and that your 'lifestyle' is considered socially acceptable to you and those who believe what you believe.  

No one asks you to defend your heterosexuality, so you have no possible understanding or experience to draw from.  Worse, you don't feel like you should have to, which makes you...a bigot.

Accept your bigotry and be true to yourself.  Trying to couch it in semantics like "Don't ask, Don't tell"  just weakens your position.

InmanDO
InmanDO

It makes no evolutionary sense for homosexuality to be genetic.

Mark A. Griffin
Mark A. Griffin

True.  But when this is stated somehow it will be twisted that you are a bigot and hate monger.  

RC
RC

With dwindling resources and overpopulation it actually makes quite a bit of sense. It is surely better to simply have individuals who do not reproduce than it is to have mass die offs as in some species when they have outgrown their resources.

Furax01
Furax01

InmanDO - I'll assume that you have some basis other than your opinion for this statement.  Cite sources.

Homosexuality, in general, has been witnessed, studied and documented in the animal kingdom.  Again, a simple Google search confirms this.  Moreover, if you utilize Wikipedia (not as a source of info, but a source of links), you'll get a whole bunch to review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

..and before you reply back to me saying that there are an equal number of sources claiming that it doesn't occur in nature, please note that the vast majority of sources for those studies are a.) funded by or promoting specifically a conservative agenda (

http://www.conservapedia.com/H... or are tied to the creation vs. evolution debate.

(http://www.conservapedia.com/C...

Jardin J
Jardin J

Being Muslim is also a lifestyle. If a group outlawed a certain religion, would you object then?

pszymeczek
pszymeczek

BSA already excludes non-believers.

Naida Marie
Naida Marie

 Being Muslim is a lifestyle - and a choice.  Muslims can be part of BSA.  But to allow someone just because of their sexual choice is completely different.

KAWH
KAWH

Really? That's like saying girls can go camp with the boys anytime, leaders too! Give me a break! You really don't see an issue here?