NewsJunkie: "misogynistic and homophobic" One you spelled misogynistic wrong. Two, I am neither one. If you think by reading my posts that I am either or both of the two, then you need to make sure the computer Language is on English and that you need to make an appointment with an eye doctor.
Hatred for women, no
Negative attitude toward others because of their se.xuality. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are too funny.
By the way when you put GRYFFINDOR in all caps and bold it, it reminds me of Dumbledore yelling Gryffindor in Harry Potter.
Hmm, well first off, thanks for that Harry Potter reference. Made me smile. Second, I'm pretty sure religions of the book believe in murdering hom.os.exuals. I'm not religious or anything, I only read the book of revelations now and then for the intense raining fire and boiling sea action, but there was a time when I considered myself a cath.olic, and let me tell you, that passage about the stoning was pretty memorable. I remember thinking, even as a young child, that it was bogus. I believe it was Leviticus, but what would I know? It went something along the lines of men that lay with other men would be put to death, with no explanation. I remember it being very sudden, one second you're reading about the Holiness Code, and the next they're talking about stoning ga.ys. Complete three sixty, man.
Ok, I've found it. Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
I'm only getting a sense of hatred from this. Isn't religion supposed to be about love? For a supposed peaceful ideal, the bible is full of pointless murder. And I'm also curious now, would les.bians be killed as well? Probably, women didn't have to do much to get killed back then.
LOLOLOL at "intense raining fire and boiling sea action" hahaha.
Isn't religion supposed to be about love?
--> Religion is about lots of things, worship, which includes love, sacrifice, mercy, submission, repentance, harmony...and hating what is bad. You love God and for that you love your fellow man for the sake of God. But you hate that which is evil and a very important aspect of Christianity (and Islam) is to exhort against that which causes harm/is evil. I'm sure you've heard of love the sinner, hate the sin.
That having been said, it doesn't sound hateful to me. It sounds like a religious injunction. The highest value of man is his freedom, and part of affirming his freedom is to punish or reward him for that which he chooses to do, instead of being wishy-washy about it and treating an adult like a child.
That having been said, how is this at all relevant to the topic at hand? :) This is about the Boy Scouts. The sponsors are already Christian and they have their beliefs. Fortunately, age-old criticisms don't negate the rationality of following divine commands.
I'm curious now, would le.sbians be killed as well? Probably, women didn't have to do much to get killed back then.
Besides the obvious bias :) men didn't have to do much to get killed either, the point is what they did, not how much of it they did -- do remember that repentance is a huge deal in Abrahamic religions, and for one like Islam (which, like Judaism and unlike Protestantism, has a legal aspect to it), penitence is taken into consideration when doling out punishments... anyway, besides that, I don't know about l.esbians. I doubt anybody on this forum does. Sounds like a question for a R.abbi :)
I have a question for you Sorla, actually :) It's a hypothetical scenario. Let's pretend for a moment that s.odomy, like cousin-marriages, causes harm. For instance, let's have two separate scenarios:
1) S.odomy tends to cause harm to those who engage in it, maybe by somehow damaging their body parts or something, or perhaps quite highly increasing their risk of some sort of S.T.I.
2) S.odomy somehow ends up harming other people, perhaps through some sort of mechanism involving aerial diseases or something of the sort (it's not important how for the purposes of my question).
In either case, would you still condone s.odomy (remembering that we are not arguing against the feeling of attraction, but the act itself)?
Thanks and cheers :)
So.domy is defined as basically any form of se.xual contact that doesn't have to do with reproduction. In that case, doesn't everyone engage in sod.omy? Therefore, as long as protection is used, those risks is eliminated. I don't think that anyone should judge others by the what they do in the bedroom. I understand that often religious people only see se.x as a means to reproduce, and there's nothing wrong with that, but even more people don't see se.x that way.
Oh dear that's not what I meant by s.odomy :( Sorry. I meant, erm... a.nal. Yeah. That's the word. Which incidentally can occur b/w a woman and man too, and my question still applles to those cases :)
So is your answer the same then? (I don't really have any follow up questions, but I'm curious.) Thanks.
Des: Promiscuous/porn-watching boys can be kicked out of the program too.
Des: Pro.miscuous or p.orn-watching boys can also be kicked out of the boy scouts. They don't tolerate any kind of se.xual misconduct.
For real???? Wow okay I guess I've been thinking of the Boy Scouts as really tame cookie sellers all these years...
Popcorn. They sell Popcorn, not cookies. Cookies would be Girl Scouts.
Once more, I see no need to judge others by what they do in the bedroom. To each their own. When they start bringing animals into the mix however, that's when I get a little traumatized. I don't get it, why do they sell popcorn? Cookies are ten times as delicious.
Destinee: Your long post on the other page is applause worthy. Even though there are a few things that I don't agree on, and I know we have quite different opinions on, I admire how calm and reasonable that reply was. All the way through. Huge kudos to you.
I think ga.y people really tend to want to be seen as people, rather than ga.y. In that sense it's not so much their entire identity as a part of it. Like a whole range of other things. I get that you don't see it as a part of identity at all, but it's not the whole identity either. It's actually just a little piece. I still consider being straight (if we're going to label things) as part of my identity, but it's not a consuming one. It just states the gender I'd like to have s.ex with. And to me that's not really all that big a thing. There are far more important areas of my identity.
To update on this, the vote has passed and homo.sex.uals may not participate, lead, and join in the Boy Scouts of America. However, in spite of recent events, famalies are leaving the Boy Scouts because of this and several Churches are cutting their ties with the Boy Scout troops that are chartered to them.
(Yea, side note, most if not all Boy Scout and Cub Scout troops are chartered to a specific church, but do not have any specific religious entitlements because of the charter. ex-Catholic Church charters a Boy Scout troop. Those Boy Scouts don't have to be Catholic to be apart of that troop. Just gives them a place to meet.)
So update on this topic:
Vote came through and the Boy Scouts of America now allow H.o.m.o.s.e.x.u.a.l.s to join, participate, and lead in their respective troops, packs, crews, ect.
However, some families have spoken out saying they are leaving the Boy Scouts because of the decision. Some churches are cutting their charters with the Boy Scout Troops and Cub Scouts they host. (Charters are the church's way of giving the Boy Scouts a place to congregate and hold events. The troops don't have to have any ties religiously to their church)
The Boy Scout Oath* is something Boy Scouts recite before every event. It is:
"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, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."
The families would argue that morally straight comes into play here.
Sometimes the Boy Scout Law is reciteted(sp)
"A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent."
Found this on NBC reporting on this vote: Find it vaguely annoying from my point of view.:
“It was hard to explain to a 9-year-old the complexities of why I was telling him that we had to quit,” Miller said. “He told me, 'Daddy, it should be like church. Everybody should be welcome.'”
Miller said he then told Cody that the point of going to church is to seek forgiveness — not for being all-inclusive.
I also expand on my recent post about the vote. It only allows G.a.y. boys to join Scouts. The rules for adult leaders remains the same, which excludes gays. That I can partly understand because it isn't about them when it all comes down to it in the end.
Reading all of this not only annoys me greatly, but sickens me that people actually have a soul to bar someone from a non-political, non-religious, organization because of their beliefs. That is truly cowardly. I was brought up to respect and not discriminate someone because of their race, gender, se.x.u.a.lity, or beliefs.
so you would want little boys and teens of the same gender who feal se.xualy about the same gender
go on a camping trip?
ho wierd is that?
look i was a boyscout for a long time and this
is rong, things went on at campouts, but no thingking like co-ed?
that vertualy the problem is its nasty and shouldnt be.
long live america and down with the emoral standards it has come to claim