Monday, February 4, 2013

Nick Gillespie on gays in the Boy Scouts

From Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine:
A Lesson From the Scouts' Own Book 

The Boy Scouts of America are in the news again, for the only thing they ever seem to be in the news for anymore: their attitudes toward homosexuals. 
Next week, the Scouts will hold a vote that's widely expected to end the blanket ban on gays joining as members or holding adult leadership. By most accounts, the century-old organization will probably let individual chartering groups—many of which are churches—decide whether homosexuals can join and help run their troops.

A 1940S Boy Scout playing bugle. Can the organization be as resilient as its members?
Before I get to whether that's a good idea, let me share some of the lessons I learned while working toward the rank of Eagle Scout which I earned in 1980. Many were trivial, others profound. Most have stayed with me. 
I learned how to show up on time, or better yet, 10 minutes early. I learned how to dress carefully and distinctly, how to roll and secure my troop's signature pale blue neckerchief in exactly the prescribed manner, how to shine my shoes and how to cinch my belt so that the metal-clad tips met "brass on brass." I learned that wearing a uniform didn't mean you all had to think the same way. 
I learned how to stand straight and not laugh inappropriately and how to tie not just a bowline knot but a sheepshank, too. I learned that woodworking and carving were hard but, like any other skill, if you practiced it long enough, you could get pretty good at it.
For one of my 20-plus merit badges, I learned that I could survive in the woods overnight with nothing but a length of rope, a pound of ground beef, a pocketknife and a flint-and-steel for starting a fire. 
I learned the incredible rush that comes from starting a fire with nothing but a hunk of rock and a piece of metal when you're cold and hungry and wondering what the heck you were doing outside with nothing to eat except a pound of ground beef. I learned I could swim a mile in a lake without touching the bottom once and that I could use a compass to find my way through the woods. 
I learned that one of the best ways to deal with a troublemaker was to give him a little responsibility (I was a troublemaker). I learned that I could talk to my father about sleeping outdoors in a tent as he had done as an infantryman in World War II. I learned that men who weren't your dad but had fought in Korea and Vietnam and worked jobs that weren't glamorous or even personally rewarding could teach you a lot—and could be great fun.
I learned about trust and confidence and leadership when I was asked to instruct Tenderfoot scouts (the lowest rank) on how to use axes and hatchets safely, build fires without burning down the forest, and shine their shoes and roll their neckerchiefs properly and stand at attention without laughing inappropriately. 
I learned that not everything and everyone had to be ironic or cynical or jaded all the time and that some of the goofiest, most earnest traditions and rituals—circling up for "Taps" at the end of each weekly meeting, say, or reciting the Scout Law ("A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful...")—held enormous power. I learned that the Scout motto ("Be Prepared") and slogan ("Do a good turn daily") were pretty good ideas to take seriously throughout life. 
During hundreds of camping trips and meetings and service projects and weird and wonderful events such as the Klondike Derby (a cold-weather competition in which scouts drag makeshift sleds over frozen ground for hours), I learned how to adapt to changing circumstances on the fly while keeping the main goals in sight. 
Now, of course, it's time for the Boy Scouts themselves to learn a lesson about adaptability—one that I fear may be coming too late to save the group from its long decline in numbers and influence. 
I still draw on what I learned in the Scouts, whose mission statement talks about preparing "young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes." That creed has helped to make me a better father—or at least a less-bad one—to my two sons, whom I kept from joining the Boy Scouts because of the group's position on gays. 
It was a decision that I made with much sadness and not a little anger, but it was fully in keeping with the Scout Oath, which requires members to do their best to be "morally straight" at all times and to do what they think is right. 
I hope that by the time my sons become fathers, they will feel comfortable enrolling their own children in the Scouts, and I will be able to talk with my grandkids about what it's like to sleep in a tent outdoors and to pull a sled over frozen ground and how to stand at attention without laughing inappropriately and all the rest.

Shame on the Boy Scouts for caving on this critical issue.

The Boy Scout's ban on homosexuals has been because homosexual conduct is immoral, and because putting boys and young men in intimate situations with men in authority who are sexually attracted to them is unsafe. Even if one makes the argument that being 'gay' does not predispose to pedophilia (it does), most Boy Scouts (age 12-17) are post-pubescent and sexually mature, and same-sex attraction to them isn't pedophilia anyway.

Sorta puts the lie to libs who claim that their excoriation of the Catholic Church for the abuse scandal is because they want to 'protect the kids'.  When it comes to letting gays in the Boy Scouts have easy access to youngsters to which they are attracted, libs are in the cheering section. But then again why would we expect people who defend aborting kids to have qualms about putting them at risk for sexual abuse?

Nick Gillespie may have the opportunity to talk with his grandsons about a lot of things besides sleeping in a tent outdoors, after their first overnight camping trip with their gay scoutmasters.  

52 comments:

  1. They still pretend that this is about allowing a certain type of person to join, rather than prohibiting a certain type of behavior. By the way, have they officially "caved" yet? I heard they were contemplating caving, and the liberals were applauding them for their "courage" (to cave to angry homosexuals), but I hadn't heard they had announced their results yet.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you want to know what this is all about, just type "John Hemstreet" and "scouting for all" into any search engine. Hemstreet is an alcoholic, defrocked priest, convicted child molester, and leader of his local PFLAG and Scouting for All Chapter. He's also a
    "gay man" in case that wasn't obvious.

    Scouting for All is a group dedicated to pressuring the BSA to drop its bans on homosexuals and atheists.

    I found this site, which was so strange it almost seemed like parody:

    http://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/florida-school-district-hates-the-boy-scouts-and-so-do-we/

    "Since the Dale decision, we homosexuals have teamed up with the godless community (and there’s a A LOT of overlapping there) to engage in a war of attrition against the BSA. We failed in our attempt to force them to accept us as members, so now we’re going to have harass them on every front, push them out of their long held meeting places, and cut their funding until they cry uncle and let homosexuals like me take their sons out on camping trips."

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess when they say "Scouting For All" that includes child molesting alcoholics. We wouldn't want to discriminate.

      The Torch

      Delete
  3. I'm so sad Nick Gillespie won't allow his kids to join the scouts. Big loss. But hey, I'm sure he can find a few homosexuals who will take them out camping, no problem.

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can't wait for KW to show up and explain why adult male homosexuals in close quarters with young boys is such an awesome idea.

    Little John

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because of course all adult male homosexuals are paedophiles and will fuck the boys. Just like all adult male heterosexuals are paedophiles and would fuck little girls.

      Your ignorance and stupidity are truly stunning little John!

      Delete
  5. "Even if one makes the argument that being 'gay' does not predispose to pedophilia (it does), most Boy Scouts (age 12-17) are post-pubescent and sexually mature, and same-sex attraction to them isn't pedophilia anyway."

    Technically it's pederasty but I still don't like it.

    Little John

    ReplyDelete
  6. Little John, Don't hold your breath, on second thought, go ahead and hold your breath.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  7. What is the homosexual obsession with children? Most of them, I think, aren't interested in sleeping with them. They are, however, obsessed with forming children's values to the point that they believe that boys sodomizing boys is morally right and the only thing that is morally wrong is when people object to boys sodomizing boys. If they have to go around the parents to get directly to the kids, that's what they will do. Homosexuals may also want to recruit, though they refuse to call it that. They just want kids who "happen to be gay" to feel comfortable about it and express those desires through freely exercising them. See how that's different from recruiting? Naw, me neither.

    That being said, there is a minority that is very much interested in sleeping with the kiddies.

    KW, are you trying to say that even you can't formulate a rationale for why adult male homosexuals taking little boys camping is a good idea?

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sure seem to enjoy fantasizing about homosexuals and sodomy, don't you Torch? Not that there is anything wrong with that... I guess.

      I don't care if private clubs like the (a bit too quasi-Hitler Jugend for my taste) Boy Scouts want to ban homosexuals from their ranks. That's their business. They're probably full of secret homosexuals anyway, just like the Catholic Church. Hard choice: become a priest or a Scout? Or are priests allowed to become Scouts as well? If so, one would have to be insane to send their sons to the Scouts.

      Delete
    2. "If so, one would have to be insane to send their sons to the Scouts."

      Yeah, especially after they invite homosexuals to take their kids camping. Please don't tell me that you're opposed to adults raping kids? The gentleman doth protesteth too much. I bet you're a secret kiddie fucker, aren't you, Troy? The ones who protest the loudest are always closet cases. The surest way to identify a child molester is to find out who objects. Being against child molesting means you're a child molester.

      The Torch

      Delete
    3. I'm glad you're finally admitting that the Catholic Church's pedophilia problem is actually a problem of male homosexuals infiltrating the priesthood.

      The Torch

      Delete
    4. I don't recall having denied that, Torch. The Catholic Church works like a magnet on frustrated homosexuals, it being led by an obvious homosexual not being a great deterrent either. That's a train wreck waiting to happen.

      Delete
    5. So the pope is an obvious homosexual? Let me guess, because he "wears a dress"?

      You're obviously a closet child molester. We've established that fact.

      The Torch

      Delete
    6. Nah, it's not the dress. That's obligatory. His very effeminate speech, fondness of designer shoes, choice of very handsome assistant, and so on. You should get your gaydar fixed if you can't tell.

      Delete
    7. Yeah, especially after they invite homosexuals to take their kids camping. Please don't tell me that you're opposed to adults raping kids?

      Yes, because male leaders who participate in the Girl Scouts spend all their time raping teenage girls. And how ever do the women who participate a Boy Scout leaders manage to keep from hopping on all the teenage boys while they camp?

      This "gays going camping will rape boy scouts" meme is not only offensive, it is also stupid.

      Delete
    8. Did you hear about the abuse files that were released late last year? They were filled with gays who raped kids. It's not a meme, it's the truth.

      Also, I don't know what rules the girls scouts have about male leadership but I would be very, very worried about men who take girls camping.

      --Francisca S.

      Delete
  8. The perplexing thing about this debate is that liberals, who want to include gays, still object to child molesters. They believe that being gay is something that you are, whereas child molesting is something that you do. Therefore, they think of excluding gays as somehow equivalent to excluding blacks, and that doesn't seem fair at all. Excluding child molesters, on the other hand, is like excluding any other type of person with habits that are repugnant. The truth is that sleeping with persons of the same sex is a behavior just the same way that sleeping with underage persons is also a behavior. They're both behaviors. Neither one is equivalent to race, and thus excluding them is not the same as excluding black kids.

    When did we lose sight of this fact?

    --Francisca S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Child molesters victimize children. Being gay doesn’t victimize anyone. See the difference?

      -KW

      Delete
    2. It is true obviously that homosexuals don't necessarily victimize children. It is also true that male homosexuals victimize boys at a much higher rate than female heterosexuals victimize boys or male heterosexuals victimize girls, considering the percentage of male homosexuals in the population ( a few percent) and the percentage of sexually victimized children who are boys victimized by men (20-30%). Facts are facts.

      But that is not the only issue-- is is certainly true that most male homosexuals do not victimize boys. Yet if homosexuals want full open status in society, they must conform to the same rules that apply to all-- that people who are sexually attracted to specific people (eg hetero men to women or girls, home men to men or boys) are not put in positions of authority and opportunity over potential "conquests". Male teachers are not allowed to accompany girls into bathrooms. Males in young girl organizations are not allowed to take girls camping along. Male homosexuals should not be allowed to take young boys camping alone.

      There are excellent reasons to protect the young and vulnerable from people in authority who are sexually attracted to them and have the opportunity to act on it.

      Delete
    3. Your point is irrelevant to her point, KW. Her point is that they are both volitional behaviors. We understand that when it comes to child molesting. Why do we pretend that homosexuals are incapable of controlling themselves? Because if we thought otherwise, we'd be accepting that being a homosexual is a choice, which it is. The idea that homosexuals are just born that way is so fundamental to every one of their arguments that they would lose everything by admitting that they've been wrong. They've spent a generation pounding that idea into our heads--it's not a choice, it's not a choice, it's not a choice.

      People who haven't yet accepted this faulty logic can see clearly that no one would ever accept such craptastic logic about any other volitional sexual behavior. We would never accept that guys who run around raping little boys (or little girls) don't have a choice in the matter because they were just born that way. In fact, the logic of the homosexual argument applies doubly to child rapists--if being a pedophile was choice, who would choose it knowing that society would so throughly despise them? Et voila! We've determined that it's not a choice. There must be a gene, we'll find it later.

      Because it's a volitional behavior it can never be compared to something like race. Some people have black skin. They're simply born that way. There is no nature versus nurture debate. People with black sin will have black sin until the day they die. No one experiments with being black in college, the way some people experiment with homosexuality.

      Little John

      Delete
  9. I wouldn't want my daughter sleeping in the same tent with boys. I wouldn't want my daughter sleeping in the same tent with lesbian girls. What is so hard to understand about that?

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because that makes the lesbian girl cry and then she goes on TV with her sob story about how she just wanted to be the best girl scout there ever was, on her honor and doing her duty. Then the media makes a heroine out of her. Then KW sees her on television and his preconceived notion of mean scouts is reenforced.

      The Torch

      Delete
    2. The Girl Scouts, by the way, do allow homosexuals. So if your daughter is in the Girl Scouts she may be placed in the same tent with a lesbian, and you're a "bigot" if you don't like it. Also, one third of senior leadership at the national level consist of lesbians. Besides pushing lesbianism (er, I mean, accepting people who are different) they also push abortion. The Girl Scouts are an instructive example of what the Boy Scouts will be if they allow themselves to be corrupted.

      The Torch

      Delete
    3. I applaud your determinacy to protect those boys and lesbians from your daughter.

      Delete
    4. Besides pushing lesbianism (er, I mean, accepting people who are different) they also push abortion.

      Yeah, those lesbians get pregnant all the time, doncha know? It's hardly a secret that lesbians search the garbage for used condoms, to be subsequently squeezed empty inside their own genitals. Just for the fun of getting an abortion.

      Delete
    5. Oh, you're picking on my six year old. That's funny, Troy.

      TRISH

      Delete
    6. Pushing lesbianism and abortion are not mutually exclusive. The bundled package is usually called feminism.

      The Torch

      Delete
    7. A lot of the girls in my high school were sleeping with guys and girls. So it wasn't at all unusual for a girl who engaged in lesbianism to also be getting an abortion. They almost seemed to go together. I don't think you know how girls talk in locker rooms, Troy.

      TRISH

      Delete
    8. Troy,

      Not only are you picking on a six year old girl, but you're doing it to her mother. You're a heel.

      --Francisca. S.

      Delete
    9. Oh, the outrage. I, a grown man, attacked an innocent little girl. Have you no decency, sir?

      Look at your own not-so-tongue-in-cheek shameful words, claiming an equivalency between child-molesters and homosexuals:

      They believe that being gay is something that you are, whereas child molesting is something that you do. [...] The truth is that sleeping with persons of the same sex is a behavior just the same way that sleeping with underage persons is also a behavior.

      There is a crucial difference between sexual relations of consenting adult homosexuals and sex among child molester and victim, in case you hadn't noticed in your self-righteous rage.

      And yes, sexual attraction to members of the same sex is not a choice - it's the same instinct that draws you to men (I presume). There is nothing wrong with consenting adults giving in to that desire, since nobody is harmed by them doing so, including themselves.

      Delete
    10. First of all, I'm not a "sir", I'm a "ma'am".

      I didn't say that child molesting and homosexuality are the same thing. I said that they're both behaviors. Neither is equivalent to race and thus excluding people because of it is not like excluding black kids.

      Nothing I said was "shameful" so you won't catch me backtracking. You on the other hand are picking on some other woman's six year old daughter, you big bully.

      "There is nothing wrong with consenting adults giving in to that desire, since nobody is harmed by them doing so, including themselves."

      As a matter of fact there is wrong with it, but that's completely beside the point. The point is that it's a behavior and people have a choice of whether or not they want to engage in it. Both are behaviors, both are choices. Just like you have the choice of whether or not to pick on some six year old girl.

      --Francisca S.

      Delete
    11. Troy, you laughed off my concern before with an unfunny joke about my daughter, so I'll repeat what I said so you can poke holes in my ridiculous logic. I said: "I wouldn't want my daughter sleeping in the same tent with boys. I wouldn't want my daughter sleeping in the same tent with lesbian girls. What is so hard to understand about that?" I await your response.

      Thank you for standing up for me, Francisca. You make a very good points.

      My brother-in-law is a homosexual but he isn't a child molester. I know that the two are not the same thing, just as I know that not all boys are going to rape my daughter. That doesn't meant that I want boys in the tent with my daughter. Even if my brother-in-law never raped a single kid, he'd still be a bad role model. He is not being excluded for who he is, but rather for what he does. I understand your point and I think Troy does too, he simply doesn't want to admit it.

      Troy tried to shame you. Don't succumb to it. Nothing you said was shameful.

      TRISH

      Delete
    12. Francisca:

      First of all, I'm not a "sir", I'm a "ma'am".

      I know. I was mock-talking to myself. My apologies for the confusion I caused.


      I didn't say that child molesting and homosexuality are the same thing. I said that they're both behaviors. Neither is equivalent to race and thus excluding people because of it is not like excluding black kids.

      You were implying (moral) equivalency. Homosexuality is not a behavior. It is an in-born sexual attraction to members of the same sex. Ask any homosexual - they'll tell you. Ask yourself, who in their right mind would choose to be homosexual, given that so many fellow citizens consider them second-class citizens or worse? So, yes it is very much like black persons being discriminated against because of innate character out of their control (well, Michael Jackson tried).


      As a matter of fact there is wrong with it

      What's that then? Please explain why it is wrong for consenting adults of the same sex to do it with each other.


      The point is that it's a behavior and people have a choice of whether or not they want to engage in it.

      So are sleeping and pissing and shitting and eating, and loving. Depriving people from getting intimate with loved ones is about as cruel as it gets. Get rid of that poison that was instilled by mean-spirited self-appointed so-called spiritual leaders.

      Delete
    13. Trish,

      I said: "I wouldn't want my daughter sleeping in the same tent with boys. I wouldn't want my daughter sleeping in the same tent with lesbian girls. What is so hard to understand about that?" I await your response.

      I thought that was a rhetorical question. Well, my answer is "nothing". I wouldn't want my daughter to sleep in a tent with men or lesbian girls I didn't thoroughly trust. What's your point?


      Even if my brother-in-law never raped a single kid, he'd still be a bad role model.

      Why? He is not going to turn your children into homosexuals. He could be a good role model in any number of ways by being kind to others. Your children will accept that some people are born as homosexuals, and there's nothing they can do about it, and they are just as good or bad as other people. Trust me.

      Delete
    14. "What's your point?"

      My point is that we segregate the sexes for a reason. It isn't a "phobia." But some girls like girls and some boys like boys, and we can't pretend that they don't. Also, you said that you wouldn't want them tenting together unless you trusted them. I feel the same way, but I would point out that trusted adults do sometimes prey on children. At some point children and adults have to have contact so we can't completely segregate the two, but that's no reason to start mixing them without regard to sexual attractions.

      "Why? He is not going to turn your children into homosexuals."

      Oh no, of course not. He's just going to tell them that it's okay. He'd be a poor role model for exactly that reason. I don't want him telling children that it's okay to do what he does. And it's my kid. Get it?

      "He could be a good role model in any number of ways by being kind to others."

      How do you know he's kind? So typical. You imagine my brother-in-law as the homosexual with a heart of gold. I wish you knew him. There are a few reasons why he wouldn't be a good role model, his sexual lifestyle choices being just one of them.

      "Your children will accept that some people are born as homosexuals,there's nothing they can do about it..."

      Bingo! That's what they'd be there to teach--homosexual propaganda. And that's what I don't want them to learn. It's funny how quickly you admit the whole point of this rule change: homosexuals need to get into the scouts so that they can teach the kids that homosexuality is good and there's nothing they can do about it anyway. The point of scouting is not to be an outlet for homosexual propaganda, most of which is of dubious value. No gay gene has ever been found, and even if it was, it would still be a choice because we choose who we sleep with. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality is a choice. Teaching my kids about sex really isn't the job of some homosexual scoutmaster who's assumed that position for himself.

      TRISH

      Delete
    15. Now, let me respond to something you said to Francisca. "Homosexuality is not a behavior. It is an in-born sexual attraction to members of the same sex. Ask any homosexual - they'll tell you."

      Homosexuality is a behavior. It's what people do. Attraction is an attraction, acting on it is a behavior. What's really funny is that you think I should simply ask a homosexual, as if they're the expert. We wouldn't ask a pedophile if his attractions are inborn, and we wouldn't even care. It would make his decision to rape kids any less of a behavior.

      I wonder if you've considered the idea that homosexuals might lie because they understand that the entire basis of their movement is founded on the idea that they're "just born that way?" Homosexuals who actually admitted otherwise would be hurting the cause.

      But here's a "gay" person we could ask. Her name is Cynthia Nixon and she's an actress on Sex and the City.

      "I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out."

      A certain segment of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice! Duh!

      Some homosexual activist responded: "every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights."

      In other words, stay on script, Cynthia. If you keep telling people it's a choice, the "hate-mongers" will use that as ammunition! Did it ever occur to him that the "hate-mongers" might be right?

      TRISH

      Delete
    16. Trish:

      My point is that we segregate the sexes for a reason. It isn't a "phobia." But some girls like girls and some boys like boys, and we can't pretend that they don't. Also, you said that you wouldn't want them tenting together unless you trusted them. I feel the same way, but I would point out that trusted adults do sometimes prey on children. At some point children and adults have to have contact so we can't completely segregate the two, but that's no reason to start mixing them without regard to sexual attractions.

      Sure, that's just common sense. If that's your point, then duh. Who would disagree with that?

      Oh no, of course not. He's just going to tell them that it's okay. He'd be a poor role model for exactly that reason. I don't want him telling children that it's okay to do what he does. And it's my kid. Get it?

      I get it. I just don't agree that it would be bad for your children to learn and accept that some people are homosexual, and that there is nothing wrong with that.

      How do you know he's kind? So typical. You imagine my brother-in-law as the homosexual with a heart of gold.

      I didn't mean to imply that I know he is kind. Obviously I don't know him personally. I just said that he can be a good role model by being kind to others. Homosexuals can be assholes and they can be saints, just like everybody else.


      Bingo! That's what they'd be there to teach--homosexual propaganda. And that's what I don't want them to learn. It's funny how quickly you admit the whole point of this rule change: homosexuals need to get into the scouts so that they can teach the kids that homosexuality is good and there's nothing they can do about it anyway.

      That's not what I think at all. I'm fine with the Scouts banning homosexuals, as I wrote before. I do think that kids should be taught that homosexuality is OK and some people's nature. That's what I will teach my kids when they are old enough to understand. That doesn't encourage homosexuality, but it fosters understanding and acceptance, I hope.




      Delete
    17. Homosexuality is a behavior. It's what people do. Attraction is an attraction, acting on it is a behavior. What's really funny is that you think I should simply ask a homosexual, as if they're the expert. We wouldn't ask a pedophile if his attractions are inborn, and we wouldn't even care. It would make his decision to rape kids any less of a behavior.

      Why the hell do you give a shit what other people do in their bedroom? I just don't get that.

      If you want to understand why some people are homosexual, it makes sense to question them about it. This has obviously been done many times, and it's very clear that they by and large felt they had no choice - that they were born that way. Of course there are also bisexuals who can choose whether to focus on their own or the opposite sex, but that doesn't negate the fact there are many homosexuals who are like that by their very nature. It's cruel and inhumane to deny these people the right to express their love to the full. Just try to imagine that you would be a minority straight person and you would be denied to have a relationship with a man.

      Delete
    18. @troy:

      Homosexual desires are an enormous challenge for many good and decent people. It is a life of struggle, whether or not one gives in to those desires.

      Like so many things that we desire, it is not good for us to fulfill it. Homosexual acts are sinful. Hating or hurting homosexuals is sinful. My guess is that God is as angry with the hate and hurt as he is with the act, perhaps even more so.

      But the act is sinful, nonetheless. It is a lie to say otherwise. But there is forgiveness with the Lord, and much love and mercy.

      Delete
    19. Michael,

      'My guess is that God is as angry with the hate and hurt as he is with the act, perhaps even more so'.

      So you're making stuff up again?

      Aquinas stated in 'Summa Theologica';

      'There is, however, this difference between will and anger, that anger is never attributed to God properly, since it its primary meaning it includes passion; whereas will is attributed to Him properly'. [Eleventh Article (I, Q.19, Art. II - I answer that)]

      I thought you were a Thomist? What made you stop?

      Delete
    20. Thomas, like Aristotle, distinguished univocal from equivocal and analogical.

      Univocal means that the word means exactly the same for man and God.

      Equivocal means that the word means entirely different things for man and God.

      Analogical means that there are similarities between the meaning of the word for man and God, but they are not exactly the same.

      When Aquinas asserted that "anger is never attributed to God properly", he meant in the univocal sense (that's why he said "properly".)

      God can be angry analogically, but not univocally. (Aquinas explains analogical, in contrast to univocal and equivocal, by using a medical example in ST I.15.5c)

      A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, eh bach?

      Delete
    21. Yes, Michael, but you said that you guess that 'God is as angry ... perhaps even more so', which is ascribing human anger, with human degrees of anger, to God. You did it the way you did to make yourself sound like a better person. One who condemns homophobia more than homosexuals.

      You're just a hypocrite.

      Delete
    22. Michael,

      And, in addition, in the very same paragraph I took my quotation, Aquinas writes 'Hence a thing that in us is a sign of some passion, is signified metaphorically in God under the name of that passion. Thus with us it is usual for an angry man to punish, so that punishment becomes an expression of anger. Therefore punishment itself is signified by the word anger, when anger is attributed to God'.

      That is, anger in God is a metaphor. God can't be angry, but he can inflict greater or lesser punishments. All this talk about 'univocal', 'equivocal' and 'analogical' is just empty words, with too much knowledge not providing any information. God according to Aquinas can only be 'more angry' about hatred of and hurt to homosexuals if he inflicts a greater punishment for that sin than for homosexuality itself.

      And you don't have any reason for asserting that of God. Therefore, you're making stuff up (again).

      Delete
    23. TRISH: The "hate-mongers" are right! Someone gag Cynthia Nixon before she says anything more damaging.

      Little John

      Delete
    24. Little John,

      Cynthia Nixo says she has tried heterosexual sex. She says she has tried homosexual sex. She says that she prefers homosexual sex to heterosexual sex, so therefore, she's a homosexual.

      Why did she prefer homosexual sex to heterosexual sex? It's the old nature/nurture question.

      Perhaps, her genetic makeup is such that she's preprogrammed to prefer homosexual sex. Perhaps her early childhood experiences, not now remembered, predisposed hey to prefer homosexual sex.

      Or perhaps, you're right, and she's a sinner who diberately learned to prefer homosexual sex when she became an adult.

      Who knows? Shrugs shoulders...

      Delete
  10. Abortion, contraception, homosexuality, Christians want to control other peoples sex lives. They have put sex in a little box that limits what they will allow themselves to experience sexually. They are sexually stunted, their ideal sexual situation involves having sex with the same person, the same “acceptable” way, over and over until death do they part. Ugh….Do what you want to do, and if that’s all you need to be happy then good for you. Personally I find sex usually starts to get boring after about 6 weeks.

    Please stop trying to control me.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @KW:

      Did your parents share your boredom with monogamy and fidelity?

      Delete
    2. Abortion is not sex. It's violence. That one really annoys me when liberals place it in the wrong category.

      No one is trying to control you, KW, except in the case of abortion. That's one instance in which I think "controlling" is quite appropriate.

      Little John

      Delete
    3. Why is it appropriate in that circumstance, Little John? Because of your religious beliefs? Why should others be bound by your faith, especially in a secular nation like the US?

      Delete
  11. When homosexuality is properly understood as a choice it becomes nothing more than a weird sex club, not deserving of any special protection under the law.

    Little John

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Homosexuals are not asking for special protection, they're asking for equality.

      So even if you were right, that it is a choice, there is still good reason to offer them protection under the law - Just as religion is a choice, and religious individuals have protection under the law.

      As for it being a choice, assuming you're heterosexual, when did you make that choice?

      Delete