Is Being Gay A Sin? Does It Need Amelioration?

[Mudcat]

By that reasoning, the 'sinning in your heart' also applies to heterosexuals. Perhaps not from the perspective of being attracted to someone but from the perspective of lust.

Certainly does.

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

We are attracted to people sexually all the time. That is just part of being human. Lust is something different, and is closer to coveting. Of course acting on that lust is what is the greater sin.

[CV75]

Not all boy scouts believe that homosexuality is immoral. So yes, the BSA is trying to impose the moral values of the majority of those on the leadership committee to influence the behavior of those who don't share its moral beliefs.

Wow. Some really cannot see the difference between a) an organization asserting and sustaining its moral values within the group through policy and b) imposing moral values on the hearts and minds of others who don't agree.

The BSA is influencing (not imposing upon) the behavior of those who wish to belong, regardless of what they beleive is moral. Once a person's beliefs and behavior rise to the level of contradicting the values of the organization in which he wishes to belong (and of its members), there is no good reason for him to belong to the organization.

You seem to be saying that it is immoral to influence behavior and moral to not influence behavior. Please argue that no one, gay or straight, should influence behavior.

A boy scout that doesn't beleive that homosexual behavior is immoral can still belong to the BSA. No one is forced to disavow his beliefs (or in this case, what he doesn't beleive). A boy scout that engages in homosexual behvior, regardless of how moral or immoral he beleives it is, cannot belong to the group, but his values and those of the BSA remain unaffected.

[Calm]

To be attracted to someone sexually, seems fairly explicit to having a desire to have sex with a person. How is that not lust?

what about physical attraction? Enjoying looking at another's physical form without wanting to have sex with them, maybe even being repulsed by the idea?

[Jaybear]

Wow. Some really cannot see the difference between a) an organization asserting and sustaining its moral values within the group through policy and b) imposing moral values on the hearts and minds of others who don't agree.

Your easily wow'd.

An organization is not a person, and does not think, feel, pray or emote. The BSA executive counsel affirmed the decision to bay gay scouts. The counsel is comprised of individuals, not all, but a majority voted to sustain this policy.

My statement was that: My problem is when people use their personal moral views to justify their efforts to control the behavior of others who don't share that same moral belief.

Ergo, I disagree with the decision of those voting BSA executive counsel.

I also predict, that sometime down the road, the executive committee of the BSA will reverse the policy, and apologize and express shame for its past discrimination. But some old people will have to die, before that happens.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat:

We are attracted to people sexually all the time. That is just part of being human. Lust is something different, and is closer to coveting. Of course acting on that lust is what is the greater sin.

I may see this differently. I think we can look at a person and realize that they are beautiful or something like that, I agree that there is generally a natural human reaction for a person to be sexually attracted because of this. I'm not trying to disagree with the fact that we have human nature.

But honestly, if we say we are sexually attracted to someone then on whatever level you want to place it, it means we sexually desire another person. To me this seems to be the same thing as lust.

I do think it's possible for a person to realize another person is beautiful and not extend such thoughts to the natural conclusion of sexual attraction. God gives us the power through his Spirit to resist such thoughts if we are willing to seek Him first.

what about physical attraction? Enjoying looking at another's physical form without wanting to have sex with them, maybe even being repulsed by the idea?

I was calling a new client the other day. It was hospital. A guy gets off the elevator in surgical scrubs. Remarkable specimen of a well maintained human and good genes. Mid 20's, tall, built like a gymnast, well placed semitracal face, strong chin, curly hair. Sort of like sticking one of those Greek god statues in set of scrubs.

I am about as straight as they come, but I confess I was so shocked by the fellow I actually caught myself giving him a second glance. The guy was stunning. Sexual attraction wasn't really what I felt, but I admit that I was envious of his form... but in my mind, the motivation of the envy was that I imagined women would likely find him attractive. I was envious of his physique.. I suppose that is coveting.

I think it is possible to enjoy the physcial form of another without desiring them sexually. In example, I enjoy tennis and like watching both men and women play professionally. I was enthralled by the game rather than the player. I have enjoyed watching ballets enthralled in the dance rather than in the dancer. So I think I know what you mean.

[CV75]

Your easily wow'd.

An organization is not a person, and does not think, feel, pray or emote. The BSA executive counsel affirmed the decision to bay gay scouts. The counsel is comprised of individuals, not all, but a majority voted to sustain this policy.

My statement was that: My problem is when people use their personal moral views to justify their efforts to control the behavior of others who don't share that same moral belief.

Ergo, I disagree with the decision of those voting BSA executive counsel.

I also predict, that sometime down the road, the executive committee of the BSA will reverse the policy, and apologize and express shame for its past discrimination. But some old people will have to die, before that happens.

“Meh.”

Inasmuch as the organization is the structure through which individuals cooperate (and that’s a very operative word here) systematically to conduct business, and the business has a moral component, the organization does possess and act with a set of morals.

But you are avoiding the most pertinent challenge, which was in response to your claim that the organization should not influence behavior: to show that it is immoral for anyone, gay or straight, to influence behavior. By dropping that charge, you have failed to rationally disagree with the decision of the BSA and have failed to rationally support your prediction. That is understandable when the frontal lobe isn’t fully developed, which is is the most likely reason age would become the dividng line between opposing positions.

[Robert F. Smith]

Not all boy scouts believe that homosexuality is immoral. So yes, the BSA is trying to impose the moral values of the majority of those on the leadership committee to influence the behavior of those who don't share its moral beliefs.

In allowing the BSA to set its own standards of association, the the US Supreme Court was not suggesting that everyone else in society had to comply with those standards. Only that the BSA could set its standards, just as the LDS Church or any other such organization may do.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't see the difference Wade. To be attracted to someone sexually, seems fairly explicit to having a desire to have sex with a person. How is that not lust?

Perhaps it is a question of degree.

[Robert F. Smith]

Your easily wow'd.

An organization is not a person, and does not think, feel, pray or emote. The BSA executive counsel affirmed the decision to bay gay scouts. The counsel is comprised of individuals, not all, but a majority voted to sustain this policy.

My statement was that: My problem is when people use their personal moral views to justify their efforts to control the behavior of others who don't share that same moral belief.

Ergo, I disagree with the decision of those voting BSA executive counsel.

I also predict, that sometime down the road, the executive committee of the BSA will reverse the policy, and apologize and express shame for its past discrimination. But some old people will have to die, before that happens.

You may be correct in your conclusion. However, as with the Anglican communion, this may introduce splintering into the larger group and reduce the overall size of the BSA as partners break off to form their own associations.

[USU78]

Horse-hockey? Or soylent green? It all starts with good intentions and beneficial reasons. I love science and believe that genetic engineering has great potential for good.

But we already live in a world in which people use sonograms to determine gender and whether to abort the fetus on that basis (in India and China this has led to millions of men who will never marry, since girl babies are not desired). Similar procedures can be applied to determine disease or malformation in a fetus. The selection process continues from there, using amniocentesis to determine genetics, etc., the limits only determined by technology, one's pocketbook, and moral - ethical concerns.

In a mad world without compassion for the helpless, I have to agree with you.

But there's a huge gap, both moral and practical, between therapies to fix what nature broke . . . and killing what we prefer not to deal with.

[Jaybear]

“Meh.”

Inasmuch as the organization is the structure through which individuals cooperate (and that’s a very operative word here) systematically to conduct business, and the business has a moral component, the organization does possess and act with a set of morals.

We obviously see this from a different perspective. I am not of the mindset that corporations are people too.

But you are avoiding the most pertinent challenge, which was in response to your claim that the organization should not influence behavior: to show that it is immoral for anyone, gay or straight, to influence behavior. By dropping that charge, you have failed to rationally disagree with the decision of the BSA and have failed to rationally support your prediction. That is understandable when the frontal lobe isn’t fully developed, which is is the most likely reason age would become the dividng line between opposing positions.

I didn't say, imply, hint or suggest that it was immoral for anyone to influence behavior, nor did I say organizations should not influence behavior. I said: My problem is when people use their personal moral views to justify their efforts to control the behavior of others who don't share that same moral belief.

Is stand by that assertion, as well as my prediction.

[CV75]

We obviously see this from a different perspective. I am not of the mindset that corporations are people too.

Neither am I of the mindset that corporations are people. I am saying that organizations possess the morals of the people leading and carrying out a mission through them. And sometimes these same people adopt and possess in new or different ways and with new and different meanings the morals of their organization.

I didn't say, imply, hint or suggest that it was immoral for anyone to influence behavior, nor did I say organizations should not influence behavior. I said: My problem is when people use their personal moral views to justify their efforts to control the behavior of others who don't share that same moral belief.

Yes, you did: see post #148. “…the BSA is trying to impose the moral values of the majority of those on the leadership committee to influence the behavior of those who don't share its moral beliefs.” When you use “influence” and “control” to describe the type of moral expression you disapprove of, you do say/imply/hint/suggest that it is immoral to influence behavior. Maybe you want to reassess/retract/clarify/amend your position.

Now why is it immoral for the BSA leadership to influence behavior through its organization, (which I think we agree is not in the business of controlling behavior)?

Is stand by that assertion, as well as my prediction.

I don’t really care about that; never would I dream of contradicting a meaningless prediction. It is as irrational as the rest of your statements (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but explains why it is so difficult to defend them on a rational basis.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't see the difference Wade. To be attracted to someone sexually, seems fairly explicit to having a desire to have sex with a person. How is that not lust?

This is actually illogical. Just because I find someone attractive does NOT automatically mean that I want to perform any kind of sexual behavior with that person. That is just silly and presumptuous.

[KevinG]

My problem is when people use their personal moral views to justify their efforts to control the behavior of others who don't share that same moral belief.

Like preventing the Boy Scouts of America from defining the conditions under which people can be members of their private organization?

[Jaybear]

Neither am I of the mindset that corporations are people. I am saying that organizations possess the morals of the people leading and carrying out a mission through them. And sometimes these same people adopt and possess in new or different ways and with new and different meanings the morals of their organization.

Yes, you did: see post #148. “…the BSA is trying to impose the moral values of the majority of those on the leadership committee to influence the behavior of those who don't share its moral beliefs.” When you use “influence” and “control” to describe the type of moral expression you disapprove of, you do say/imply/hint/suggest that it is immoral to influence behavior. Maybe you want to reassess/retract/clarify/amend your position.

Now why is it immoral for the BSA leadership to influence behavior through its organization, (which I think we agree is not in the business of controlling behavior)?

The influence language is not the part that I had a problem with ...

I. I didn't say it was "immoral". I said I had "a problem with." I object to many things which I don't consider immoral.

2. You overlooked/omitted this material part of my objection .... use their personal moral views to justify their efforts

and

3. you missed/overlooked this material part ...others who don't share that same moral belief.

Members of the BSA executive committee, are using their authority on the board, to put in place/preserve a discriminatory policy, and are doing so to further their own personal moral views, which views are not universally shared by those who participate or may wish to participate in scouting.

Does that help clear things up?

If not, let me ask you if members of the BSA executive committee believed that race mixing was immoral, and put in place a rule requiring that black and white scouts stay at separate facility, would you find that objectionable? Would you be surprised if I did?

[KevinG]

Race segregation is not remotely analog to segregation based on open sexual practices. That's a Godwin Violation.

[Jaybear]

Like preventing the Boy Scouts of America from defining the conditions under which people can be members of their private organization?

The difference between "should not ban gays" and "should not be allowed to ban gays" may seem small, but its not.

So please, stop trying to pretend to speak for me.

[Jaybear]

Race segregation is not remotely analog to segregation based on open sexual practices. That's a Godwin Violation.

It's a Godwin violation to equate segregation, which has a deep history in this country, with the German Holocaust.

[KevinG]

The difference between "should not ban gays" and "should not be allowed to ban gays" may seem small, but its not.

So please, stop trying to pretend to speak for me.

The difference between making a point and pretending to speak for someone should be noted.

Let me illustrate my earlier point from another perspective. I have a friend who is a member of a gay men's band. I love band. I love my friend. I play trumpet. I would love to play trumpet with my friend like we did in the 8th grade. I don't know if they would allow me to play with them or not, but if they felt they should only allow gays to play because it gives them a fraternity of men who think similarly and support each other I would respect that policy.

I feel the BSA teaching their interpretation of "faith in God" and "morally straight" and selecting their membership upon like minded peoples is just as valid and should be respected. Add on top of that the huge task of protecting youth from predators (same or different sex) taking a hard line on open declarations of sexuality adds another reason. And believe me someone who openly discussed heterosexual proclivities would not be welcomed under the same rules.

Edited July 20, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

It's a Godwin violation to equate segregation, which has a deep history in this country, with the German Holocaust.

Godwins law states the longer a thread goes on the more likely it is to lose meaning and devolve into silliness - the point at which someone invokes Nazism is the point at which all reason ends.

Comparing sexuality to race is a corollary of Godwin's law. More to the point it is just a bad analog.

Edited July 20, 2012 by KevinG

[Mudcat]

This is actually illogical. Just because I find someone attractive does NOT automatically mean that I want to perform any kind of sexual behavior with that person. That is just silly and presumptuous.

Hopefully you won't mind the contextual correction.. but if you actually meant ..."This is actually illogical. Just because I find someone sexually attractive does NOT automatically mean that I want to perform any kind of sexual behavior with that person. That is just silly and presumptuous." Which is what we were discussing. Then what does it mean actually... if anything at all?

I see no clear way of saying "sexually attractive" without a person actually meaning that sex with them would is desireable on some level..

Lets flip it around and maybe you'll catch the illogic in the statement.

parody:

This is actually illogical. Just because I find someone sexually repelling does NOT automatically mean that I don't want to perform any kind of sexual behavior with that person. That is just silly and presumptuous.

Think about it.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Mudcat

[CV75]

The influence language is not the part that I had a problem with ...

I. I didn't say it was "immoral". I said I had "a problem with." I object to many things which I don't consider immoral.

2. You overlooked/omitted this material part of my objection .... use their personal moral views to justify their efforts

and

3. you missed/overlooked this material part ...others who don't share that same moral belief.

Members of the BSA executive committee, are using their authority on the board, to put in place/preserve a discriminatory policy, and are doing so to further their own personal moral views, which views are not universally shared by those who participate or may wish to participate in scouting.

Does that help clear things up?

If not, let me ask you if members of the BSA executive committee believed that race mixing was immoral, and put in place a rule requiring that black and white scouts stay at separate facility, would you find that objectionable? Would you be surprised if I did?

To restate, you have a problem with people using their moral views [“to justify their efforts” is immaterial; let’s cut to the chase] to influence the behavior of others [“who don't share that same moral belief” is immaterial, as they also obviously try to influence behavior of those who do share the same moral belief].

You have a problem with people using their moral to influence the behavior of others. This does seem to be saying that the nature of your problem is over the morality of the situation. Or is it somehow “fairness,” integrity or druthers unrelated to morals?

But to focus on how you now structure your statement, you have a problem with the fact that “Members of the BSA executive committee, are using their authority on the board, to put in place/preserve a discriminatory policy, and are doing so to further their own personal moral views, which views are not universally shared by those who participate or may wish to participate in scouting.”

It still seems to say you have a problem with people using their morals as the basis for polices designed to influence the behavior of others. How is this not thinking that what they are doing is not moral? How would they be more moral by not putting in place a policy that discriminates in favor of their morals?

Are you saying that racial segregation has neither moral nor immoral ramifications, and is yet objectionable?

[Calm]

I think it is possible to enjoy the physcial form of another without desiring them sexually. In example, I enjoy tennis and like watching both men and women play professionally. I was enthralled by the game rather than the player. I have enjoyed watching ballets enthralled in the dance rather than in the dancer. So I think I know what you mean.

Yeah, a body can be a work of art and that it is dynamic, even interactive lol. I guess I see sexual attraction as a subset of physical attraction.

[Jaybear]

It still seems to say you have a problem with people using their morals as the basis for polices designed to influence the behavior of others.

FWIW, I also have a problem with people who try to restate my opinion using their own words.

I prefer to speak for myself. I said: My problem is when people use their personal moral views to justify their efforts to control the behavior of others who don't share that same moral belief.

If you change control with influence, and remove two clauses, you end with a different sentence and a different opinion.

Are you saying that racial segregation has neither moral nor immoral ramifications, and is yet objectionable?

I have noticed that whenever someone begins their post with "are you saying," The answer is always. "No. That is not what I said."

So to answer your question. No. That is not what I said.

Now, would you mind answering my questions. I will repeat them in case you forgot?

If not, let me ask you if members of the BSA executive committee believed that race mixing was immoral, and put in place a rule requiring that black and white scouts stay at separate facility, would you find that objectionable? Would you be surprised if I did?