"""For the average gay person, being gay is not a choice. Rather, most gays are born gay. Thus, we ought not deny them their entry into the Boy Scouts for something which is a biological fact of life."""

And this 'biological fact of life' is based on what scientific, medical, or biological evidence? Mr. Burton makes this massive assumption but offers no proof. Can anyone else provide this evidence?

Since we know that none exists, then we can make the exact same argument that boys should be able to join the Girls Scouts. If a boy wants to be a Girl Scout, it is not his fault that he was born a boy and he should not be denied entry into the Girl Scouts. Can men serving as Girl Scout leaders be far behind?

Any time you base civil rights on sexual behavior, you open the door to this kind of madness.

While I do appreciate all of the uproar over homosexuals being excluded from scouting- I wish more Americans could understand the depth of the discrimination and ignorance that continues on in our nation. It goes far deeper than marriage and scouting.

You know, just this last week, Montana state Senate passed SB 107,a bill to decriminalize homosexuality. Yes. February of 2013- gay sex is still technically illegal in Montana (even though, over a decade ago, the Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional). And the bill is not expected to pass the House. Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas still "outlaw" gay sex as well.

Let's remember- in 29 states, you can legally get fired from your job just for being gay. Only 16 states have "safe school laws" that include protections against bulling based on sexual orientation. In 29 states gays people can be legally denied services.

The boy scouts-ugh. So, they let gays in. That would be a step. But really- I wish some of these other issues would get more attention.

rightstuff- can you please explain your use of the term "behavior" to me? Is it the sexual act? Is someone only homosexual when engaged in the behavior? If they have never had gay sex, engaged in the "behavior", are they still gay? (There are gay virgins) Is your relationship with your wife a "behavior"?

I'm just curious, I've seen people here saying that gays are born because, after all who would choose to be gay? If you (any of you) believe that, do you also believe that pedophiles are born, because after all, who would choose to be a pedophile?

So when did you choose to be straight, CG? If people choose to be gay, then obviously people must choose to be straight.

So when did you make that conscious choice?

Your question is nonsense. I am not saying whether people choose to be gay or not, I'm asking what people that say your born gay or born straight what they believe about other sexual preferences, like pedophilia and necrophilia. What do you think steve, are pedophiles born that way, or do they choose that lifestyle? Another simple question that you are trying to dodge. Strange.

therightstuf--The Girl Scouts already do accept transgender members and allow men to be troop leaders.

LEAVE OUR CHILDREN ALONE ROBERT!
Is there NO place in this entire world that a child is safe? Is there NO place on this earth that a child can just be an innocent child? Certainly not at school, where we have teachers putting sperm on cookies and feeding it to our children and taking pictures, and the other teachers looking the other way or even recruiting the children? Certainly not at the Catholic Church, which has turned into nothing but a front group for pedophiles. Now the Boy Scouts isn't safe?! I'll debate you, and I'll fight you on every front, because I'm an adult, and I'm old enough to discern right from wrong. But you LEAVE OUR KIDS THE HELL ALONE!

These people need to be ostracized and shunned. That's how jesus would have wanted it, wouldn't he?

Mella--Apparently you care about children, just not the queer ones. I guess it's more important to you that you shelter your children from knowing that gay people exist than it is to make gay teenagers feel like they're accepted somewhere. This is the message that you are teaching to your children, that if someone behaves differently from you, they don't deserve to be in the same group with everybody else. Tell me, in what way do allowing gay scouts make children not safe?

4ES: "rightstuff- can you please explain your use of the term "behavior" to me?"

Take your pick:

Dictionary.com: “sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.”

Merriam Webster: “erotic activity with another of the same sex”

Wikipedia: Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual activity between members of the same sex or gender.

invisiblesalmon: """therightstuf--The Girl Scouts already do accept transgender members and allow men to be troop leaders."""

You are correct about men serving as troop leaders - but a female co-leader MUST be present in the troop. How sexist! (I smell another crazy lawsuit)

I believe the transgender issue you are referring to relates to the case of a 7 year old boy who wanted to be a Girl Scout. This is allowed if a boy identifies himself as a girl and the family treats him as a girl then he can join the Girl Scouts. In other words, if a 7 year old boy thinks he's a girl, the Girl Scouts must allow him to join. I guess whatever a 7 year old boy thinks he is, we must adjust society to accommodate his request. Soooooo weird!

The GSA website says, "Girl Scouting builds girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place." Why is this such a threat to the gay community?

And when you asked how allowing homosexual men to be in charge of young boys would make them not safe, were you serious? Remember, Girls Scouts require a woman to be a co-leader for a man GS leader over young girls. But homosexual men with young boys wouldn't be a problem? Duhhh....

BBennetts: """These people need to be ostracized and shunned. That's how jesus would have wanted it, wouldn't he?"""

BB, you're confusing acceptance with approval. Jesus accepted everyone in love but did not always approve of their behavior and expected them to change. Whether it was self-righteous religious leaders, harlots, thieves, or other people he confronted, he didn't tolerate their wrong behavior.

When someone asks a reasonable question such as why sexual preference should be a "civil right", the "you just want to shun these people" response is silly.

It's incredibly offensive that you think that all gay men are attracted to children.

Hey Capt, keep Steve's feet to the fire on answering your question. He likes to dodge but keep after him.

The issue with the Boy Scouts is not about tolerance. It's about blackmail. The Boy Scouts are being threatened by large corporate sponsors to accept their view that homosexuals should be allowed to be in charge of Boy Scouts or lose tons of money. There are no more vicious and intolerant bullies than gay activists.

Bullying is the national BSA executive denying a boy his eagle scout after he did all the work and a local Eagle Scout board made up of volunteers unanimously approved his application.

"""It's incredibly offensive that you think that all gay men are attracted to children."""

Your fake outrage is laughable. Here are my exact words, "Girls Scouts require a woman to be a co-leader for a man GS leader over young girls. But homosexual men with young boys wouldn't be a problem?"

Never said "all gay men are attracted to children" as your hysterical remark suggests. This is a common "gay talking point" to attack anyone who questions homosexuality.

Girl Scouts allow men to be troop leaders but only if there is a woman co-troop leader. Do you also find this "incredibly offensive"? Normal people would see it as inappropriate for grown men to be in charge of young girls but you see no potential problem if gay Scout Leaders are in charge of young boys. Interesting opinion. Odd, but interesting.

Maybe its sad that sexuality has to be a focal point of one's life, their identity.

As for the 'born gay' idea - I totally agree that our DNA pre-disposes inclinations.

But the idea is to resist immoral inclinations - not give into them and try to convince the public when you do give in, it's ok.

Seems like a lot of people confuse 'discrimination' with what might just be 'discernment'.

It makes sense for an all-girls group to need at least one female leader, especially while the girls are growing up, so that the girls have female role models and someone to talk to about problems that it would probably be more uncomfortable for them to talk to a grown man about. If a dad wants to help his daughter's troop, he absolutely should be allowed to, but since it is an all-girls group, it makes sense for there to be a female leader as well. Even if it is there because there might be some inappropriate behavior from the man, the boy scout equivalent would be to make sure there is a heterosexual troop leader as well, not to ban all homosexuals from being troop leaders.

You may not have outright said that all gay men are pedophiles, but it was implied with "And when you asked how allowing homosexual men to be in charge of young boys would make them not safe, were you serious?"

chico: why is it that your idea of what is and isn't immoral overrides everyone else's?

Therightstuff...Thank you for making my response easy...DITTO!

Pedophiles are not gays, if you look at FBI statistics, your kids are more likely to be molested by the married guy with kids down the street or next door. Why do people try and muddy the waters, pedophilia is a mental disorder.
I would rather they allow any child who wants to be a Scout, to be a Scout, gay, straight, bisexual, whatever. I also don't really care who the leaders sleep with, just that they show good judgement.

If the BSA continues to want to use school auditoriums and facilities paid for with our taxes, then they need to play by the rules and not discriminate. If you want to exclude groups you oppose, than be truly private, not kinda private.

"""I also don't really care who the leaders sleep with, just that they show good judgement."""

Wouldn't someone with good judgement care who they sleep with?

Boy Scouts used to be about merit badges, camp outs, and helping little old ladies across the street. In 2013 it's about young boys and their Scout Masters expressing their sexual preferences. THIS is progress???

TRS...Exactly. There is a Gay Agenda, and it is a major political movement. The Gay Agenda is to infiltrate and conquer. Infiltrate our schools, our churches, our clubs. No one believes you just want to do a little camping with the boys. No One who is honest with themselves.

I always wonder why everyone wants to shove sexuality down everyones' throat. I mean if all these people who say there are already gay people in the scouts are right then there should not be a problem right? I mean unless they want to make spectacles of their sexuality. Keep it to yourself and it isn't a problem. Like therightstuff said - scouts is supposed to be about badges, camping and helping people. Read this article that like 97% of the molestation that happened in the boy scouts was male scout leaders and 12 to 17 year old boys. That is pubescent and/or post pubescent boys with grown men which says to me "homosexual". Just leave the boys alone.

When the Soylent Green truck rolls around about half of these commenters will be gone. Guess which ones...

Myers never wants to engage in the debate, he just wishes anyone that opposes his alternative view of reality was dead. What a sleazy coward.

Mella, you're exactly right that there is a Gay Agenda which is far different from people quietly living their private lives. I'd say most people who practice homosexuality do so in their private lives like everyone else in their sexual preferences. The Gay Agenda DEMANDS that everyone be like them! Over 40% of practicing homosexual men report experiencing some sort of sexual molestation as young boys. Any reasonable person could consider THIS might be a factor in their sexual identity as an adult. But not the Gay Agenda. No...this person MUST have been born gay by some mysterious gay gene and he MUST NOT seek any kind of therapy for his sexual trauma as a boy. He MUST accept the fact that he was born gay and deal with it. Never mind that there is ZERO medical, biological, or scientific evidence to back up their claim. It's nuts!

I separate the crazies in the Gay Agenda from other people who practice homosexuality who just want to live and let live.

Help!! The gays are coming!! They're gonna make me gay!!!!

TRS:

Its not a wish, its just a fact. As for your "choice" argument, who did your anti-Gay therapy go? I assume you must have had it because you believe it is a choice. I personally have NEVER felt the desire to have sex with a man since birth, but I guess some must "struggle" with the choice.

Myers, I'll just go back to the original argument from Mr. Burton who states, """most gays are born gay. Thus, we ought not deny them their entry into the Boy Scouts for something which is a biological fact of life."""

Still waiting for that "biological fact of life" to surface in this thread.

The Boy Scouts of America has been one of the most cherished and treasured institutions in our country since they started in 1910. Over 110,000,000 Americans have participated in the Boy Scouts. Not a lot of people know this but when Kate Smith released "God Bless America" all the royalties went to the Boy Scouts.

It just makes me sick to see such a sacred institution trashed by gay activists as nothing more than a bunch of bigots, homophobes, and haters. You're free to continue defending this point of view just as I'm free to oppose it.

It's clear that the perceptions that many of you have about gay people are distorted by misconceptions and stereotypes.

Mella--This "gay agenda" I keep hearing about sounds a lot like the "black agenda" from the 1960s.

lawchick--that statistic you provided is meaningless. It doesn't say anything about how many molestation cases there were. The only thing is says is that the vast majority of molestation cases within boy scouts were done by scoutmasters, and not by scouts. If you look at statistics, the majority of child molesters are heterosexual.
Also, yes, there are gay scouts, but most of them are closeted. Under the current boy scout policy, if a scout is openly gay, it doesn't matter if he never mentions it at all in boy scouts, the BSA can kick him out if they find out. I'm not sure what you're trying to say when you talk about "shoving sexuality down peoples' throats".

TRS--You want to back up that 40% statistic? The truth is is that we still don't know exactly what causes homosexuality, but it's clear that it's not a choice, and studies have shown that gay therapy tends to do more harm than good.

As far as homosexuality being a mental illness or not:

"According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard."
http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/#.USwZrDBO92A

Let's try this again, I'm just curious, I've seen people here saying that gays are born because, after all who would choose to be gay? If you (any of you) believe that, do you also believe that pedophiles are born, because after all, who would choose to be a pedophile?

What difference does it make if a person is born gay or makes a choice
to be gay ??
This person that you are arguing about is first and foremost a human being.
A person gay or straight should be accepted and chosen for their good "Merits"
and not for their sexual preference !!
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA BE ACCEPTING and you might earn a "merit badge"

Thank you LADIMAS. Some people seem to have a hard time realizing that gay people are NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS who just happen to be attracted to members of the same sex, not some sort of molesting monster.

TRS, Mouthbreathers in General re: proof that homosexuality is not learned behavior is found in the fact that the % of gay people is constant around the world, whether the locals embrace gay people or stone them to death. 6% (one in sixteen) of us is gay. That's 2 per classroom. 60 in a school body of 1,000.

Wouldn't you rather know the Scout Troop has a gay assistant Scoutmaster, than wonder about it? Suppression causes the underlying trait to express itself in unhealthy ways. I think I am paraphrasing Dr. Fraud here...

I had my daughters 20 years ago in girl scouts. But for my son, by the time he was old enough I just had him in my church groups where moms and dads together guided the kids in activities and morals I agreed with. I was involved in the group so I had some control over what they were exposed to as well. Nothing is full proof but this worked well for me.

For a lot of us our values are based on our belief system which does not change with societies views in most cases.

I agree that children can be exposed to way too much too soon. When your child is a little older and able to grasp the concepts you can explain situations that you either do or do not condone. By the time you teach them about these situations hopefully you have been successful in teaching them that although you do not believe these situations are in line with your understanding of scripture that we do not "cast stones" and remember Jesus died for and loves sinners which includes us.

A study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, "all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories," which included males as young as age fifteen.[36]
In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger."[37]
Conversely, Homosexual Pedophiles are Often Attracted to Adult Males

A study of sex offenders against male children in Behavior Research and Therapy found that male homosexual pedophiles are sexually attracted to "males of all ages." Compared to non-offenders, the offenders showed "greater arousal" to slides of nude males as old as twenty-four: "As a group, the child molesters responsed [sp] with moderate sexual arousal . . . to the nude males of all ages."[38]

Many pedophiles, in fact, consider themselves to be homosexual. A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."[40]

Jesus loves the sinner but hates the sin. He died for and hung around with people that were not exactly "the right crowd". But he didn't mince words and was the first to point out that what they were doing was wrong and they needed to repent and change their ways. Wasn't he the one who said it would be better for someone to have a big stone tied around them and thrown into the ocean than to cause a child to sin? That is why whenever anyone says "what would Jesus do?" I always answer with "screaming at people and turning over tables is an option."

Again "What difference does it make if a person is born gay or makes a choice
to be gay ??"
What is the point of all this arguing regarding homosexuality ??
The Gays are what they are !!
Be accepting and live with it and you to might earn a "Merit Badge"

Why can't the gays be accepting that the Supreme Court has said people have the right to associate with whom they wish to and not try to force people to do something they don't want to? Let the gays form their own scouts and be accepting of the BSA as they are.

lawchick--nice to see you just copied and pasted from the family research council.

"Why can't the gays be accepting that the Supreme Court has said people have the right to associate with whom they wish to and not try to force people to do something they don't want to? Let the gays form their own scouts and be accepting of the BSA as they are."

I really don't want to keep using the comparison to the black civil rights movement, but you're making it way too easy.

lawchick70:

I didn't realze that Plessy v. Ferguson was still the law of the land and organizations could discriminate on the basis of race, gender and religion because people have the "right" to associate with whom they wish to.

Remember: the lesson that you are teaching your children is that it's ok to exclude people who are different from you.

No the lesson I am teaching my son is that moral purity is important for mental and physical well being. And that if he loves his neighbor he will share that lesson with them too.

Boys Scouts vs. Dale: 530 U.S. 640 (2000)"We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts' teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of a tenet of an organization's expression does not justify the State's effort to compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization's expressive message. While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government.[13]

The reason I cut and pasted is because these are independant sources from the family research council - they just used them in an article. refute the studies the info came from - don't attack the person (or organization) that merely disseminated them.

lawchick70:

I sincerely hope that you are able to recreate a good relationship with your son in future years, since based on demographics he thinks your views are at best odd, and at worst venal.

lawchick70:
I would not worry about what timothymyers02: says as he seems to be the most intolerant and condescending of anyone who differs from his beliefs.

huh? recreate a good relationship with my son? please tell me, oh all knowing one, what is my relationship with my son? what does my son think? please tell me what you know about my son?

"The reason I cut and pasted is because these are independant sources from the family research council - they just used them in an article. refute the studies the info came from - don't attack the person (or organization) that merely disseminated them."

The family research council has a definite bias. They're going to only use the studies that they like, and even then they'll cut and paste the quotes that they want. You would likely say the same thing if I cut and pasted from the Human Rights Campaign's website. Unfortunately, I don't have time to research all the studies, so I'll just refute the easy ones.

"In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger."[37]"

Disregarding the fact that this study took place in 1979 and demographics of the gay community, as well as what we know about homosexuality, has changed a lot since then, the key phrase of this little factoid is "at some time". It doesn't say how many of them had sex with boys 16-19 when they were also that age.

"Many pedophiles, in fact, consider themselves to be homosexual. A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."[40]"

Well, considering the fact that statistically most sex offenders against both male and female children are male, obviously it's more likely that a pedophile that commited a crime against a male child is most likely to be male, and therefore would likely consider himself to be homosexual or bisexual. This doesn't mean that most pedophiles are gay (most pedophiles are actually straight), nor does it mean that most gay people are pedophiles.

I'm not exactly sure what timothymyers02 is talking about, but I think he may be alluding to the fact that the younger generations are overwhelmingly pro-gay rights.

Younger generations are "pro-gay rights". How nice sounding. But what you really mean is they are "anti-christian rights". Please read the constitution - marriage is not in there. Our founders did not want the government getting involved in interpersonal relationships - they left that to the states. And, if you forgot just a few years ago our state, California, voted against gay marriage. The supreme court of course will be the final arbitor this spring but the people of california spoke.

"But what you really mean is they are "anti-christian rights"."

I hate this argument so much. Religious freedom does not mean that you get to dictate laws based on your religion.

"Our founders did not want the government getting involved in interpersonal relationships - they left that to the states."

They also left voting rights to the states. If we still based our society on how it was over 200 years ago, you (assuming from your username and previous comments) would be the property of your husband. Things change.

"And, if you forgot just a few years ago our state, California, voted against gay marriage."

Which doesn't make it right. Besides which, public opinion on gay marriage has changed in 4 short years.

The battle for gay rights is nearly over, and you're on the losing side. Gay marriage is already legal in 11 countries, and the world has not ended. You don't have to accept gay people, but you should stop treating them differently.

lawchick70:

So since you are a Constitutionalist, you are totally fine with a State by legislation or referendum approving gay marriage? (The next vote in California would go very differently.)

And on your relationship with your son, if he is like 90% of his demographic, he is pro-marriage rights and your views articulated here will put a wedge between he, his friends and you. I changed my views in the last ten years. So should you.

LADIMAS: "Again "What difference does it make if a person is born gay or makes a choice to be gay ??" What is the point of all this arguing regarding homosexuality ?? The Gays are what they are !! Be accepting and live with it and you to might earn a "Merit Badge"

Allow me to rephrase that for you: "Again, what difference does it make if a person is born a pedophile or makes a choice to be a pedophile ??" What is the point of all this arguing regarding pedophilia ?? The pedophiles are what they are !! Be accepting and live with it and you to might earn a "Merit Badge"

Now ladimas, tell me why that's any different.

I don't think his demographic has been studied yet.

Sexuality is very complicated. People who are attracted to children struggle with it, and many end up committing suicide because they cannot deal with the guilt they feel for having those thoughts.

The difference is that pedophiles actually harm people if they carry out their desires. Children do not have the maturity to be part of sexual relations, and they get emotionally and sometimes physically scarred from these experiences. There is not victim in a relationship between two consenting adults.

Timothy Myers - truth doesn't change. Salmon - yes sexuality is complicated. that is why children shouldn't have to deal with it in their clubs and organizations. sexuality should be left out of kids organizations. will kids talk to each other about stuff as they are growing up - sure. but no need to get adults involved in the mix and no need to have it be some big topic of discussion at their activities.

Boy scouts go till 18. Scouts will be discovering their sexuality while they're in boy scouts. In fact, that's what the issue is. Teens are getting kicked out of boy scouts for being gay.

CaptGene - there is a big difference between consenting adults engaging in a sexual behavior and a pedophile having sex with children! How can you not see that? In the case of two consenting adults, who is getting hurt? In the case of a pedophile, however, that person is abusing his/her power over a vulnerable child, who is NOT consenting.

Well, the rules governing who can and cannot legally consent are man made, just like the rules governing marriage. Just sayin.

Capegene, what kind of comparison is that of a gay person and pedophile ??
It is very sad that you don't realize and know the difference between the two!

To Quote hopeful:
"CaptGene - there is a big difference between consenting adults engaging in a sexual behavior and a pedophile having sex with children! How can you not see that? In the case of two consenting adults, who is getting hurt? In the case of a pedophile, however, that person is abusing his/her power over a vulnerable child, who is NOT consenting.I feel sorry for you if you don't realize and know the difference!!"

Captain, I'm not sure if that's supposed to be advocating for pedophilia or if it's supposed to be an argument against gay marriage. If it's supposed to be an argument against gay marriage, that may possibly be the worst argument I've heard ever.

Ladimas - I would appreciate it if you didn't add YOUR words to MY quote...I stand by what I actually said, but I never said, nor would I ever say that I felt sorry for someone because they think differently than I do...

LADIMAS, of course I know the difference between the two. I also know that both homosexuality and pedophilia are "sexual preferences". So I want you to tell me how you will argue against pedophiles that want to change the law because they just want to enjoy the same rights as anyone else. So far, the only argument is the consent law, a law that was made by, and therefore can be changed by man. What else you got?

invisiblesalmon, tell me why. If the argument in favor of gay marriage is "they're born that way" then why can't pedophiles use the same argument?

lawchick70:
I would like to gently suggest that the only ones Jesus screamed at and turned the tables on were the supposed "religious" people taking advantage financially of the people and selling in the temple.

Jesus reached by reasoning from the scriptures, or with stories, and love. He did not scream at people in the face. He may have prayed for them (father forgive them for they know not what they do) or wept over them, but he did not scream at them even when they denied him.

whataplace - 1. Did Jesus get crucified? I am guessing he didn't get put to DEATH because he was nice and sweet to everyone and just used his inside voice to flatter everyone. 2. Point of Fact - did you know Jesus told his followers to sell their coats and buy swords? I wonder why he would do that? 3. Jesus didn't like hypocrites - religious or otherwise. So he quarreled with his disciples, talked back to his mom and yelled at people who were taking advantage of others or otherwise being stupid. 4. Do you remember when he called some woman who wanted help a dog because she wasn't jewish?

He was crucified for proclaiming the truth that he was the Messiah and God, the King of the Jews.
Jesus prayed for the ones who crucified him that they be forgiven. As for the others points swords and dog (the word used actually meant "little dog") and he was not trying to insult her, as a matter of fact he ended up blessing her.
Jesus healed the soldiers ear who had it cut off in the garden of Gethsemane
and told the disciplines "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword".

I think you might want to talk to a Pastor or Priest to have the fuller meaning, you do not have a great understanding of Jesus and you dishonor him when you say these things. I don't want to argue with you because you seem to be sincere but please get a little more understanding before you define Jesus this way.

I read the bible all the time. In fact reading it now. I think people who paint him as a hippie singing kumbaya all the time are the ones who have him wrong and don't understand "the fullness" of his message. Please read Matthew 10:34-39. But first let's take your sentence - "he was crucified for proclaiming the truth that he was the messiah and God". Let's take that to the next step "now why would that get him crucified"? Why wouldn't the people just look at him like we look at someone who says they are the reincarnation of Micheal Jackson. You just look at him like he was crazy and move on. Why kill the guy you believe is delusional? Think about it. Jesus loved people and came to save us. To that end - he had to tell us what was right and wrong and good and evil whether we liked it or not. And so many did not he ended up on a cross. But he knew that was coming and accepted it. Palm Sunday was the perfect example. Did he have to enter Jerusalem the way he did? No - he did it to fulfill the prophesy BUT also to dig at the pharasees because he knew they would get mad and set the course of his destiny. If he did not the prophesy wouldn't be fulfilled and we would not be saved.

So there is a giant difference between dog and little dog? He was trying to insult her - read the whole thing - she was pestering them and the disciples asked Jesus to go shut her up and get her out of there. That is when he goes over to her and lets her know in no uncertain terms he was here to help the jewish people not people like her. Yes he ended up giving her the healing for her daughter she wanted but only after he dissed her and she came up with the retort of "even dogs get the crumbs off their master tables" Then Jesus was like "aw snap she's got me there" and granted her what she wanted. But really, you are good with being called little dog as opposed to big dog?

It is great that you spend time in scriptures. I see you are familiar with much it. Maybe you were just being flip when you suggested we should scream at people to point out their sin.

Jesus never screamed in someone’s face as you suggested when you said,

"That is why whenever anyone says "what would Jesus do?" I always answer with "screaming at people and turning over tables is an option."

He told the truth to them but he never screamed in their face to get them to accept him. We can't win over souls to Christ by standing on a corner with hateful signs or protesting at soldiers funerals. We don't win them by throwing around furniture either. We reason, we show, we offer. Look at Paul’s example when he started his explanation to a certain city. He did not scream at them for worshipping idols. He found something he could use to open the door to a respectful discussion. "I see you have a alter to an unknown God, then proceeded to teach them. We may not agree with the views of others in regards to homosexuality expressed in these comments above but we need to reach out with truth in a respectful way. I have to go now, but peace to you.

Whoever said I was for protesting at soldiers funerals? I love our soldiers. I am one of those that hate seeing our soldiers treated the way they are - having their tricare coverage reduced, taking their guns away, releasing terrorists from guantanamo so they can try and kill more of our soldiers. Please do not compare me to some westboro baptist loon. As to my assertion about Jesus yelling and turning over tables here is the passage says John 2:13-15 "The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” So you are, with a straight face, going to tell me Jesus went into the temple, saw people doing what they were doing, made a whip of cords, used it to drive everyone out, grabbed all the coin purses out of the money changers hands and poured them onto the ground and then overturned their tables but then spoke in a nice quiet inside voice? Me thinks he was pretty angry at that point and his voice probably would have been raised. But that is just me.

I already addressed that many comments ago when I said,

I would like to gently suggest that the only ones Jesus screamed at and turned the tables on were the supposed "religious" people taking advantage financially of the people and selling in the temple.

He never screamed in the face nonbelivers who he was trying to reach.
Just the hypocrites in the church.

Bottom Line - it is our job to know what sin is and to warn others about it. Our immortal souls depend on it. I will leave you with this verse - Ezekiel 3:17-19

“Son of man, I have chosen you to be a watchman over the people of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from My mouth, tell them of the danger.If I say to the sinful man, ‘You will die for sure,’ and you do not tell him of the danger, and try to turn him from his sinful way so that he may live, that sinful man will die in his sin. But you will be guilty for his blood.But if you tell a sinful man of the danger he is in, and he does not turn from his sins or from his sinful way, then he will die in his sin. But you will have saved yourself.

I hate to tell you this, but the sin is happening whether or not you let gay people get married.

CaptGene: I have no idea what planet you are on where a consensual relationship with two adults is the same as child abuse. Let me know when you're ready to be serious.

gay people getting married is the sin..

By the way, not saying I am better than anyone else. I say it as a sinner myself. I just think we need to call sin - sin and not try to justify it. If I do something wrong I have sinned and if someone else has done something wrong they have sinned. We need to continue to label stuff that is wrong as wrong and not call it right no matter who does it. Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

invisiblesalmon, homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia are all sexual preferences. The only thing that makes one child abuse and the other a consensual relationship is a man made law, just like the laws that govern marriage. You and others are lobbying for society to change the law regarding marriage, there are other groups trying to change the laws regarding sex with children. You may think "that's crazy, it can never happen", probably exactly what your elders would have thought if someone tried to convince them gay marriage was a good idea 30 years ago. The thing to keep in mind is that the by accepting gay marriage, you lose the moral high ground to counter demands by others whose sexual preferences deviate from the norm. Sexual preference is a lousy reason to grant special rights to anybody.

By the way, the only reason homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness is because of political pressure put on the APA by gay rights groups back in the early 70s, there was no science behind that decision whatsoever.

lawchick: There are tons of things the Bible says is a sin, but Christians choose to ignore. There are several churches and synagogues across the country that now perform same-sex marriage ceremonies and are fine with it. Where's their religious freedom? Or is your religion better than theirs.

CaptGene: You need to look up the definition of sexual preference. Pedophilia and necrophilia are paraphilia, not sexual preferences or sexual orientations.

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

2 Timothy 2:25
Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,

It's not one or the other; they are all sexual preferences, or orientations, all of them were also considered paraphilia until until the early 70s when intense pressure from gay rights groups got homosexuality removed from the list. That's the only reason homosexuality isn't paraphilia today.

You conveniently choose to leave off the last paragraph of that blog you keep copy-pasting:

"The overall point being that the APA’s taxonomy is nothing more than self-serving nonsense. Real illnesses are not banished by voting or by fiat, but by valid science and hard work. There are no mental illnesses. Rather, there are people. We have problems; we have orientations; we have habits; we have perspectives. Sometimes we do well, other times we make a mess of things. We are complicated. Our feelings fluctuate with our circumstances, from the depths of despondency to the pinnacles of bliss. And perhaps, most of all, we are individuals. DSM’s facile and self-serving attempt to medicalize human problems is an institutionalized insult to human dignity."

The entire blog is run by some conspiracy nut who doesn't think mental disorders exist or something. The article you keep posting isn't trying to say that homosexuality should still be classified as a mental disorder, it's saying that in never should have been classified as a mental disorder.

In any case, the blog's claim that "There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated" is flat out wrong. This page has information about some of the studies that were conducted in the early 20th century that the APA used to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

Letting homosexuals get under your skin definitely has many characteristics of multiple mental "disorders". Fear of one's own innate personality because of stigma and ignorance will mess you up good. you will fight it with with drink, drugs, denial (which is a self-digging hole), getting weirder and weirder all the time. Very few people are 100% gay or 100% straight. We are all between those 2 extremes. It is not a bell curve. If it was we'd all be David Bowie.

timothymyers02:
I checked with my 20 year old son and he says your assertion that the young people accept gay marriage or boy scout leaders being gay is not correct.
He says that if there is a room full of SCV kids discussing anything like this it is usually split 50/50. Sounds a lot like the same split the state of Calif. has with adults.

whataplace: that's because SCV is a bubble.

History shows us that the side with more "Liberty" wins these kind of fights. Expanding and insuring "rights" is why the USA was founded. We are not here to preserve the superstitious past.