The Mormon Church Makes A Huge Anti-LGBT Statement

Ralph, I'm sorry, I miss interpreted what you said as coming from you and not that you meant Alan was making that case about being in my mind. But I guess I have answered him anyway - he really is clueless and impossible to reason with.

I find it hilarious that the notion the disciples goal was to control the masses into the future after they all willingly suffered torturous deaths in relative poverty for their spreading the gospel.

Ralph, now you are doing it - putting words in my mouth..? The God I believe in is not in my mind. What I believe in is in His word, the Bible, which although physically written by men, the words they wrote were inspired by God who is God the father, the Holy Spirit and God's son Jesus in one being, almost incomprehensible to us being human. Why do you find it so hard to believe that if the Bible is true and God is who He says He is in the Bible that he would give his fallen creation a revelation of himself and his plan for humanity through humanity and via his prophets and son and his disciples? You base your logic about spiritual things upon false assumptions, try basing it on God's word and you have to come to different conclusions.

More diversion, man you really can't stop using transparent tactics to divert from what is said trying to put words in my mouth? What you say you imagine I might think from your answers has nothing to do with anything and is nothing but a tactic, you have no idea what I might think from your answers other than what I have stated about your answers and what you said is nowhere near what I stated or thought about your answers - do you really think anyone is fooled by your sophomoric attempts to avoid the truth? Everything you say demonstrates you have brAinwashed yourself to interpret eveeything through a lens that transforms facts and truth into opinion solely so you can claim some sort of moral relativity with your opinion, which is simply a rationalization to allow you to be the God of your life because you have to rebel against your creator in order to have things your way which is frankly to embrace and live a sinful existence without God even if it means suffering eternal judgement for rejecting God's love which is embodied in what Jesus did for you on the cross because "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Also, Tsad,you might think from my replies to you that am trying to limit your beliefs, your application of your religious rights. Not at all.

And I have been recently looking into the United States Constitution, regarding freedom to worship as you wish.

Well, freedom cuts both ways.

When you throw your religious beliefs at me, declaring those beliefs are based upon facts; and implying that not "believing" your message, I am thereby offending your god and liable for punishment somewhere down the line....you are insulting me. You are saying that your understanding from a religious point of view is superior to my point of view.

That constitution does not afford you the right to insult anyone. Nor does the christian faith which you espouse give you the freedom to judge others according to your beliefs.

My freedom to not hold any of your beliefs, or to regard such beliefs as non-factual, allows me to say to you, clearly and without any ambiguity, what I think about your efforts to persuade me to think otherwise. Such freedom is bestowed upon LDS, Southern Baptist, RCs, JWs, Episcopalians, Atheist, Agnostics...you name it.

So, with respect to your right to believe whatever you choose, I claim MY right to regard what you believe as absolutely nothing to do with me.

So, wishing you a good day.

Tsad, it is not "His " word. There is NO god except that one in your mind.

You are a messenger of rubbish.

That book was written and compiled by humans. It came into being because individuals, like you; and organisations like the one which has hijacked your mind; wanted control over other minds; with ulterior motives.

You Sir have taken the bait and swallowed it, hook line and sinker.

Your problem, not mine.

Period.

Now that's a cop out if I ever saw one and another example of attacking the messenger - you really need a new playbook -nothing I have said is based on my attitude or anything that is founded on my beliefs or anything of my creation - IT IS ALL CLEARLY in the Word of God, THE BIBle which was written and has existed long before you or I were born - if you have an issue with anything it isn't founded in my attitude or beliefs but your issue is with God himself, His Word and your rejection of his love and his salvation. If you want to be honest blame him, not Christians. Oh but you don't believe he exists so I guess you have to create a scapegoat for your behavior, don't you. And in so doing all you are doing is lying to yourself.

And Tsad, it is individuals with attitudes like you have that would drive many from the beliefs you hold. There is no god, no satan, except what you concoct in the recesses of your own mind. All self-serving, to gratify your own sense of power for "knowing the mind of god."

Don't talk to me about cults. You belong to one. I have yet to see you write anything but argument, prejudicial attitude, critcism of others, in particular of myself.

So far I have seen nothing from you that resembles loving kindness, seeking to understand and empathise with the needs and feelings of others.

You appear to be a very fearful, selfish person.

IMHO.

So Alan, you judge all Christianity by the cult of JWs? That's right, JWs are not Christians, nor represent Chrisitanity - they are a cult and all you need do is google JW cult to find indisputable proof that it is not any example of Christianity. Cults are the product of Satan so it is not surprising that your friend's death occurred in that way as Satan's goal is to see to it all humans are corrupted by sin and die not accepting Christ. So your conclusions about his death weren't the result of your investigating what really was happening but simply an excuse to believe what you wanted to believe, your preconceived notions of Christianity which you want to believe solely because it enables you to reject Christ - Satan's ultimate goal, and you are nothing but a pawn in his hands without Christ.

No none of those Ralph. And thanks for clarifying your position in the disussion.

This was quite some time (35yrs ago at least). I was very much involved in a gay organisation, before HIV Aids came onto the scene. This young man was very obviously distressed. He (I guessed) had some need to talk with someone, saw me as an older man, willing to listen. I found him attractive, but the paternalistic empathies become very strong for me in those situations....meaning no way do you "get involved" intimately. Any way, that's the way I have always approached that sort of situation.

We had 2 or 3 long chat sessions, during which he spilled out all his woes.

His parents were JWs. In a country town, about 200km away.

He had literally been cast out. Disowned. Because they found (he never told me exactly how, why or when), he was gay they told him he was not wanted. He gravitated to the city where in those days, before AIDS, there was a good social network. But he told me that was not enough. He wanted, needed his family's acceptance and love but it was not available.

So he threw himself off a high tower. They did not even hold a funeral service for him.

That was from people who claimed allegience to a god of love

Need I say more?

Because Ralph, as is being shown here by moralists, (are you one of them?), condemn people to hell, speaking on behalf of their god, using the very concepts of sin, hell, guilt and punishment.

You and others here repeatedly point fingers at me and accuse me of being such things as angry and unhappy inside. You even think my problem might be guilt.... no. My sexual life has no guilt attached to it....and not one of you knows anything about. Even whether or not I have one! So you are only guessing about what a homosexual person does; and as Wes showed a few posts back, there many ignorant presumptions out there.

Tsad has said:

"If you were having fun, Allan, you wouldn't spend so much time bashing Christianity solely because you wish to rebel against it's condemnation of sin by a God, get this,"

I am not bashing christianity per see, although I don't now hold to it's basic doctrines or teachings.

Rather, I hold to account the hypocricy of people who preach, on the one hand, love and care for their fellow humans, yet on the other hand work so hard to find sins with which they can hold power and retribution over those same fellows.

Yes, I have had a friend die, because he had been persecuted and cast out by his family. They considered themselves good christians. He was queer. Not bad because of that. Just a soul who needed the love of acceptance by those he in fact cared about.

We are ALL interlinked within the eco-system of this world, Ralph. That which hurts one person, one species, one section of humanity, is also going to affect the entirety.

Not one person has commented here on my declaration about abuse, and how any of it is abhorent. The convenient untruths are much more acceptable, obviously.

If you were having fun, Allan, you wouldn't spend so much time bashing Christianity solely because you wish to rebel against it's condemnation of sin by a God, get this, YOU don't even believe exists - if that's your idea of having fun, of course throw in your desire to embrace sin which can be "fun" for a time (until you reap the consequences which will be eternal no matter what you believe) you are a very angry, unhappy man inside, deny it all you want you know that is true and you will never find peace without God who despite all your hatred of him, he still loves you, as he has proven in that his son died to save you for "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends."

Oh really, RJS, how could I ever be holier than an out-n'-out born again christian? I wouldn't even be let in the back door of heaven, let alone the front Pearly Gates.

Anyway, it's too much fun down here to worry about what might be over the hill.

I am no better than any one else Ralph. But I do and will stand up to false beliefs when they are used to threaten the lives of others. You might call this one of my straw men.

It is not. It is in response to the ignorant, totally biased support of a church belief system which preaches gay people are works of the devil.

If, when I talk of these things and you or anyone else feel uncomfortable with being confronted with what I see as the truth, then sorry. It's up to you to explore further than what you already think you know.

I am confronting bias which can go to the extent of hatred. It can lead to gay people being expelled from their homes and separated from their loved ones. Even tortured or killed. All because of religious beliefs.

Tsad or Wes or you or anyone can call me anything you like. You can disparage me as being a senile old straw man. I don't care.

I will not shut up when I see lies spread through ignorance and prejudice.

Especially when it seems individuals might be hiding behind their own secrets.

And Tsad, I suggest you just look at yourself in the mirror and say all the things you have just said to me, straight back at the man you see there.

Until you can do that, honestly, courageously, you will continue to tread water and simply get no where.

And until you can do that it's obviously a waste of time even addressing you.

Same goes for any one of you that cannot face your own truths. I feel sorry for you and hope you can crawl out of your caves a find a joyful life.

So good bye.

Alan as long as I've known you here on hub pages you have been anything but respectful to me, to Christians, to heterosexuals, just look at your characterizations of such since you started commenting here- to say otherwise is nothing but a lie ... but then that is the basis for everything you say - LIES.

To say calling a spade a spade is disrespectful goes right along with your modus operandi of baiting people, attacking the messenger of truth or facts when you can't refute them or raising straw man after straw man to try and make an argument you think you can win, yet you still fail every time and when you do invariably you change the subject so you never admit you are wrong.

Anything I have said here or in any discussion with you has been based on fact or demonstrable observation of you and your behavior while all your comments have been based on lies and it's obvious you really don't believe I am being disrespectful, to say that is simply another way you try to attack the messenger, me.

How would you know for sure, 100% ?

I have checked the Wikipedia site. Do really think it applies to myself?

I try to show that misinformed assumptions about homosexual people are driving prejudice, yet that does not suit the agenda of those who love to show their moral superiority...

So you now try to disparage the messenger, calling him senile? Haha! Nice try but it only serves to prove you would rather not face the truth?

Maybe you just love to bait me. That's ok.

Al Gore is famous for bringing to the world's attention "The Inconvenient Truth." Presumably you prefer The Convenient Untruths." As would leaders of the churches.

I get it now, Sir. You're senile, and can no longer discern your own logical fallacies.

I'm a good lad. Just here to help. You could refresh your mind and learn to speak free of your straw man fallacy, if you tried.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Come up with some good discussion, Wes. Straw, hay, grass....it's all mostly air. I am talking real life matters.

After almost 77 years and having been to many parts of the world and seen good and bad, I am open to anyone disagreeing, but only if you have arguments free of hate, free of religious bias and dogma.

Oh..and if you have travelled, with an open mind.

Otherwise your words carry little weight in my mind.

Alan, how many men of straw do you manage to create on a good day? I'm thinking a few dozen, but I don't know you very well. It could be hundreds.

I have told you Wes. No, I don't see them in that way personally. But I have seen it mentioned that the way some performers parade around the stage, brandishing their guitar at hip level, this is in fact a phallic symbol, geared to attract the chicks (or chucks as the case may be.) No harm in it as far as I can see, but again it shows there is little if any difference in desires between gay and straight.

Mike mentioned at the end of his last post about "You can stop being gay. It's a dirty secret but facts are facts, people stop being gay as well as start being gay every day.," Again so utterly false teaching. There is so, so much misinformation put around the world by those with ulterior agenda, that people's lives are literally being put at risk.

And those putting the rope around the "sinner's" neck are the ones who claim to be doing the work of that Almighty God of their own making.

It's a very sad world we are living in.

Alan, you're the man who said something about guitars looking like great big male sex organs. So who are these persons who see guitars in that way? I mean besides yourself.

@Wes, no I don't, but apparently some heterosexual individuals might....

@Mike: "Can we agree that being gay is defined by how you have sex." No! I cannot agree! You are wrong Sir.

" I think there is more to people than their sex life...unless you're a homosexual." No! I cannot agree.

All you prejudice is obviously based upon misperception.

Being "gay" is not just about how one has sex. Many gay people don't in fact "have" sex....just like many heterosexual people.

It is simply the focus of one's attraction, whether same gender or the opposite. We love, we cherish, we work, we play, we raise children, we have friendships....and hopes as human beings.

Sure, some individuals have narrow, selfish, perhaps ugly and depraved lives. Some are overtly political. All the diversity we see in heterosexual people.

However, many do have sex, and the way they do it is no one else's business.

But please, try to find good, married or unmarried, joyous gay friends. We are around if you care to recognise us as not perverts.

If a man sees a guitar and imagines it is a gigantic penis, well, I would think that had something to do with the processes of that man's mind. Is that what you see, Alan?

Alan, I have a question. This is one I've asked my relatives who are homosexuals. Now, I'm in touch with reality enough to know the person who drives the bus you are on to the person who fixes your meal at a restaurant as well as any service provided for you can be gay. Can we agree that being gay is defined by how you have sex. So, why do so many gay people define themselves by their sex life? I have a sex life as I've been married for decades, I just don't define myself by it. I think there is more to people than their sex life...unless you're a homosexual. Then your sex life seems to be something you obsess over. Should I be introduced when I speak at a conference as an "Openly heterosexual man?" Also, being gay is not the same as your race. You can stop being gay. It's a dirty secret but facts are facts, people stop being gay as well as start being gay every day. So, does that make it a choice? Does it matter? Not to me. I don't care that my relative have same sex partners...that is their business. I don't like to hear about it. If they start, I start talking about my sex life and the "heterosexual community." After all, fair it fair.

Yes, Wes. Even guitarists have been criticised for displaying the instrument in a phallic fashion. And I suspect they were portrayed at times as an immoral minority.

Happy strumming.

Tsad, you continue to throw insults, as you have done ever since I have known you on these HubPages.

Often I have tried to be respectful towards you, even when your answers lack intelligence, good sense or even old-fashioned courtesy.

Here you go again, talking about unnatural lifestyle, when you can't or wont explain what you mean by it.

I am very strongly critical of people who secretly corrupt the lives of young people sexually or in any other mode. I suspect there are a very large number of females running cub scouts these days. Do you keep a close watch on them? To make sure they don't entice attractive teenaged boys into their lair?

Whether male or female, hetero- or homo-sexual, it is the irresponsibility, the betrayal of trust and the ongoing psychological confusion often instilled in the young person that is the real wrong doing.

To imply that a homosexual person is more likely than a heterosexual person to corrupt young boys or girls is ignorant and false.

But please - a better debating style on your part would help this discussion. Cease calling my points of view ridiculous. Show some respect and good manners. Otherwise you bring a bad reputation upon Consumer Affairs, who's Website you are using.

The Gaystappo. We of the traditional values have had quite enough of the tyranny of minorities.

As usual Alan you raise a straw man ridiculous argument. You can't have an honest discussion about anything. The Mormons aren't dictating their beliefs to anyone. It's their right to participate or not in boys scouts for any reason. How does that dictate their beliefs to the organization which is free to run itself as it pleases?

The real imposition here is the LGBT movement dictating to the boy scouts and religious organizations their beliefs, trying at every turn to impose their beliefs, their unnatural lifestyles upon traditional value people and organizations, forcing organizations to lose sponsors through their bullying practices and threatening boycotts.

Inherent rights have nothing to do with any imposition of beliefs including the LGBT who have no inherent rights to impose their beliefs on anyone and they are the only ones who do. Withdrawing from an organization because of religious beliefs is nothing like threatening and intimidating companies and organizations not only to accept them but the promote them as acceptable normal behavior.

So Alan, you've attacked the messenger and raised straw men, running out of your playbook tactics? What's next or will you just recycle those two?

By the way, right back on the topic of this hub, what right have the LDS got that allows them to dictate their religious dogma and fanaticisms to young people? What rights have any religions to impose beliefs?

Answer: only the rights which they design and make for themselves. No inherent rights at all.

And it's all built on guilt, fear, judgement. Love rarely if ever comes into it.

IMHO

Mike, that is fair comment, I think. No excuse really, but understandable, when we homosexual people are often condemned out of hand by individuals who might have secret lives themselves.

Anyone who may be subject to persecution can understandably rise up against those whom they perceive as doing the percecution. People with African or Arab appearance; Gypsies; women; people who are mentally or physically disabled; us gay guys and girls...the Jewish people know it too. .s...o if you or any good christian person feels hard done by, try walking in the other person's shoes for a day. It might breed a little more compassion, don't you think?.....

Interesting conversation. I am a Christian. I have relative that are the definition of the term gay. I've come to the conclusion that there always have been homosexuals and always will be homosexuals. If what I believe is true then it isn't up to me to judge them. If God has wrath toward homosexuals, they will be his when they depart this earth. It does not concern me. There is more to my relatives than their sex life. My point with most homosexuals I meet is to show the same level of respect you expect to receive. You disrespect my beliefs and it makes you look very bad. I've had experiences where people felt since I was a Christian and they were gay they were entitled to do and say some very ignorant things toward me and about my religion. I forgive them, but it does make me hesitant to be around homosexuals. Many of the ones I've experienced have brought out the worst in me with their words and deeds.

One more point from your immediately previous post Wes. (It's turned out to be several points!)

I would not wish to view a far left extremist film, either. But I could watch it with the intention of becoming more knowledgable about their point of view. Anything wrong, or dangerous about that?

Nor would I wish to sit through a far right wing film of propaganda, for the same reasons but with same provisos.

Even though the very existence of the character 2000 years ago is now in doubt, if people in christianism (yes an -ism, not -anity) whom I mixed with in the church had shown real, unconditional love towards me, instead of alienating me into a lonely-soul existence, I might still be a member of a church.

But, as Mahatma Ghandi once said, I love your Jesus but have no liking for your christians (paraphrased).

There is NOTHING in that New Testament that says I cannot be homosexual, and nothing which proscribes what you, I or anyone must or must not do about intimacy with another person. Despite what your teachers might tell you. And this goes for the LDS too.

@Ralph...it's a topic you can talk about, but we will never know the true answer to your question. You will only believe what you want to believe.

@Wes, of course it's not a traditional value. I put that quote in to show that the prejudice about homosexual people not following a "traditional lifestyle" is based upon lack of factual knowledge and presumptions. Forced sexual interaction is not acceptable in any situation, whether m-m, m-f, f-m, f-f, regardless of age. I would include any person who is at somekind of disadvange such a the intellectually disabled.

Being "gay" does not imply that a person is unkind, cruel, immoral or someone to be abused either

I am (we are) human, with the same basic needs as any heterosexual person. Yet mostly you find us more honest than many heterosexual persons trying to hide behind a screen of makebelieve.

The far left wing extremists of Hollywood, California gave big awards to a film about a homosexual man who groomed a child to be his lover, and that was this year. I don't' recall the name of the film because I'd never watch it, and I certainly wouldn't watch a far left wing extremist film award show.

Alan, the same old same old transparent tactic of people like you, if you can't refute the facts attack the messenger, name call, anything to divert attention from the truth.

The article is based upon data gathered in 1996 by the CDC, not any religious rag and all you can say about the data is to attack the messenger - pathetic, but exactly what I could have predicted you would do because since you had no comeback for any other criticism of you you just had to attack the messenger.

I was trying to make your mind seem more reasonable, Alan. Suggesting rape is a traditional value would seem to imply that you think we're Islamic persons.

And now here you are calling us Christian fanatics. Are you a Christophobe?

Now Wes, you know full well that I have never made such a claim, so why say it? When are you going to learn to speak the truth? Yours is the classical cheap trick of fanatical christians trying to protect their fallacious beliefs by bending the truth.

Hypocrisy, once again.

And Tsad can only quote a fanatical self-righteous Canadian religious rag which also conjures up and publishes untrue stories.

What's up with you "believers?" Can't you ever think for your selves and recognise lies when you see them?

It's like this guy is claiming homosexuals are never rapists. One wonders if he's from the same planet as the rest of us.

And here is an interesting study I don;t know how (the heterosexual basher) Alan missed it in his "unfair and unbalanced" crime research.

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO., June 13, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A forty-eight page study to be published two weeks from now in the peer-reviewed journal, Psychological Reports, compares extensive and newly released Center for Disease Control (CDC) data, concluding that homosexuals are far more likely to engage in illegal and socially dangerous behavour than heterosexuals. In fact, according to the study, homosexuals are over 107% more likely to have been booked for illegal activity than heterosexuals.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-sexuality-sur...

Glad to give Alan another vocabulary lesson.

By definition perpetrators of rape and sexual assault can not be defined as good, upstanding, moral, heterosexual men. Men with traditional values, by definition do not commit rape or sexual assault - only sick perverts do that. Whether they masquerade as something they are not does not define them.

Odd that an atheist refers to the man who lived in the eastern Mediterranean region, about 2000 years ago when he believes that man is fiction.

Hahaha!

"On average, there are 321,500 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault each year in the United States.1" I wonder how many of these cases were perpetrated by good, upstanding, moral, hetereosexual men of the community.

Oh for the normality of "men with traditional values..."

The was apparently a man who lived in the eastern Mediterranean region, about 2000 years ago, who's primary aversion was towards hypocrisy.

TSAD, I have the feeling he is very confused. I bet for every single value we know of as traditional, he has an ism, ist, or a phobia term for that value. And he probably thinks that makes him virtuous.

Ralph, again you hit the nail right on the head and I'm not going to define what that means.

However Wes, you might define "men with traditional values" for Alan, he seems confused.

Boy Scouts of America should have had the common decency to write us all a suicide note years ago.

Well, I do hope someone will pick up the pieces and create something new and better. A place where boys can be boys under the supervision of men with traditional values.

Hahaha!

Well I guess Ralph can answer your question then but I'd assume Ralph knows what the definition of normal is,

The definition of normal used as an adjective:

conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

and when used as a noun:

the usual, average, or typical state or condition.

so I think it is quite obvious to everyone (with access to a dictionary) what non-normal means.

If it helps you non- as a prefix means

1.not doing; not involved with.

"nonaggression"

2.not of the kind or class described.

Feel free to inquire if you need another vocabulary lesson instead of attempting to put words in people's mouths..

Your mate here used the term "non-normal lifestyle." You tell me what is a "normal" lifestyle.

Since you, Alan, are the only person here who used that term why don't you describe what you mean by it? Or maybe try to stay on topic?

Will someone please describe clearly what they mean by a "gay lifestyle."

Tell us precisely, without beating about the bush.

That would be a solution Mike if what they wanted is to be scouts - they don't. What they want is for their perverted lifestyles to be considered "normal" and as natural as living a heterosexual lifestyle.

I'm not asserting that LGBTs are all perverts, I am saying that living that lifestyle is a perversion of what God intended sex to be. By the same token there are heterosexual's who pervert God's intended human sexuality through rape for example, considered "normal" in some cultures. The belief that all heterosexual relationships are formed for the procreation of children isn't true. The fact is that while there are heterosexual couples who decide to have children, there are many who do not choose to do so and instead choose to engage in sexual activities that can not lead to procreation. Although the Bible says the marriage bed is undefiled there are also heterosexual sexual practices that are perversions of God's intent.

I have the perfect solution. How about someone start the "LBGT" Scouts of America? They would have to have one of these dispositions in order to join a scouting organization designed to meet their specific needs. They could enjoy scouting is a safe environment away from anyone who would criticize them or be uncomfortable with their lifestyle.

That's actually good news. Perhaps if there are enough changes in the status quo the Mormons will pack up and go back to Europe where they belong. That would be a blessing to us all. Furthermore, considering that the Mormons have embraced pedophilia as a God given right, their aversion to homosexuality hardly places them on the moral high ground. The only thing worse than a pedophile is a pedophile who believes in the holy righteousness of his own depravity.

I have to say, did you notice Kathleen only came back to attack me with innuendo. Not to admit what I said about what she said was totally accurate or to admit she was wrong. Was she wrong? Since she's gone and doesn't want to contribute (translation deceive) further let's take a closer look at her tactics for the sake of the lesson to be learned here.

Kathleen says to John's comment, "Restricting gay scout masters is not the definition of being careful. Look at statistics and find that most sexual predators are heterosexual."

What John said,"A number of scout masters have been convicted of sexual abuse of boys in their care." was totally correct, and what she said, "that most sexual predators are heterosexual" using it as some sort of significant statistic is pure deception and laughable. When the number of homosexuals is such a (tiny) minority of course most predators will be heterosexual. The significant statistic, which by the way she ignores, is that the "tiny percentage of the population [homosexual men], commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation." which shows her statement to be totally irrelevant. Yet she makes that her argument? A straw man if I ever saw one. But that's not all. She says,

"My Southern Baptist Church has abandoned their 75-year-old scout troop for fear of attracting homosexuals."

She finds "this action non-Christian at its core?" That's priceless, a so called "christian" who's ashamed of her church shepherding it's flock. If anyone's action is non christian it is hers. So what is her idea of Christianity? Giving homosexual pedophiles a free reign to prey upon innocent boy scouts?

She says, "How many young men will now not come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through this contact with our church."

There are hundreds of ways for youngsters to come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and also through other contacts with her church. Her church? If she's a church member there they need to have a serious talk with her. Maybe invite her to an actual Bible study because it is obvious she has never done that. On top of that just how does an episode of pedophilia lead a child to Christ if it happens when it could have been easily avoided.

She says her church is acting "out of Fear and ignorance?" That's her attacking and labeling the messenger, no different than playing a race card. That church is actually being the good shepherd, protecting it's innocent sheep from unnecessary exposure to wolves. By her stated reasoning she would prefer to have "her" church provide a killing field for Satan!

Then she raises another straw man, comparing pedophiles to obese people! That is simply unbelievable, but knowing her as I do, totally not unexpected. Jesus said of anyone who would harm a child "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." He did not equate harming children with obesity! Proverbs says "Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags." A warning for your protection, not a torturous judgement! Does she not understand pedophilia is incurable and as evil an assault as there is on a child yet she compares it to a bad habit that harms no one but the person who is obese?

Kathleen always takes these loony stances on subjects, bashing Christians and conservatives and I wonder how she can do that with a conscience. But that is exactly what's to be expected of someone who supports abortion which says it all about HER "Christianity." A wolf in sheep's clothing if you ask me.

Given the state of the media today I am not surprised to find she was a newspaper reporter and editor - she fits in with that crowd of left wing self-deluded deceivers working for today's fake news media.

Well said Ralph.

Kathleen, yeah, you are right, but just as always with you, what you just said, implying it applies to your behavior, again is a lie, another straw man. That is all you how how to do, then you disappear or as in this instance try to change the subject. Describing to a tee your repeated behavior is not an insult, merely an observation meant to reveal a dishonest and deceiving nature.

Carolyn,

You seem to be arguing against a statement that I did not make. I merely said that one does not choose to be gay - although you might find a few people who say that they did. I did not venture any particular reason why this might be so - genetic, environmental, or anything else.

So are you denying the fact and are you saying that the majority of gay people have made a conscious choice to adopt a certain sexuality? That would be a very hard line to defend, surely!

John W.,

Let's get THIS straight once and for all . . . there is no consensus in the scientific community regarding genetic predisposition to homosexuality. From a 2016 John Hopkins report:

"The three-part, 143-page report, which appeared in the Fall 2016 edition of The New Atlantis, also investigated other commonly accepted ideas about homosexuality and transgenderism. The report found insufficient evidence to back up the idea that people are born with innate sexual attractions. Mayer and McHugh examined past studies which show a modest association between genetic factors and sexual orientation, but these studies have not been able to pinpoint particular genes responsible. Other hypothesized biological causes, such as prenatal development and hormones, have also been linked to sexual orientation, but that evidence is also limited. Studies of the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals have found some differences, but have not demonstrated that these differences are inborn rather than the result of environmental factors that influenced both psychological and neurobiological traits."

There is more here:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/23/johns-hopk...

Okay, now you show me YOUR report that says the opposite. And on and on. I get it. My point is this: don't tell me that the debate is settled. It's not. So don't lecture me. It's far from the established fact you claim it to be. And you may choose to believe what you wish. Just don't claim it's conclusive and dismiss other peoples' perspectives.

Now, that said, I'm all for tolerance. I do not wish to demonize anyone. I also agree that NO PERSON should push a particular sexual orientation on another against their will. That's just wrong.

I'm also for religious freedom. As long as a church doesn't use "public" funding, they can promote or not promote as they see fit, as long as they are not advocating violence. And I don't see the LDS church doing that.

Stepping off my soapbox now.

tsadjatko Here's a reply. You can disagree with a person without being insulting. And I leave a conversation when there is no point in trying to contribute further to it.

Your statement that the Disney Corporation has been "promoting homosexuality" is an interesting one, as it suggests that gayness is a product like Coke that can be sold on the open market.

Let's get this straight once and for all. Being LGBT is not a matter of choice - you are either gay or you are not. It cannot therefore be a "sin" (whatever that means) to be gay. How you choose to express your sexuality is a different matter, as is how you choose to respect (or otherwise) the sexuality of other people. Disney may be keen to promote the toleration of homosexuality, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

There is no such thing as a "sin" that does not harm other people - that is surely the whole definition of morality. If a gay person tries to force him/herself on another person in a sexual way, that is wrong, and the same is true if a straight person tries to do so.

What is also completely wrong is demonizing other people because of their sexuality, or pretending that they are in some way less worthy as human beings because they do not conform to the norms of the majority.

There is some question about whether the BSA is a secular or religious organization because it affirms a belief in God. However, it has a history of receiving federal funding, so which is it? There is no question that LDS is a religious organization and is free to exercise its own beliefs. I don't think we have the right to criticize the church from establishing its own "boy scout" type organization as long as it pays for it without public moneys. Unless or until the Boy Scouts give up using taxpayer dollars to fund some of their activities and projects, they have no choice but to have an anti-discrimination policy. Polarization is tearing this country apart. Even religious and quasi-religious groups have their own versions of polarization.

Okay, I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't see this as "anti-gay" so much as it is "pro Church teachings." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (as they prefer to be called), has every right to promote their beliefs and teachings, as they see them. That is the core of religious freedom. They are not required to promote the LGBT agenda. There is a lot of disagreement within the Christian community about what is and what is not the correct interpretation of biblical teachings on homosexuality. One completely valid interpretation is to disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle, yet embrace a homosexual person as a child of God. It's far more complicated than merely headlines, so I'll stop there. Except to say that I am not LDS, and therefore should refrain from further commentary.

My bottom line on this applies to any organized group and is not limited to just the boy scouts.

If you don't like the way the organization is headed, just quit and start your own group of like minded people. And that is what the Mormon church is doing.

When we look at all of the organizations that have been forced to change their polices due to the complaints of a few members, it makes me wonder what happened to the majority rule?

Nobody is forced to join or be a member of any organization.

As usual Kathleen, you state an irrelevant statistic then use it as a straw man argument.

Fact: A tiny percentage of the population [homosexual men], commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation."

Here are the pro and con arguments

http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questio...

which prove at the very least you can not honestly say "Look at statistics and find that most sexual predators are heterosexual." and think that has anything to do with the issue.

Fact: A tiny percentage of the population [homosexual men], commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation."

Goodbye, cause it's been my experience that once your deceptive behavior has been revealed you disappear from the conversation. Sad because there is healing in admitting you are wrong.

I agree Ralph, I was just being snide. (LGBT BS)

"A number of scout masters have been convicted of sexual abuse of boys in their care. Though paedophilia and homosexuality are often too separate things. We need to be careful." Restricting gay scout masters is not the definition of being careful. Look at statistics and find that most sexual predators are heterosexual.

My Southern Baptist Church has abandoned their 75-year-old scout troop for fear of attracting homosexuals. I find this action non-Christian at its core. How many young men will now not come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through this contact with our church because of fear and ignorance? Are we also going to cancel Wednesday night suppers for fear obese people might come and overeat (also advised against in the Bible)? The day will come (soon I hope) when we will look back with shame on our attitudes just as we do looking back on slavery and bigotry.

But Jodah, gay boy scouts grow up to be what?

Answer: Gay Scout Masters.

This is all very interesting, Ralph. I wasn't aware that the Disney Corporation was such a supporter of gay rights. I can, however, understand the Church of LDS stance on the matter. I agree that boys of all sexual orientation should be allowed to join the scouts I am not sure that allowing gay scout masters is a good idea however. A number of scout masters have been convicted of sexual abuse of boys in their care. Though paedophilia and homosexuality are often too separate things. We need to be careful.