Should the Boy Scouts Change Policies on Homosexual Leaders?

Boy Scouts has also gotten a lot of flack lately for its policies regarding homosexuals - for its decision to not allow homosexuals in leadership roles. My response to this follows in the same line as my responses to the negative publicity Chick-Fil-A has received for its stance on gay marriage.

Much of the problem is that the stereotype of gay men is that they cannot be "manly" role models. They can be role models in other senses, but not in the more outdoor activities, rough and tough, brave, etc sort of way that the word "male" seems to imply. Certainly there are gay men who can provide models in these things, but it also seems to go with the territory of being gay (in many cases) that they are role models in other areas that may not necessarily fit what Boy Scouts is going for. There are other places to send your children for that sort of role model.

Of course, there's also the moral foundations that likely lie behind the stance, too, which is where the controversy really takes shape. But it's not discrimination if you're standing up for what you believe in under the rights that are entitled to a private organization. There are other orgs out there for those looking for more "gay-friendly" groups to be a part of.

Ironically, those who say Boy Scouts and Chick-Fil-A discriminate against gays are the ones discriminating against these organizations and businesses, their rights, and their Christian founders. Many liberals defend themselves by saying there should be a complete separation of church and state, that these orgs have no right to do what they do, but by standing against these orgs they themselves are putting their own opinions as law and forcing others to accept what is a religion in the sense that it is a belief system being forced down everyone's throats.

A Misconception About Choice and Homosexuality

Continuing my posts inspired by the recent protests against Chik-fil-A...

I had lesbian tendencies. During my addiction to porn, I liked the lesbian videos just as much as I liked the other videos. And it was, indeed, my choice to indulge in such passions, even though they never ultimately made me happy.

Of course, most homosexuals would say that their sexual tendencies are not a choice and that they are, indeed, happy with who they are. And, to a certain extent, they would be right. But let's look at this in a bit more detail.

Choice. What does it mean when we say a person has a choice when it comes to LGBT lifestyles? There was a time when I automatically thought of the lifestyle, personality and action all as choices. And, in one sense, they are. If someone holds a knife up to your neck and tells you to choose not act on your homosexual tendencies, you do have a choice to either die or change. But such a choice is not really a free choice, as it's a forced one. Still, the situation in theory allows for the idea that a person can choose not to act on those tendencies.

But if that person does what the guy with the knife orders, does the person in himself really change? No. His or her tendencies and personality remains the same at core. We cannot force a person to change, and thus, this theoretical person could be posited as being "born this way."

That said, at the heart of Christianity is a realization of the fact that we are fallen, imperfect human beings who ask God to change our hearts through a lifetime of transformation. Catch that? It's not an immediate change. Most of us will deal with our sins and temptations for the rest of our lives, even after recognizing them as wrong. I still deal with attraction to other females. I still deal with the temptation to think about or look at pornography. And some might say I was born with that tendency. I've had it at least since I was very young. But I've chosen not to act on those tendencies.

You see, you always have a choice. And that choice does not lie in what you feel you are. It lies in what you do.

I also think many Christians fail to realize that you can have the personality of what people stereotype as a homosexual personality and still be straight - still love the Lord - still be a Christian.

Can we compare the gay rights movement to the Holocaust and slavery?

Continuing my posts on the recent protests against Chik-fil-A...

A friend of mine recently compared the gay right movement to what happened to Jews during the holocaust and what happened to African Americas in American history. 

I find it difficult to accept any comparison of the homosexual plight to Jews and African Americans. Jews and African Americans were slaves, were tortured, killed, not allowed to live in any semblance to the regular lives the leading "race" was allowed to live.

I recognize that some homosexuals are made fun of, bullied and even murdered for their lifestyle, and I'll gladly stand against such intolerance and evil, but that is not a majority and that is not the right that is at issue here, nor is it something CFA has attempted against homosexuals.

A note on the religious and moral convictions behind each of these: Nazis thrived on national socialism, much of which was anti-religion, survival of the fittest idealism. They believed in stripping away people of ALL rights to the point of murder and holocaust in the interest of furthering a "master race" that lived above everyone else. The Christian convictions behind CFA's decisions and the majority of Christian ideologies that exist out there do not seek a theocracy where Christians live over everyone else and force their beliefs on others. They don't strive toward a V for Vendetta world.

The same goes for KKK and such. To compare CFA to KKK is to say CFA wants every homosexual dead. That's an extreme comparison, and a very wrong one to make. In addition, the "religious" South that allowed and supported the slavery of African Americans had no solid Biblical support of their mistreatment of the slaves. Many manipulated Scripture and took it out of context to support their ideas while others were Christian in name only and didn't really give a care about what the Bible said. But when it comes to homosexuality, the Bible is very clear in its stance, just as it is clear about the evil of promiscuity, rape, affairs and the lot.

Obviously, we don't live under a theocracy and I don't ask that we strive toward that (although no one can make political decisions without some sort of religious or moral belief influencing them).

Is homosexuality natural? A Christian perspective.

Continuing my posts on the recent protests against Chik-fil-A...

I do not want to compare homosexuals to murderers or other horrible people out there - that would not be right - but there are many things that are natural in this world that are not good. A person's tendency to look at pornography, for example. A man's choice to have an affair. There are many more examples. 

Just because something appears to be natural, does not make it right. Something completely natural can be distorted, as well, and still be considered natural at the same time, even though not perfect - not the way it was made to be.

Don't mistake me as stating two men or two women cannot have an honest, true love relationship. That's entirely possible, as proven by the gay couples that have stayed together for many years. What I'm saying here is more a statement on the Biblical perspective of whether or not that kind of relationship is acceptable and right in God's eyes.

I'm sure you already have a basic understanding of the Christian point of view on sin and a fallen world, so I won't go into that here. Besides, that part of the argument should be more reserved for those with theological inclinations. If you want to discuss it further, do so in the comments.

On Straight Vs. Gay Marriage

Continuing my posts on the recent protests against Chik-fil-A...

On the argument that a lot of straight marriages go wrong, so gays should be allowed to marry, too: 

Sure Kim Kardashian's marriage didn't last long. There's a lot of divorce out there among straight couples. There's a lot of affairs and promiscuity among the straight. But that's not reason to say it's OK for homosexuals to marry. 

For Christians, it still goes back to the foundation of the issue. There may be a lot of people out there getting it wrong - all promiscuity is evil - but, from a Christian perspective, that does not overrule what marriage was made for, that does not negate the good, and that does not prove that marriage between a man and a woman is of itself evil or wrong. It's not argument or reason to allow homosexual marriage.


How can we take the Bible at its word when it seems to condone slavery and other acts?

Continuing my posts on the recent protests against Chik-fil-A...

In discussing what the Bible says on homosexuality, I've come across many who have a misconception of what the Bible does and does not approve of. Let me lay a few summarized things out, then, for clarification.

Polygamy was never condoned by God, and the Bible states that God created man and woman, not man and woman and woman and woman. That doesn't mean people didn't practice it, though. But God used the weaknesses of man to bring about His will in spite of man's rebellion.

The Bible does not condone slavery, either. The New Testament does give advice to those in slavery to help them find some happiness and contentment within their obviously evil circumstances. But slavery is never said to be good, right, or permissible.

Similarly, bestiality, incest and rape are things that happen the the Biblical accounts, but the Bible and God never support them. Quite the opposite.

1 Cor 6 - "8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." Also check out Leviticus 18: 6-18 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

I’ve done my research, as have many atheists who have become Christians. I’m not going to base my political position on the gay marriage issue on my Christian beliefs alone. But when it comes to the Bible, the research has led me to believe it is all true. And if it is all true, I cannot go against it moral truths/statements, no matter how much I want to.

Do Christians Fear Homosexuals and Gay Rights?

In continuation of my posts on the recent protests against Chik-fil-A...

Speaking of rights, it’s not too far off to picture a future where gay rights leads to the end of the rights of private businesses and organizations like churches. Heck, even I fear losing a job some day over my views, even if those views don’t dictate a bigoted treatment of others full of hatred. 

I know a lot of those who are pro-gay rights defend their position by claiming the rest of us are just afraid, that the heart of our side does not lie with the Bible but with fear. And while I don’t agree with that entirely, I’d say that fear is definitely OK and warranted.  

Fear comes about for a reason.  If I fear somebody who flouts his anger and dresses in the uniform of a gang, is it my fault if I fear him?  If AIDS became epidemic because the homosexual community spread it, is it my fault if I fear their mindset? 

People already lose their jobs over their views and Christian standards. Teachers are banned just for mentioning creation in a classroom (without making it out to be the truth, they just put it next to evolution as a theory, and they still get lectured and thrown out). Churches are sued for not hiring homosexuals in leadership positions. Churches are sued for not allowing homosexual marriages in their churches - pastors are sued for refusing to perform the ceremony for homosexuals. 

And now we have the mayor of Boston threatening to ban Chick-fil-A from building new restaurants in the are because of its stance on gay marriage? 

You lose freedom of speech when everyone starts saying that CFA needs to change it's opinions and stances. People are doing more than disagreeing with and critiquing CFA's stances, they're calling for change, they're calling for CFA to hide it's beliefs as a private business and accept what others consider right. 

Yup, gay rights aren’t the only rights at stake here.

On the Rights of Chik-Fil-A as a Private Business

In continuation of my posts on the recent protests against Chik-fil-A...

It seems to me that the majority of gay rights advocates are exchanging one right for another based on what they agree with. They're denying Chick-Fil-A's rights as a private business by terming it a their protests a boycott and calling for change as apposed to just not spending money there because they don't agree with it. The business doesn't do anything illegal. It treats homosexual employees and customers equally. And as a private business, it has the right to stand up for what it believes in.

Obviously, we don't live under a theocracy and I don't ask that we strive toward that (although no one can make political decisions without some sort of religious or moral belief influencing them). If it were only my moral convictions as a Christian that led me to take my stance on gay marriage, I would be 100% for it.

But other things come into play, and when I consider that certain rights would be taken away in exchange for rights given to homosexuals, when I consider that the gay agenda does not just want tolerance and equality, but rather 100% acceptance equivalent to "brainwashing" (for lack of a better term) our children into believing homosexuality is good at an age when they shouldn't have to even think about what sex is (and such teaching would take away the Christian's right to speak up for what he believes in and to discuss that with his children) - when I consider all these things my position on gay marriage is not so solid and I cannot help but support CFA's rights as a private business and decisions as a Christian owned business.

Personally, I don’t think any business should be able to give proceeds to causes with more political inclinations like this. But if Oreo can stand up for gay rights, then CFA should be allowed to stand up for what it believes. As a private business, it’s their right. I know that the law puts certain restrictions on businesses, but this is not one of those cases, and to force CFA to change it’s policies is to take away its rights as a private business. I don’t ask that anyone who disagrees with them support them with their money, and I certainly see the negatives and positives of their decisions in terms of public relations, but when you go beyond just saying I’m not going to support these other causes with my money through CFA to the point where you’re protesting and trying to take away their rights as a private business, that’s where things get messy in my eyes.

And now we have the mayor of Boston threatening to ban Chick-fil-A from building new restaurants in the are because of its stance on gay marriage? 

When Gay Rights Advocates Become the Very Thing They Fight Against

In continuation of my posts on the recent protests against Chik-fil-A...

Strangely enough, some homosexuals with agendas for gay marriage often become the very bigotry, the very hatred that they so oppose, that they so claim to be fighting against.
 As my dad writes:

I find it hateful when people call pro-family groups "hateful." I find it intolerant when people call the same groups "intolerant." I threw away my crystal ball decades ago because it didn't work so well. But "tolerant" "liberals" sure seem to know what we're all thinking and are all motivated by, don't they?

I'm glad tolerance for gays has grown over the last generation. I oppose their political lobby, however, when it asks for superior rights. They have the right to marry the opposite sex. They want more. They want to marry the same sex. That's not equality; it's superiority.

Hatred usually results from abuse or from a cycle of poor upbringing. I was beat up by a Mexican gang in high school. I don't hate them; but IF I did, and I committed a crime against a Latino, I could be tried for a hate crime. Yesterday's "extenuating circumstances," as dictated by liberality, has become a "hate crime," as dictated by the same liberals. It appears to me that liberals don't base their positions on principle. They base their positions on whatever tugs their heart strings. Today, it just happens to be the G-string.

I've been judged as a bigot and worse before, and it hurts me deeply that people judge me solely on our differences and neglect to notice how much I care about and love the homosexual friends I do have.

Can a Christian Believe in Equality without Supporting Gay Rights?

In my discussion with others on the topic of gay marriage, especially in light of Chick-fil-A's stance on the issue and in light of Jim Henson Company severing its relationship with the Christian company, I've heard people say that you cannot believe in true equality for gays without supporting gay marriage. I have two things to say in response to that. The first I posted here. The second is this:

Every day someone disagrees with another person on something. Every day someone puts differences aside and loves and cares for another person despite disagreements. Such people do not hold grudges against those they disagree with. Those people do not hate others.

Yes, it is possible and entirely real that someone can love homosexuals, care about them, be friends with them and treat them with equality and respect, never once stop to think those homosexuals are beneath them, never once hold a grudge against them, and yet still be against gay marriage. Sure, that's not always the case, but it is possible and it is real.

A person can be against gay rights without believing homosexuals inferior. One of the tenets of Christianity is that everyone is flawed and imperfect and we have no right to put ourselves above others. The problem then becomes how you define rights and equality. While homosexuals fight for gay rights, there are other rights that CFA and the organizations they donate to are fighting for.

When I say that Christians believe all are equal and that we have no right to put ourselves above others, I mean we have no right to judge or mistreat others in a discriminatory, degrading, verbal, or violent way. But when it takes on the political and law-affecting issue of gay marriage, it becomes another thing entirely. Then it takes extra thinking and consideration beyond our everyday interactions. Then it becomes a matter of defining what equality is and what should be law.


The Carmen Carrera transgender Cake Boss controvery: Caring for the LGBT community without compromise

There's been a lot of buzz in the LGBT community lately about an episode of Cake Boss that supposedly treated a transgender woman in a derogatory way. The producers had promised that the episode would be educational and respectful, but according to GLAAD, the episode did not stay true to the agreement. Carmen Carrera, the transgender woman involved, started a petition to have the episode removed. The petition succeeded.

A transgender friend of mine posted on the controversy after signing the petition. I did not sign the petition because I did not see the episode, and I find that things are sometimes taken out of context by more zealous LGBT advocates. While I cannot take a stand on this specific controversy, it has led me to consider what it means to be a Christian and to treat the LGBT community with respect at the same time.

We complain about the reformation of schools to include classes on tolerance, but we do nothing to teach our own children about what it means to live in the world, but not be of the world – what it means to love a person without accepting his particular lifestyle – what it means to support free speech and to stand up for your beliefs without becoming a bigot. 

Education starts at the home. If we allow our children to treat others with disrespect, it leads to a can of worms and then some. So while I don't agree with all the tolerance "indoctrination" going on in public schools, I see why schools have felt the need to create those tolerance classes. I won't get into my arguments against such classes here, but even if you're against such classes, you have to admit, there are a lot of LGBT suicides and bullying going on out there, and as much as we dislike their lifestyles, we have no right to violently hurt them - nor do our children.

I am by no means supporting Ms. Carrera’s lifestyle. I consider homosexuality, transgender, and other similar lifestyles wrong because I base my convictions on the Bible. But I do have friends who live those lifestyles. They know my position, but they also know I care deeply about them. I refuse to degrade a person in the way that so many do – calling names, allowing those “dude, that’s a man” moments such as the one on Cake Boss. I didn’t watch the actual Cake Boss episode, so I can’t speak to that, but considering the matter I ask myself, would I call the prostitute who gives herself to men  a whore (with hateful slur intended), even if she may be only living that way in order to protect her children and keep them alive? Do I know the stories of these people? Would I accomplish anything by condemning them as sinners in a rude, harsh judgmental way?

We need to start thinking instead of hating, loving instead of hurting, telling the truth in peaceful ways instead of mistreating a person because of it.