Good luck of hatred for gays of dying out...It has not died since man walk the earth..

Times are changing. When the media backs up stories like these and there are talk shows and it's on the political agenda, then it does mean people are paying attention. You don't see people backing up racists and bigots anymore. And there are other countries that are more accepting than the U.S. So much for the "Land of the Free". More like "Land of the Free (only if you're straight)." People in the U.S> are more backwards than people think...

No, what will happen once all of the "knuckle-dragging, sub-human older generations" are no longer present.........., then you will turn on yourselves, subdividing into smaller groups in order to fulfill your need to have a "them" to hate and demonize.

We'll see how far you have evolved from primitive man once there is competition for food and the thin veneer of civilization is stripped away.

Hey, Paragus, do you live with your head in the sand? You'd have to if you truly believe times aren't changing.

Also, why do you HATE homosexuals? Some people believe homosexuality is a sin (even though Jesus NEVER says so in the bible). Some think it isn't natural (even though science has proven it is). But why the HATE?

Many hate that which they do not understand. It's called being human and no one is perfect.

Also, why do you HATE homosexuals? Some people believe homosexuality is a sin (even though Jesus NEVER says so in the bible).

Watching: Jesus never said anything about rape either, so does that mean it is okay? Should rapists get the same special treatment?

Jesus never said anything about beastiality/ animal abuse either. So does that mean it is okay? Jesus never said anything about specific about pornography? Does that mean it is okay to view it?

Where do you get your interpretations of what Jesus said?

Obviously, Unhappy, you have no clue about what "legal consent" means.

Show me the hatred. Proof please.

ErinNJ: So did Jesus ever cover Prostitution? Because isn't a prostitute giving their "legal consent"?

No. Then how do you think Jesus would feel about it?

Unhappy, how Jesus would feel about anything is irrelevant, because Jesus is a fictional character in a work of fiction.

Actually.....It has been proven that Jesus was a live person. So where do you get your information from?

Why don't you just say that Abraham Lincoln didn't exist either..... You are good at that.

Unhappy:: PROVE IT. The Bible was written by MORTAL MAN thousands of years after they say that the man lived. You can't tell me that someone who saw that man was still living thousands of years later. And no one had a tape recorder with tapes to record things as they were supposed to have happened. Batteries and electricity hadn't been invented thousands of years ago. And the guy in the sky didn't come down and tell the people just what happened thousands of years ago.

Electricity had been discovered and harnessed at the time of Lincoln and people wrote things, so it is possible that people saw and recorded on paper about him.

Susie: Have you never heard of the St. Johns' Fragment? It has the written accounts of Jesus appearing before Pilate.

How young are you? Because it shows...

Susie , please .. I know people want to reject the teachings of Jesus, which is fine, but please dont be the very very few that deny his existence. You dont have to be a believer in God, or the divinity of Jesus, there are the majority of Historians, believers non believers, other cultures and their history, the evidence for his existence is strong. There is a very very very tiny % that deny this. I dont mind if you dont believe in him being the son of God, but denying he existed is like saying the sun doesnt exist outside.

Ok,

I watched the movie, first his scout master should be fired for accepting and encourging a gay person in his troop. This gay person should have been told no from the get go. The scout master for this troop has no honor and therefore should not be in charge of a Boy Scout Troop.

The movie star standing up for him is probably gay herself, so the check for $20,000 is acceptable from her.

Still the Eagle Pin should not be given to him since he is gay, and broke the rules by letting himself be accepted by the troop.

Even though I hate and despise gays, if they leave me alone, I leave them alone, don't try to double talk me or set your ways on me, if you are gay don't try to touch me, because you will find yourself laying on the ground with a broke nose, I don't like gays, and will tell you out right so. As long as you respect my wishes and go away I won't bother you.

This scout master should definetly be banned from any other boy scout actions. To turn him down for what he has worked hard for should of never happened, especially since he was told he could earn it.

The scout master is lower than a snake, and has shown his troop a grave dishonor by accepting a gay child in the first place.

Ryan I am sorry that this has happened to you, but, you should not have been there in the first place.

Your scout master has cheated you by accepting you, encouraging you etc.

Are you being completely truthful or is this just another tactic to bring homosexual behavior back in the spot light.

Someone being gay is no big deal. We are all many things in our life. Feeling threatened by gay people by defining solely within their sexuality is really simple minded. Smerf, just because a person is gay does not mean they are going to try and have sex with you anymore than someon in a heterosexual interaction will. Yes Scouts does have a policy and Ryan hid his sexuality for a long time because society makes it unsafe to be honest. In the end, I'm quite sure Ryan is a good young man who honorably committed to Scouts and as he matured grew to understand the emotional aspect of himself that he is not heterosexual. Denying him recogniton for his work claiming it is about the duty to God is silly. That is just a sliver of some people's interpretation of what that means. Huge numbers of Christians all over this country are gay or support gays and have gays in their churches. I'm no Jesus expert, but he did associate himself with those on the fringes of society then - yes prositutes etc. - not the elite. I find it very difficult to believe that Jesus would support the Scouts were he on earth today. He loved everyone unconditionally - even those that killed him.

The Boy Scouts is a private organization that takes no money from government, therefore their rules are in stone. It sickens me when I read about some "gay" suing to become a scout master. ( Den Mother.) Law suits are expensive. The Boy Scouts need every penny they get to do what they do best, turn out polite, God loving patriots. The rules are clear, you knew them when you started, you were not bullied. Don't try to change the Scouts. Start your own organization and call it the Glad Scouts, invite everyone in and be happy.

For two days, I've observed your posts herein. And I've watched as each goes away. Me, I don't nix anyone, but watch each spend his or her venom, all = nothing.

I'm an old woman, and have seen most of this tired planet, and more than once. I'm educated in both Social & Behavioral Science, Human History, and Business Marketing. I've spent more than 2-years living and working in the Far East. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat; a swing voter. And I'm a Catholic, but probably the worst little Catholic on the planet.

Yes. homosexuals have been on this planet since the beginning, and before. Homosexuality exists in all mammal groups, and in all ape groups, including chimpanzee (Pan Paniscus) our closest "cousin" in the genetic group. Homosexuality appears to be "normal" to the species.

And homosexuals aren't treated badly in all societies, but badly specifically in some of Christian Society. In past, I've witnessed homosexual persons treated with respect in the Islamic world, and most specificall Persia (now Iran).

Every Human society has a minimum of 10% exclusively homosexual population. That is constant, never changes. In anonymous, blind, college tests given since the 1950's, that's the case. There are more persons of whom are "switch-hitters," as they say. Many, many, switch-hitters.

Homosexuals are born at the same rate every day, day after day--not going away soon. So, why are homosexuals born into the world? I'd say for the same reasons that lefties are born, or genius persons, or whatever....they have some special take on the Human Condition that the rest of us cannot see, maybe.

Those whom hate Gay Folk are in the minority on this planet. You're not found in most societies. And it is you that are, perhaps, wrong? Yes, perhaps.

Just think about it. What if you were born, e.g. Native American, or Buddhist, or Hindu? Your parents wouldn't have taught you to hate. And you would be speaking with another voice.

Thank you all.

Now.

Question: Why do some religious groups deny Homosexuals membership, speak against, and "pray for them (uh-huh)."

Answer: For a religion to grow, it must produce more children to be taught by parents and church, synagogue, temple, that homosexuality is wrong and against God's plan. And those children produce more, etc. And offerings, tithes, donations shall increase the religion's wealth and power. More children = more.

Gay folks don't usually give birth, but under special conditions = Few to none children to the religion.

And I'll not discuss further the psychology of those persons whom force it. That just might explain away some, why we have too many mentally handicapped, even dangerous, persons among us.

The next and best religion will bring homosexuals into it's fold, free of negativism, hate, and fear. The same code of conduct exists for both hetero and homo; all religions teach approximately the same set of rules--Ten Commandments aren't owned by Christians. No mention of homosexuals therein.

Obey those 10 simple rules, and you're okay.

Here are a few simple answers to some real doozies above.

to Zombiequest and AliveinSD:

You have fallen victim to the LGBT agenda to confuse race and equality issues with those of behavior and morality. Just because someone thinks a particular behavior is immoral does not equate to hatred or bigotry as the activists want us to think. For example I loved my alcoholic grandfather very much. I hated the alcoholism and felt it was immoral. The fact is that the LGBT movement was unsuccessful for many years in trying to gain acceptance by trying to convince everyone that homosexual behavior was not immoral. It just didn't fly with most people because the focus was on the behavior. So, cleverly, they decided to try a route which was more in keeping with Americans sense of fairness which was to be seen as a true minority group and thus it would change change the argument to one about "rights". Well, Americans are all about rights. We think we should have the right to do anything we want although that is really not true. Fortunately, we have laws that prevent us from doing anything we want and most of those are based on what society considers permissible according to current moral values. Herein lies the crux of the issue. It still pretty much comes down to a moral argument and no matter which side of this you are on, the fact is that while they are getting traction by piggybacking the civil rights movement, there is still a moral question about the behavior that will never go away. Now, is it fair , or even right, for anyone to call those who have a moral opinion on any type of behavior, sexual or otherwise, a "hater"? What about your opinion on incest? Do you feel it is immoral? If you do, does that mean you hate all people involved in incest? Likely I would say your answer is no. So, let's get the "hate" issue out of it and realize we are talking about behavior versus race which is an inborn trait with no moral issue attached and thus we have to conclude that any behavioral group , sexual or otherwise, cannot be defined as a true minority group and does not have "right" to their behavior the same as inalienable rights are endowed to people of various race or ethnic origin in our country. And one last thing. Just because you feel you are born a certain way also does not give you the right to act that way openly in society where many people will be offended. Aliveinsd says gays are born everyday. That is a very broad assumption based on his education by the media that sexual behaviors are all inborn and programmed from the beginning which leaves out a tremendous amount of scientific evidence in the behavioral sciences to the contrary ( identical twins where only one is gay, etc) which is conveniently excluded in the LGBT agenda. However, whether born that way or not, it really in the end doesn't matter and here is why. The American Psychiatric Association met in Boston last year and there is a proposal that pedophiles are born with that "orientation" and I am sure you don't feel that just because "they can't help it" that they should be given free reign to express their behavior openly in society. So, it's a moral issue, not a civil rights issue, and one side believing a certain way does NOT equal "hate". In regard to the scout, he is unfortunately in violation of a portion of the scout law according to the fact that he was voluntarily and with full knowledge participating in a faith based organization. He would open every scout meeting reciting an oath which included, " …to do my duty to God." and "I will keep myself morally straight". So, his issue is ultimately in the realm of a faith based conflict. If you disagree with these principles and you are on the side where you feel it is not immoral to act out homosexual urges, then don't participate in scouting. For the religious argument go to www.robgagnon.net and he will clearly explain that part. Also please keep in mind my grandfather. Anyone who feels a certain lifestyle is immoral can still have respect for those individuals as people and have compassion for them, but that does not mean that the behavior needs to be condoned as I did not condone my grandfather's behavior. And, considering rights, I would hope you agree that faith based organizations should have the right to define what behaviors are acceptable within their ranks.

BTW Aliveinsd. You really need to go to Dr. Gagnon's site. I see you have many confused concepts about God in general and yet you attempt to have some idealistic concepts about what should be right and wrong which is good. Wonder where right and wrong came from? I would also recommend C.S.Lewis's simple book "Mere Christianity". Both of the are highly cerebral endeavors by men far more educated than we will ever hope to be. One a Phd from Harvard and the other a PhD from Oxford and former atheist. To get involved with you on these issues here would be pointless but I challenge you to go read both of these and if you still feel as you do then so be it.

You have fallen victim to the LGBT agenda to confuse race and equality issues with those of behavior and morality.

And YOU have fallen victim to the christo-bigots' agenda to confuse behavior with orientation, as well as the agenda that apparently states that there is only ONE set of morals by which everyone must live.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexual, bisexuality, and asexuality (the four medically-recognized, normal variants of our naturally-occurring sexual orientations). One can be homosexual (or any one of the others) without ever having sex -- it's about attraction, which is what "orientation" means.

Furthermore, morality is subjective, which is why it is not legislated. What YOU decide is "moral" or "immoral" is not necessarily true for anyone else -- in fact, apparently the majority of Americans disagree with you regarding the "morality" of homosexuality, since the majority of us support equality. Apparently, you agree with the BSA's version of "morality," which promotes bigotry, ignorance, and homophobia as "moral values".

For example I loved my alcoholic grandfather very much. I hated the alcoholism and felt it was immoral.

Try comparing apples to oranges -- alcoholism is not an inborn trait, while homosexuality (sexual orientation) is.

What about your opinion on incest? Do you feel it is immoral? If you do, does that mean you hate all people involved in incest?

I was wondering how long it would take for you to throw in the usual slippery-slope arguments like this one and your later comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia. Those dumb arguments are the same ones the dumb bigots tried to use against interracial marriage in 1967, and they LOST -- just like the dumb bigots will LOSE again. Whether it is in the courts, or with the public, you will still LOSE -- and apparently you will never learn your lesson.

One more thing: it's another apples/oranges issue.

Aliveinsd says gays are born everyday. That is a very broad assumption based on his education by the media that sexual behaviors are all inborn and programmed from the beginning which leaves out a tremendous amount of scientific evidence in the behavioral sciences to the contrary ( identical twins where only one is gay, etc) which is conveniently excluded in the LGBT agenda.

It is not simply based on "education by the media;" all of the credible, valid, peer-reviewed research states that sexual orientation is caused by biological, hormonal, genetic, and environmental factors working together. If you know of a "tremendous amount of scientific evidence in the behavioral sciences to the contrary," then cite it -- or STFU. But any evidence provided must be reliable, unbiased, and peer-reviewed -- that means that anything from NARTH, Focus on the Family, or any other known anti-gay hate groups is invalid, as is the encyclopedia of your ass (which is where it seems you've gotten the information you've provided so far).

BTW, Rob Gagnon does not meet the criteria for an unbiased, peer-reviewed source. He apparently got his encyclopedia from the same place you did.

However, whether born that way or not, it really in the end doesn't matter and here is why. The American Psychiatric Association met in Boston last year and there is a proposal that pedophiles are born with that "orientation" and I am sure you don't feel that just because "they can't help it" that they should be given free reign to express their behavior openly in society.

And apparently you cannot differentiate between what constitutes "legal consent" and what does not meet that criteria.

Pedophilia is not classified as an "orientation;" it is a paraphilia, which you might learn if you had done even a modicum of research.

Being "morally straight" and being homosexual are not mutually exclusive, contrary to the opinion shared by you and the rest of your christo-bigoted ilk.

One more thing: while the BSA can define what "behaviors" are acceptable within their ranks, this boy did not behave in an "unacceptable" way -- they are simply denying him based on his orientation.

Wonder where right and wrong came from?

People knew the difference between right and wrong, and had laws to clarify those differences, long before there was any organized religion.

One a Phd from Harvard and the other a PhD from Oxford and former atheist.

All that proves is that people can attend the best schools and STILL be clueless. If that's what impresses you, you'd better listen to me, because I have two master's degrees, as well as two bachelor's degrees -- from Cornell and NYU. And I'm a former Catholic.

I have already posted the studies of the supposed gay gene and science used to see the difference between straight and gay. The studies can and are easily criticized. If a study shows that brain size in gays and straights are different, then that could be something easy to see, however its not the case, because the brain size is also found in hetero just as homo, so that study is inconclusive.

Also the people tested had died of Aids, which also needs to be considered are the effects of Aids and the body.

The other study was with chromosomes, but I dont have that one on hand on this computer. I did post it some where else in one of these threads.

As for Rob Gagnon, I am familiar with his work. He is someone who has spent much time in this issue, and his research is right on the mark.

Also peer review means nothing, other then people just agreeing with the topic. Being peer reviewed does not mean it is valid by any means. Peer review shows much bias, and not allowing any other information to be considered, regardless of how sound it may be, if it doesnt fall with in the main stream view of society.

Sounds like a bunch of excuses to help justify your endless bigotry and ignorance. What you have posted are not "studies," they are claims made by a bunch of anti-gay zealots trying to justify their own biases, which makes them suspect to start with. The fact that none of them have been peer-reviewed is further condemnation of them as well as their "studies".

And I love the "I don't have that one on this computer" bull@!$%#. I've seen what you've posted on other threads -- I (and others) have DISPROVED what you've posted on other threads, on this and other subjects -- and I just keep buying higher boots to deal with the piles of @!$%# you spread.

In addition, the fact that all of them died of HIV/AIDS is irrelevant, especially considering that 85% of all HIV/AIDS worldwide today are among heterosexual men, and the group with the lowest incidence of HIV/AIDS is lesbian women.

No surprise that you think Rob Gagnon's "work" is "right on the mark," and that you're familiar with it -- since it's quacks like him who give quacks like you what validation you need for your ignorance and bigotry.

It's also no surprise that YOU think peer review means "nothing," but you clearly have no idea what "peer review" entails. The most important aspect of peer review is that the study under review has been replicated, something that is sorely lacking in the community that produces the "studies" on which you rely.

BTW, no one is claiming that there is a "gay gene" -- however, it has been amply proven that sexual orientation has a genetic component. Furthermore, there is no "straight gene," either.

Of course your not going to see my way because your so lost in this wild liberal crazy world view of things.

If you really want to debate lets debate on one topic at a time, and go until it is resolved. This is getting tiresome listening to your senseless attacks on my views. You are acting so ticked off over nonsense. I dont care if you have issues with me, or the people who I quote, I want facts , not fiction. Shall I start with your accusation that the founding fathers were all deists ?

Shall you provide your evidence first or mine ?

Shall I start with your accusation that the founding fathers were all deists ?

When someone says 'Founding Father' they usually are referring to one of these 7 people; John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.

John Adams was Unitarian, and staunchly secular in his view on civil governance and religion.

Benjamin Franklin was a Deist and secularist.

Alexander Hamilton was Christian/Episcopalian, agreed with Jefferson and Adams in regard to church-state seperation.

John Jay was a Christian/Episcopalian, out of all the Founders was the 'least' supportive of secularism.

Thomas Jefferson was an agnostic/deist and secularist.

James Madison was a Deist and secularist.

George Washington was an Episcopalian but espoused views much closer to Deism and also a secularist.

Links and quotes can be provided to support each one of these assertions.

Shuklack, don't you find it very telling that Marmaduke views an assertion that someone was (or is) a Deist as an "accusation," as if it is something illegal or something one should hide?

Apparently Marmaduke has also never heard of the Jefferson bible.

Apparently Marmaduke has also never heard of the Jefferson bible.

I'm sure he has. But then selective amnesia takes place to remove any facts that do not fit his religious upbringing.

Yes I guess we need to be more specific when were talking about founding anything. It can indeed refer to the settlers coming to america, first colonies, states, drafters of the constitution.

So when I say founding fathers I am going to talk about the majority of them who came here and played a role in our beginning. I dont need to clip and paste certain quotes needed to prove my point. Just read about their ENTIRE life and you will see that the majority of them were of faith. As i said, from being on the American History forums and discussing this with them there, they all agreed on the same thing, that people will strip one liners from an entire context to prove that the founding fathers were against religion or something like that. But when you leave it in context and also get familiar with their life history you plainly see they were people of faith.

Alexander Hamilton was Christian/Episcopalian, agreed with Jefferson and Adams in regard to church-state seperation.

Issue with this is so many today think that church is supposed to stay out of government affairs. This couldnt be farther from the truth. It hasnt even been until the last 50 years that you have seen such a radical change in the view of church and state. It was and always will be meant that Government can not establish a state religion, government is to stay out of church affairs, no where does it say that we cant vote for christian people or prefer to have christian people in office, or be in office and have christian views. They ( founding fathers ) didnt have any issues talking about such, and we shouldnt either. We been slowly taking religion out of everything, I miss saying the pledge of allegiance, something that wasnt around since the beginning, but was nice when it was around to show us where we came from. We strip the public of our religious expression and views , now you see what kind of hoodlums we have growing up in schools. Decay of society .

List of the Founding Fathers

Signers of the Continental Association

President of First Continental Congress

1. Peyton Randolph

New-Hampshire

2. Nathaniel Folsom

3. John Sullivan

Massachusetts Bay

4. Thomas Cushing

5. Samuel Adams

6. John Adams

7. Robert Treat Paine

Rhode-Island

8. Stephen Hopkins

9. Samuel Ward

Connecticut

10. Eliphalet Dyer

11. Roger Sherman

12. Silas Deane

New-York

13. Isaac Low

14. John Alsop

15. John Jay

16. James Duane

17. Philip Livingston

18. William Floyd

19. Henry Wisner

20. Simon Boerum

New-Jersey

21. James Kinsey

22. William Livingston

23. Stephen Crane

24. Richard Smith

25. John De Hart

Pennsylvania

26. Joseph Galloway

27. John Dickinson

28. Charles Humphreys

29. Thomas Mifflin

30. Edward Biddle

31. John Morton

32. George Ross

The Lower Counties

33. Caesar Rodney

34. Thomas McKean

35. George Read

Maryland

36. Matthew Tilghman

37. Thomas Johnson, Jr.

38. William Paca

39. Samuel Chase

Virginia

40. Richard Henry Lee

41. George Washington

42. Patrick Henry, Jr.

43. Richard Bland

44. Benjamin Harrison

45. Edmund Pendleton

North-Carolina

46. William Hooper

47. Joseph Hewes

48. Richard Caswell

South-Carolina

49. Henry Middleton

50. Thomas Lynch

51. Christopher Gadsden

52. John Rutledge

53. Edward Rutledge

Signers of the Declaration of Independence

• John Adams
• Samuel Adams
• Josiah Bartlett
• Carter Braxton
• Charles Carroll
• Samuel Chase
• Abraham Clark
• George Clymer
• William Ellery
• William Floyd
• Benjamin Franklin
• Elbridge Gerry
• Button Gwinnett
• Lyman Hall
• John Hancock (presiding)
• Benjamin Harrison
• John Hart
• Joseph Hewes
• Thomas Heyward, Jr.
• William Hooper
• Stephen Hopkins
• Francis Hopkinson
• Samuel Huntington
• Thomas Jefferson
• Francis Lightfoot Lee
• Richard Henry Lee
• Francis Lewis
• Philip Livingston
• Thomas Lynch, Jr.
• Thomas McKean
• Arthur Middleton
• Lewis Morris
• Robert Morris
• John Morton
• Thomas Nelson, Jr.
• William Paca
• Robert Treat Paine
• John Penn
• George Read
• Caesar Rodney
• George Ross
• Benjamin Rush
• Edward Rutledge
• Roger Sherman
• James Smith
• Richard Stockton
• Thomas Stone
• George Taylor
• Charles Thomson, Secretary (attesting)
• Matthew Thornton
• George Walton
• William Whipple
• William Williams
• James Wilson
• John Witherspoon
• Oliver Wolcott
• George Wythe

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention

Signers of the Constitution

• Abraham Baldwin
• Richard Bassett
• Gunning Bedford, Jr.
• John Blair
• William Blount
• David Brearly
• Jacob Broom
• Pierce Butler
• Daniel Carroll
• George Clymer
• Jonathan Dayton
• John Dickinson
• William Few
• Thomas Fitzsimons
• Benjamin Franklin
• Nicholas Gilman
• Nathaniel Gorham
• Alexander Hamilton
• Jared Ingersoll
• William Jackson, Secretary (attesting)
• Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer
• William Samuel Johnson
• Rufus King
• John Langdon
• William Livingston
• James Madison
• James McHenry
• Thomas Mifflin
• Gouverneur Morris
• Robert Morris
• William Paterson
• Charles Pinckney
• Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
• George Read
• John Rutledge
• Roger Sherman
• Richard Dobbs Spaight
• George Washington (president of the Convention)
• Hugh Williamson
• James Wilson

Delegates who left the Convention without signing

• William Richardson Davie
• Oliver Ellsworth
• William Houston
• William Houstoun
• John Lansing, Jr.
• Alexander Martin
• Luther Martin
• James McClurg
• John Francis Mercer
• William Pierce
• Caleb Strong
• George Wythe
• Robert Yates

Convention delegates who refused to sign

• Elbridge Gerry
• George Mason
• Edmund Randolph

From my point of view, this whole situation could have been Avoided by just Turning Down the Drama a couple of Notches, and keeping the Really important Priority's in sight...

back in the 1970s, my older brother was in boy scouts a couple of years before i was old enough to join, and i was always tagging along to meetings and on Hiking/camping trips because i was so Quiet, and a very Stout boy. i was 12 when my brother ask if i was Gay... or "an Effing Queer" as He liked to put it.

He Really Did Not like my answer. he was pretty Rough with me when he would bully me over it. and it embarrassed him, so it embarrassed me even worse... he called me Queer in front of the other boys, and they were not exactly what you would call "nice" about it, because i didn't answer them when they gave me the third degree... i did not speak much to anyone for a year or so, but i was always there with the Scout troop. after a few months, a couple of the other boys Fathers who were mostly always around, and two or three of the oldest Boys, finally could not watch me take it anymore and put their foot down, and made my brother and some of the boys stop abusing me since i wouldn't Quit, and i never said a word of complaint, if i spoke at all... (most of the families where we lived were wealthy... their kids tended to Whine about long Hikes, cutting up wood, etc) so there was No Secret about me. if their were showers where we camped, i waited until they were empty. i was not embarrassed about my body, i just did it out of respect because i did not want anyone else to have to feel as uncomfortable as i did.

My point ?

even though it was the 1970s and Folks could be downright mean to me if they wanted to, and get away with it,... no one Tried to Kick Me to The Curb, and take away the ONE THING that Taught me about Respect and Being selfless, and being a Gentleman, AND Basic survival skills, and to look out after the ones who Needed looking out after because the were too inexperienced, or careless... or too pampered up to that point, and not making them look or feel stupid when they messed up...

i came close to making eagle scout too... but, life Happens... and we had to move away.

but the learning Experience was absolutely Vital to my Being able to keep moving forward in life,.. and more importantly,....... what i learned about How to treat others that i would encounter in life along the way.

trust me when i say it was Rough for Me, but as Bigoted as folks Typically were back then... they still understood that i was a just a Kid, and that standing on their "MORALS" or caving in to their Discomfort, were not nearly as important to them as the Reason they were There in The First Place... they were There For Insignificant Me... and i owe them a debt of Gratitude.

so i would only like to ask that of all of you go ahead and Debate your issues as freely and Honestly as you like.. just as you should.

but please understand that making any kid, or any proud young Boy scouts Future outlook for success or even survival in the uncertain future, Less of a Priority to all of us than this Terribly Fascinating Debate is.......

Well,.. THAT would Really be the only True moral Failure Here.

Have a Better Day...

Marmaduke 49 - Wow... Umm.. that is just about the most Needy Display, that i have seen here in a while...

Actually, that i have seen here... ever.. period.

Congratulations on your Success...

Well, they say if your gonna' go... GO BIG !

It hasnt even been until the last 50 years that you have seen such a radical change in the view of church and state.

WRONG. Reynolds v. US was decided in 1879; they noted a clear separation between church and state in that ruling:

The Supreme Court turned the spotlight on the "wall of separation" phrase in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. United States "that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment."

The high court took the same position in widely publicized decisions in 1947 and 1948, asserting in the latter case, McCollum v. Board of Education, that, "in the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" Since McCollum forbade religious instruction in public schools, it appeared that the court had used Jefferson's "wall" metaphor as a sword to sever religion from public life, a result that was and still is intolerable to many Americans.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

Even you should be able to do the math and figure out that those rulings were issued quite a bit more than 50 years ago.

The list you provided was of everyone who signed the Constitution; however, the framers -- the LEADERS -- are the ones who are referred to as our "Founding Fathers," and they were primarily Deists, and most certainly they were progressives.

Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.^[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

Note that of the seven Founding Fathers, FOUR of them were Deists: Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington. And at least two others (Adams and Hamilton) strongly supported a secular government. In addition, Thomas Paine, who was a major influence on the Founding Fathers, was also a Deist.

Repeating your misinformation in various threads will not make it true.

There were more then 7 people who framed this entire america erin. And even all of those had different views and had issues agreeing with many things, how ever most of our early americans who framed this country were men of faith. I cant state this enough, the 7 you listed are not the sole people who framed this country, it is more complex and in more detail then just saying these 7.

Erin - if morality is "subjective", why do you think there are established laws that control behavior? Think about those laws in everyday life. Evidently you want no laws to rule you and your choices - that is anarchy, and it cannot, and does not support a civilized and moral society. Expect those people who disagree with you to push back, since we want an organized life where clear boundaries exist for the safety of all.

Furthermore, you state that there are a number of "normal" sexual lifestyles. You do not have to believe following but you will be held accountable for the truth of it:

Ever since the creation of the world God's eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Romans 1:20-31

Erin, Though Franklin was a deist, he held to his conviction that God rules in men's lives and government:

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. Ben Franklin - Constitutional Convention, July 4th , 1787.

also:

Christianity As An Influence On The Founding Fathers

www.lawandliberty.org/founders.htm

I think Erin believes that people like me want this country to be some Theocracy or some state religion formed. I never have indicated such.

Early America was rich of Religious Freedom, and most everyone professed their faith in private , and public. If they wanted to do away with religion they would had just said so in our constitution, or they would require that anyone running for office had to be an atheist, or could never speak of religion. This couldnt be farther from the truth. It was part of their lives, they seen society as something that would decay with out God in it. Once again , this does not imply that the government is going to, or should force religion on people. I am merely saying that they , early american fathers, documents, indicate that society would be nothing with out God in it. There is a BIG difference between the two.

@DotComCTO: Yes, they are a private organization and, as such, can set their own policies. So what if this 'private organization' had a policy that no blacks could join their group? Or had a policy that no Jews could join? Would that also be acceptable? By your reasoning, and theirs, apparently so.

and so everyone knew of Ryan's homosexuality for some time. Why did they not kick him out a couple of years ago while he was still earning the 21 merit badges? Good point Scruffy. Let's hear these deniers answer to that now.

Those thoughts were part of my internal conflict. Substitute "African-American", "Jewish", "tall", "short", or any other population for the word "gay" and you have the same kind of discrimination, just applied to a different group. Now, if you re-read what I wrote, I said I do not agree with the BSA on this kind of discrimination. Operative word is, "not". What I did say is that joining an organization and knowing you're in whatever group that is being discriminated against is probably not wise. And then expecting to be eligible for whatever awards and recognition you've earned is equally unwise.

"So if you know that's the case, then why stay in, and why would you expect to receive the highest recognition the BSA awards?"

It's a good question. I don't support the BSA policy but I do see value in the BSA in general. I had two sons who participated in both Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts and I held volunteer positions in both. One thing I always looked out for was any negative talk about homosexuals. You know what I found in 10 years? Not a peep about homosexuality inside the program at all. Simply put it’s not something that is addressed except as a check box on a form. However most of the older Scout and all of the leaders know about the standing policy.

With that in mind I have to wonder why this young man choose to send a letter to his Scoutmaster stating he was gay and an atheist ahead of being awarded the Eagle award. I can’t speak for all troops but I can say that in our troop the question of sexual orientation is not asked of youth members. I’m sure there are gay scouts in the troop some who are open about the sexuality outside of scouting. However sex is not a part of the program so it literally does not come up.

Now the question of believing in god is a different topic. Scouting is a faith based program and the scout law does specify that a Scout will do his duty to “God” capital G. As such we do ask each boy as they progress to acknowledge a belief in a deity. In the 10 years I have been involved I have seen all the Protestant faiths, Catholics, Muslims, Jewish a Hindu, a Buddhist, and one Wiccan who claimed a faith in mother earth or the natural God. I admit we had difficulty with the last one and ended up having an adult Wiccan come in to talk about their faith. After a protracted review it was found to be consistent with BSA policy.

Given that the policy is the scout must profess a “faith” and that definition of faith is a belief in a “higher power”. If you reject that then you cannot be a Eagle Scout and in reality should not be able to progress past First Class scout. I bring this up because in this case not only did the young man send a letter about being homosexual but he also stated that he was an atheist. Either of these two things would have prevented him from getting his Eagle, however the first, being Gay, most likely never would have come up. SO why do something that you know will cost you the Scout rank you are seeking. I suppose it was principle, in that the Young Man decided he could not A) keep quiet about his sexual orientation even when the Policy of the BSA is not to ask youth members about it, and B) he could not find a deity to profess “faith to a higher power” too. On that I salute the Young Man, way to stick to your principles.

The issue I have is that after taking a principled stand against the BSA’s policy on faith and homosexuality he and his parents start a campaign to get the Eagle anyway. That is a problem, because he took an action that he knew, and his parents knew, would explicitly prevent him from getting the award but they don’t want to accept the responsibility for his action.

That kind of defeats the purpose. Taking a principled stand is supposed to have some element of sacrifice in it. If you’re not sacrificing then your stand has no merit. In this case stop asking for something you know you are not entitled to under the BSA rules. You took your stand; you made you sacrifice, be proud of yourself and stop seeking the thing you are giving up.

In closing, I wish the BSA would revise their policy on youth members. Most of these boys are too young, even at 18 to fully know who they are or what their sexual identity will be. Further no matter their sexual orientation it is not germane to the program. On faith I support the program as is, it’s a core value that a Scout believes in God, any God so long as you believe in something greater than yourself.

And why shouldn't organizations be able to operate to the exclusion of whomever they want? If their ideas don't work, they will fail. If other ideas are stronger, the will prevail. You seem to want to force change on an institution that has succeeded for a hundred years into what you think it should be. Leave them alone, man up or woman up and stop complaining about stuff that's none of your business. Don't like it? Don't join, start your own group.

John-362791

most clear response seen. My son is an Eagle Scoutand I totally agree.

All blacks are not perverts. All homosexuals are. Blacks have been in Scouts since the beginning.

John 362791, well said. Jogrinder, same for you.

All blacks are not perverts and homosexuals are? How do you justify a statement like that...

BSA doesn't have to revise anything. This is not the NAZI youth. No one is forced to join. If BSA wants to stop homosexuals from joining, that is their business. Is Congress going to support them too? Nope.... which is why they can make whatever decisions they want.

This gay teen doesn't like it, tell him to start his own group. In fact, all the people on this newsvine can join if they want to. But don't go inflicting your morals on an organization who is probably a lot older than any of you are.

John wrote; "So if you know that's the case, then why stay in, and why would you expect to receive the highest recognition the BSA awards?"

"It's a good question. I don't support the BSA policy but I do see value in the BSA in general."

[[In general? It depends. The value is vastly degraded, in my view, via the shift where leaders and national leaders don't follow their own stated precepts. (Not inclusive) Kind? No. Honest? No.

Scouts like this young man, as well as others in the past, have honestly presented themselves as they've discovered they were. Responses (not all inclusive) have been for the scout to lie about their status(es)-some results I've read indicated dishonesty on the part of National, as well. Have these leaders been dismissed from the Organization? They have not. Double standards.

Cases like this one (and past examples being atheist) have demonstrated the Eagle scout, or candidate, showing higher ethics than those in higher leadership positions.

In the past, the BSA was presented as an organization of value for all boys. And it did demonstrate much much value as well as leading by example. In my time, it didn't matter I didn't much believe in 'God'. I was not religious and not an atheist as I wasn't a communist. At camp outs I'd often go to church as the singing, and such, was fun.]]

"I had two sons who participated in both Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts and I held volunteer positions in both. One thing I always looked out for was any negative talk about homosexuals. You know what I found in 10 years? Not a peep about homosexuality inside the program at all. Simply put it’s not something that is addressed except as a check box on a form. However most of the older Scout and all of the leaders know about the standing policy.""

[[Homosexuality wasn’t on anyone's 'radar screen'. A few years after I left it turns out one adult was a paedophile. I read about his being sentenced to a long term in prison in the newspaper. That was a surprise.]]

"With that in mind I have to wonder why this young man choose to send a letter to his Scoutmaster stating he was gay and an atheist ahead of being awarded the Eagle award."

[[He was following the precept about being honest.]]

"I can’t speak for all troops but I can say that in our troop the question of sexual orientation is not asked of youth members. I’m sure there are gay scouts in the troop some who are open about the sexuality outside of scouting. However sex is not a part of the program so it literally does not come up."

[[Nor did it in my time.]]

"Now the question of believing in god is a different topic. Scouting is a faith based program and the scout law does specify that a Scout will do his duty to “God” capital G. As such we do ask each boy as they progress to acknowledge a belief in a deity."

[[Problem. God with the capital 'G' means the Xian deity construct; no others need apply. The downgrade is a dishonest one and it expanded things to fully exclude those who lost, or lacked, religious faith. Such indicates, and not subtly, others boys had no worth.

I remember when the BSA went on the hefty leagal court offensive to be ruled a private organization (which is their prerogative). If memory serves, this was when 'God' became 'god'. Worse, was they were now a bigoted private organization but yet expected to continue to 'suck on the public tit'. At this time the BSA tried to portray themselves (ludicrously!) as being the victim! There goes; honesty and trustworthness. And these people still presented themselves as being good role models for boys! This is when the BSA lost my, and many other peoples', respect. They were even forced off military bases based on their rabid discrimination policies.

The GSA's 'star' sky rocketed as they remained as an organization for all girls.]]

"Now the question of believing in god is a different topic. Scouting is a faith based program and the scout law does specify that a Scout will do his duty to “God” capital G."

[[Again, the capital 'G' means the Xian deity construct, no others need apply. There is no, and can't be, a 'duty to deity'. There's nothing a person can do for a deity which is; omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. All are mere actors in a pointless play hitting their marks, and spouting their lines as was scripted eons ago when 'God' ejaculated the universe into existence. What's happening is the BSA leadership at national is further victimising innocent boys! This is the ramifications and reprecussions based on religious dogma and teachings.

There's no such thing as 'Free Will'. First, no matter how much I 'will' it there's no way I can flap my arms and fly cross-country. Second, there's no thought or action I can take which would show 'God' in error-no matter how much I, or anyone else, wills or yearns for it.]]

" As such we do ask each boy as they progress to acknowledge a belief in a deity. In the 10 years I have been involved I have seen all the Protestant faiths, Catholics, Muslims, Jewish a Hindu, a Buddhist, and one Wiccan who claimed a faith in mother earth or the natural God. I admit we had difficulty with the last one and ended up having an adult Wiccan come in to talk about their faith. After a protracted review it was found to be consistent with BSA policy."

[[BSA policy shifted in an effort to regain 'sucking at the public tit' even though its a bigoted private organization. Once again honesty, for one, is AWOL.]]

"Given that the policy is the scout must profess a “faith” and that definition of faith is a belief in a “higher power”. "

[[Such was a dishonest change by National and a betryal of 'God' himself.]]

""If you reject that then you cannot be a Eagle Scout and in reality should not be able to progress past First Class scout. I bring this up because in this case not only did the young man send a letter about being homosexual but he also stated that he was an atheist. Either of these two things would have prevented him from getting his Eagle, however the first, being Gay, most likely never would have come up. SO why do something that you know will cost you the Scout rank you are seeking. I suppose it was principle, in that the Young Man decided he could not A) keep quiet about his sexual orientation even when the Policy of the BSA is not to ask youth members about it, and B) he could not find a deity to profess “faith to a higher power” too. On that I salute the Young Man, way to stick to your principles."

[[The young man followed the stated principles of; honesty, integrity, trustworthyness, and others.]]

"The issue I have is that after taking a principled stand against the BSA’s policy on faith and homosexuality he and his parents start a campaign to get the Eagle anyway. That is a problem, because he took an action that he knew, and his parents knew, would explicitly prevent him from getting the award but they don’t want to accept the responsibility for his action."

[[Speculation here. It could be based on the recognized shift from the Xian deity to a watered down version which encompassed all faiths based on perceived political gain on the national level in the USA. It isn't much of a shift from there to be all inclusive for boys. There's also nothing saying a change to being all inclusive would start from 'time x' onward and not be retroactive. This would allow the organzation to fulfill its lofty goals.]]

"That kind of defeats the purpose. Taking a principled stand is supposed to have some element of sacrifice in it. If you’re not sacrificing then your stand has no merit. In this case stop asking for something you know you are not entitled to under the BSA rules. You took your stand; you made you sacrifice, be proud of yourself and stop seeking the thing you are giving up."

[[Covered in prior paragraph.]]

"In closing, I wish the BSA would revise their policy on youth members. Most of these boys are too young, even at 18 to fully know who they are or what their sexual identity will be. Further no matter their sexual orientation it is not germane to the program."

[[I agree.[[

" On faith I support the program as is, it’s a core value that a Scout believes in God, any God so long as you believe in something greater than yourself. post 6.4"

[[The core value *was* belief in the Xian God. The precept's been watered down to meaninglessness. Note; Your post fractured into a mixture of four different intermingled copies. I did my best to compile it into a single copy I could reply to. I hope I got it right. I will try to see if you do reply, but I can't promise I'll see it.]]

Rgds;

"That kind of defeats the purpose. Taking a principled stand is supposed to have some element of sacrifice in it. If you’re not sacrificing then your stand has no merit. In this case stop asking for something you know you are not entitled to under the BSA rules. You took your stand; you made you sacrifice, be proud of yourself and stop seeking the thing you are giving up."

I disagree. A principled stand should involve a risk of consequence, but should not necessarily result in a sacrifice. In this case, this young man's actions seem to be oriented towards pressuring BSA into changing their policy, which I applaud. He could have taken the easier path of remaining silent about his atheism or homosexuality and obtain the Eagle badge (and then post an anonymous blog criticizing the policy), but he chose to put himself on the line helping those that like the idea of scouting without the religious elements, who would otherwise have to hide their true selves.

If BSA never changes its policy, he will have experienced a sacrifice. If they do, then he will have contributed to making BSA a more tolerant organization. In either case, what he did should be considered a "principled" stand.

It is plain and simple. He lied. He did not uphold the Boy Scout Oath to be Morally Strait. He should have stayed out, and does not deserve the Eagle Scout Status.

probably for the same reason Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus.

I'm sorry but this isn't even close to the equivalent of Rosa Parks. She was fighting discrimination institutionalized in government regulation and law. The BSA is not government sponsored and has the right to set its own criteria for membership just like any other private organization. Once again, if he is truly that adamant, let him start a fully inclusive organization that does the same things as the Scouts. It is not his right to force them to change their rules to suit him. They have rights as well.

cjhs-

Is it too much to ask that you be accepted by an organization that you have been part of for many years? Or that you are allowed to get what you earned, regardless of your sexual orientation?

Actually the bullying is coming from this young person. He was on his way yo getting his Eagle scout pin but chose to highlight his sexual preference before he got it. Then he annouces it to the world knowing it would bring attention on himself . He wanted to embarass and humiliate a century old Organization for his own glory. Thats bullying. The fact is by his actions he has proven to be unworthy of the award because he emarrassed his scout master who was turning the other cheek and he is profiting by his self serving actions.

the BSA have rules just like any other organized group. You have the oportunity to follow those rules or not join or leave. Pretty simple. This person only wants attention and that attention got him at least $20,000 and probably more which was his REAL goal not change. He got his 15 minutes of fame.

Ooops, gagged on that one.

what a maroon!!!

Dean_Commentator....far as I understand it, the KKK was a private organization too. A few years ago, Tiger Woods would not have been allowed to play golf at The Masters cause the golf club was a private one. "Can't drink water here and can't use the bathroom here if you're black cause this is a private club". Pick your club, pick your victim, pick your exclusion.....discrimination smells in any era, and for all of us that are forced to sniff it. Folks should in fact start petitions and shine the light on this darkness. When the light shines on discrimination, things change...witness Chick-Fil-A.

"When the light shines on discrimination, things change...witness Chick-Fil-A."

Nothing changed at Chick-Fil-A. They had a Sr. Executive that personally believes that homosexuality is a sin. They still have the same Sr. Executive and he still believes that Homosexuality is a sin. The corporation had NO discriminatory policies against homosexuality and still has NO discriminatory polices.

"I'm sorry but this isn't even close to the equivalent of Rosa Parks. She was fighting discrimination institutionalized in government regulation and law"

Dean Commentator, you'r right, the BSA isn't a government. but they are another target in our (yes I'm gay) fight for equality. Gay's are being discriminated by the US government, our social security dies with us, we are taxed on health benefits when one person's employee benefits cover the other partner, most states don't have laws against workplace discrimination due to sexual orientation.

This is a battle for our equal rights, and the BSA has made themselves a part of that battle, by letting this kid grow up in scouting, then kick him out for who he grew into. I would bet that this kid did not identify himself as being gay when he first started with scouts, so I think it's pretty lame to deny him his eagle award. And I think its two-faced of the scoutmaster to encourage him, then deny him of the fruits of his labor (I know some jack-hole is going to make a fruit joke)

And finally, for all of you who wish the gays would just pipe down and remain second class citizens, would you rather we got a cut in our taxes for rights paid for and not received, or would you rather give up the protections that marriage offers you to create universal substandardness? Or of course we could make sexual orientation the non-issue that it should be and treat everyone equally and respectfully.

And finally, for all of you who wish the gays would just pipe down and remain second class citizens, would you rather we got a cut in our taxes for rights paid for and not received, or would you rather give up the protections that marriage offers you to create universal substandardness?

Actually according to the law you are still single...... It would be no different for a straight person who was single. Are you saying you deserve special rights based upon your sexuality? Really? Single people don't get special rights based upon the fact that they are straight...... so technically you are equal to them.

Unhappy,

Ridiculous circular logic.

The person is in a relationship. The person wants to marry another consenting adults. Why do heterosexuals couples get special privileges and homosexual couples do not? The answer: because of blatant discrimination that violates the basic principles of equality in our Constitution.

You can all do the all the arm-waving and hair-splitting you want, but progress will continue, DoMA will likely be overturned by the Supreme court. States will continue legalizing it. And potentially, once DoMA is overturned someone is likely to sue a state that doesn't recognize gay marriages of other states because it violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. In the event that happens, states will likely have to recognize same-sex marriages of other states. And at that point, the gay marriage debate will pretty much be over. Welcome to the 21st century.

They just need to change the laws and remove the word "marriage" from them and change it to partnership. Leave the fight over what is defined as marriage to the churches and different religions. That is the only controversy facing many of the changes to federal/state laws. Stop calling it a marriage and you will progress much further.

The person is in a relationship. The person wants to marry another consenting adults. Why do heterosexuals couples get special privileges and homosexual couples do not? The answer: because of blatant discrimination that violates the basic principles of equality in our Constitution.

It is not the relationship that is the problem, it is the type of relationship. Siblings are not allowed to marry either even though they may be of legal age. Does that mean they are entitled to special privileges too? Would you say it was because of blatant discrimination? Nope..... they are just not allowed to marry.

Anyway this doesn't really have anything to do with the BSA.

They just need to change the laws and remove the word "marriage" from them and change it to partnership. Leave the fight over what is defined as marriage to the churches and different religions.

You and your bigoted ilk do not own the word "marriage". Furthermore, you are talking about changing THOUSANDS of laws, both federal and state -- an administrative nightmare, to say the least. And totally unnecessary, since legal marriage in this secular nation is and has always been strictly a civil contract.

Siblings are not allowed to marry either even though they may be of legal age.

Sex between siblings has always been illegal, while homosexuality has never been. If you want to make such stupid arguments (which the dumb bigots tried to make in 1967 against interracial marriage, and the arguments were just as dumb then), you might as well argue against heterosexual marriage -- because THAT is what has led to all of this.

ErinJ: YOU ARE A BIGOT. MY values are not yours. I don't have to listen to your crap about why you think the word marriage should be changed. The only views that are important are the ones that I use to control myself.

Sex between siblings has always been illegal, while homosexuality has never been. If you want to make such stupid arguments (which the dumb bigots tried to make in 1967 against interracial marriage, and the arguments were just as dumb then), you might as well argue against heterosexual marriage -- because THAT is what has led to all of this.

Apparently you were never made aware of the sodomy laws. Again, this shows your ignorance. This Boy Scout entered into an organization where they instituted a MORAL code.

Laws won't matter in this case.

He didn't have to join. Let me repeat that.....HE DIDN'T HAVE TO JOIN........HE DIDN'T HAVE TO JOIN......HE DIDN'T HAVE TO JOIN....... keep repeating that to yourself before you decide what you consider to be unfair.

I don't have to listen to your crap about why you think the word marriage should be changed.

FYI, the definition of marriage has already changed -- and it has changed numerous times since this country's inception. YOU don't have to listen to my "crap," but the courts have, which is why the dumb bigots (like you) have LOST every step of the way, and you will continue to LOSE with the Supreme Court.

Apparently you were never made aware of the sodomy laws.

Can you really be that clueless? Sodomy laws were enacted against ANY sodomy, but were only enforced against homosexuals -- which is ONE reason why they were struck down by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, having laws against sodomy does not mean that homosexuality itself was illegal. Do you enjoy looking so stupid?

But how is all this relevant to the Boy Scouts?

One more thing I'll point out to you: Out of all of the various Boy Scouts affiliates worldwide, the Boy Scouts of America is the ONLY one that bars homosexuals. What does that say about this country? To me, it says that we are not as "tolerant" and "inclusive" as we portray ourselves; we still have too many bigots making decisions (like you).

Be a love and give us an example of when an how the definition of marriage changed in these United States Erin?

Here is a list of how marriage has been redefined in this country since our inception:

• 1830 - Right of married woman to own property in her own name (instead of all property being owned exclusively by the husband) in Mississippi.
• 1848 - Right of married women to own property in her own name in New York.
• 1854 - The Republican party referred in its platform to polygamy as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (in addition to slavery). At the time, polygamy was a practice of some Mormons.
• 1862 - The United States Congress enacted the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed by Abraham Lincoln, which made bigamy a felony in the territories punishable by $500 or five years in prison.
• 1873 - Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.
• 1874 - Congress passed the Poland Act, which transferred jurisdiction over Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act cases to federal prosecutors and courts in Utah, which were not controlled by Mormons.
• 1879 - The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was upheld by the US Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. United States.
• 1882 - Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which prohibited not just bigamy, which remained a felony, but also bigamous cohabitation, which was prosecuted as a misdemeanor, and did not require proof an actual marriage ceremony had taken place. The law also allowed polygamists to be held indefinitely without a trial.
• 1887 - Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which allowed prosecutors to force polygamist wives to testify against their husbands, and abolished the right of women in Utah to vote.
• 1890 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy through the 1890 Manifesto.
• 1900 - All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.
• 1904 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy again, excommunicating anyone who participates in future polygamy.
• 1907 - All women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.
• 1933 - Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
• 1948 - California Supreme Court overturns interracial marriage ban.
• 1965 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
• 1967 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).
• 1969 - The first no fault divorce law is adopted in California
• 1971 - Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law that automatically changed a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.
• 1971 - Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to Minnesota Supreme Court ruling allowing prohibition of same-sex marriages (Baker v. Nelson).
• 1972 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception.
• 1973 - Maryland became to first state in the US to define marriage as between a man and a woman in statute.
• 1975 - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name. 3 states outlaw same-sex marriage by statutes.
• 1976 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.
• 1993 - All fifty states have revised laws to include marital rape.
• 1994 - 40 out of the 50 states amend their marriage statutes to outlaw same-sex marriage.
• 1996 - President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law, which outlaws both same-sex marriage and polygamy through a statute under the federal Government.
• 1998 - 2 states (Alaska and Hawai’i) for the first time outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy by their state Constitutions, because of fear from Courts striking down statutes. South Carolina was the penultimate state in the US to remove the ban on interracial marriage in its state Constitution.
• 2000 - Nebraska amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy, while Alabama became the last state in the US to remove the ban on interracial marriage in its state Constitution.
• 2002 - Nevada amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.
• 2004 - Massachusetts grants and recognizes same-sex marriages, while 14 states rushed to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state Constitutions in response.
• 2005 - Texas amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.
• 2006 - 26 states outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state Constitutions.
• 2008 - Since March, New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other places but do not grant such marriages. Since November Connecticut grants and recognizes same-sex marriages. Briefly from June 2008 California grants same-sex marriage until the passage of Proposition 8 later in the year, but continues recognizing marriages entered into prior to the proposition's passage. 29 states outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state Constitutions.
• 2009 - Iowa and Vermont grant and recognize same-sex marriages; Since July the District of Columbia recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other places but does not grant such marriages. Maine rescinds planned legalization of same-sex marriage with 53 percent of a popular vote on November 3, 2009.
• 2010 - New Hampshire (from 1 January) and the District of Columbia (from 3 March) grants and recognizes same-sex marriages. Maryland (from 24 February) recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
• 2011 – New York begins granting same-sex marriages.
• 2012 – A federal appeals court upholds the district court decision that struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage (the case is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court)

marriage has always been one man , one woman, long before our founding of america. It has not changed in america. That standard one man, one woman. What you are trying to define are rights with in a marriage between man and woman or womans rights ect ect

marriage has always been one man , one woman, long before our founding of america. It has not changed in america. That standard one man, one woman. What you are trying to define are rights with in a marriage between man and woman or womans rights ect ect

Not just that. Marriage used to be only between "one man and one woman of the same race", and yet this has fortunately changed. The Bible forbids marriages between people of different nations and religions (Deuteronomy 7:3-4; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18), and yet this is considered perfectly normal today. Furthermore, Jesus was very explicit about divorce (Luke 16:18), and today it is perfectly legal and hardly anyone questions it. The "together 'till death do you part" used to be (and for may Christians it still is) a core element of the definition of marriage, but society has fortunately evolved and now permits married couples to split up, sparing millions of spouses and children the pain of an unhappy marriage.

This is just further proof that Christian notions of marriage are slowly becoming irrelevant, unless Christians are willing to adapt their Holy Book to modern times. In 20-30 years time, I bet this whole debate about same-sex marriage will be just a bad memory.

Actually Coolnfriends your not quite correct.. Corinthians is reffering to believers not to marry NON believers. We are not to become unevenly yolked. The bible does not say a white is not to marry black , or chinese cant marry irish ect ect .. Only believers to non believers.

As for Christians adapting, that is the main issue. God knows best, and if you havent looked lately at our society and the broken homes, fatherless children, kids being born our of wedlock, younger suicide rates up sky high, marriage divorces even Higher, with Gay marriages in other countries even higher yet.

I dont change the bible to fit my views or world views. I change my views to fit the bible and the truth and morals of what God prefers, not what I prefer.

You are correct Marmaduke49 regarding the prohibition to marry non believers. However, if you read that verse (and the one in the Old Testament) in its proper context, you'll find that by "non believers" it refers to anyone outside of the Judeochristian faith (as it is made clear by the references to those that worship "other gods"). Today, everyone is free to marry outside their religion. A triumph of love over bigotry.

As for interracial marriage, my claim was that there used to be a prohibition against it, not that the Bible advised against it. The prohibition was applied by social convention and the law, and it wasn't questioned until later in the twentieth century - the point of that part of my post was only to show how definitions of marriage change over time.

As for the "broken homes, fatherless children, kids being born out of wedlock", etc., I would pick that any day over unhappy or abusive marriages. No longer are women (and children) forced to stay with a man that mistreats them or doesn't love them. Society has no right to impose a relationship to those that no longer want it, or in fact suffer because of it. How do you reconcile a loving, free-will-promoting God with one that imposes something so draconian? Legalizing divorce was definitely a step forward. I am glad I am no longer a Christian, and I hope for the sake of human happiness that modern Christians will continue to adapt to this time.

marriage has always been one man , one woman, long before our founding of america.

WRONG. Same-sex marriage existed in ancient civilizations, and our own Native Americans also performed same-sex marriages.

The early Egyptian and Mesopotamian societies that are considered important antecedents for Western culture apparently not only tolerated same-sex relationships, but also recognized such relationships in their culture, literature, and mythology. Evidence of same-sex marriage is at best indirect in these ancient societies, however. One finds slightly stronger and more direct evidence of same-sex marriages in Greek and early Roman culture, in imperial Rome, and in Western Europe for much of the Christian Middle Ages.

...after examining the few pertinent records (including legal documents), as well as the literature, myths, and artifacts of this period, one might tentatively conclude that most ancient cultures did not prohibit same-sex relationships, nor did many stigmatize them. Although the evidence is debatable, some of the ancient cultures may have treated same-sex relationships similarly to marriages involving different-sex partners.

Further evidence of same-sex relationships may be found in Mesopotamian statutes, which have been preserved, escaping the fate of the lost Egyptian laws. None of Mesopotamia's early legal codes-the Laws of Urukagina (2375 B.C.), the Laws of Ur-Nammu (2100 B.C.), the Laws of Eshnunna (1750 B.C.), the Laws of Hammurabi (1726 B.C.), and the Hittite Laws (circa 800 B.C.)-prohibited or disapproved of same-sex relationships, 59 even though sex and marriage were otherwise heavily regulated. Indeed, the Hittite Laws can be read to suggest that same-sex marriage was legally as well as culturally sanctioned in at least some parts of ancient Mesopotamia.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2503&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.law.yale.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2503%2526context%253Dfss_papers%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm3g-8j65ZGkoAK-51evCqzlRZWkOA%26oi%3Dscholarr#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.law.yale.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2503%26context%3Dfss_papers%22

You keep forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that the bible does not make our laws, Marmaduke; we are a secular nation -- and our laws are not based on works of fiction.

And you keep forgetting , I could care less what You think and your beliefs no matter how true you think they are. God is the first, even if there are record of marriages, It began with one God, the God of the bible, and God made it woman and Man for each other, period.

As for a secular nation, we are not, I dont know how many times I need to debate you all on this. We are a nation of Chrsitians based on Christian Values, with our founding fathers most of them Christians, NOT deists , only a few were. OUr supreme Justices of the past, said we should vote for people of christian values, and we are a christian nation. Our founding fathers lived by their religion daily, they were not scared to express it in public. Supreme court views have changed in the last 50 years due to the huge liberal movement and political correctness movement, along with so much misunderstanding and misinformation of people thinking that Church and State exists in the constitution. They viewed other religions as imposter religions, and that Christianity is our religion.

Now with that being said, no where did I say we are to be forced to be christians, live like christians. No one is forcing that, but I feel as they felt, that our government is better off by voting for people who do believe in God of the bible, and have the moral values of the bible. So many of you guys want to twist and distort the truth of it all, but I will not let you say we are a secular nation. History just doesnt support that

God is the first, even if there are record of marriages, It began with one God, the God of the bible, and God made it woman and Man for each other, period.

It began LONG before anyone believed in God, Marmaduke; marriage -- and civilization -- existed for thousands of years before that time. And those civilizations allowed same-sex marriage. PERIOD.

As for a secular nation, we are not, I dont know how many times I need to debate you all on this. We are a nation of Chrsitians based on Christian Values, with our founding fathers most of them Christians, NOT deists , only a few were.

There is no "debate" on this, either, Marmaduke: we are, and have always been, a secular nation. Our Founding Fathers were primarily Deists who distrusted organized religion in general, and Christianity in particular, and felt that whatever their personal religious beliefs, they did not want future generations to suffer the same religious persecution that they and/or their families had undergone. Furthermore, our laws and government are based in English common law, and documents like the Magna Carta -- no "Christian values" involved.

OUr supreme Justices of the past, said we should vote for people of christian values, and we are a christian nation.

We are not now, and have never been, a "Christian nation" in any way, shape, or form. And while some Supreme Court Justices may have believed that our leaders should be people of "Christian values," the fact remains that the Constitution contains Article VI, which specifically provides that "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." And that is in addition to the First Amendment, which specifically provides for the separation of church and state.

If this country is a "Christian nation," then explain why the Constitution, which is the foundation of our laws and government, contains NO reference to God, Jesus, the bible, or any other religious text or deity. If this country was founded on "Christian values," then explain why NONE of those "values" are included in the Constitution, which is the foundation of our laws and government. If this country is a "Christian nation," then explain why the Supreme Court has expressly ruled AGAINST the inclusion of ANY approval or endorsement of religion; in fact, the Court has specifically provided that NO law or ruling can promote ANY personal religious belief without an accompanying secular state interest. If this country is a "Christian nation," explain why the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution, the foundation of our laws and government, an Amendment that specifically provides freedom OF and FROM religion. If this country is a "Christian nation," explain why some of our key Founders, including Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin, specifically and explicitly opposed mixing church and state.

So many of you guys want to twist and distort the truth of it all, but I will not let you say we are a secular nation. History just doesnt support that

I'd like to see you try to stop me from telling the truth about this country: that we are, and have always been, a secular nation. History supports nothing else (except on your planet, apparently).

Apparently, when it was time for US history, you were too busy reading the encyclopedia of your ass and decided that was more interesting, because you have proven repeatedly that you know NOTHING about the history of this country. One of my minors was US history, so I will not let you spread such bull@!$%# around about it.

There is no "debate" on this, either, Marmaduke: we are, and have always been, a secular nation. Our Founding Fathers were primarily Deists

This is a bold face lie. I have already had this debate , that you were around .. I showed how many were of what christian faith, and how many were deists. There were only a few that were deists, the rest were of a Christian faith.

Your minor in US history sucks. I dont know who is teaching you but I would be more then happy to have a debate with them in US history. I would be more then happy to set them straight with TRUE history and not some twisted washed down version of it , so many of you revisionists seem to be doing to our christian nation.

Being of a a certain christian denomination was part of the standard to hold a position in office in the states in our beginning.

If this country is a "Christian nation," explain why the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution, the foundation of our laws and government, an Amendment that specifically provides freedom OF and FROM religion.

You sicken me with your dogmatic view when you toss FROM religion in there. You might fool those who dont know any better erin, but I know your a snake in the grass with twisting history. FROM religion, you make me sick how you just add words to the constitution to try to make it mean something it doesnt. Get a new minor erin because yours isnt working. ALso tell your teacher who ever it is I said they are wrong ./

I showed how many were of what christian faith, and how many were deists. There were only a few that were deists, the rest were of a Christian faith.

What you have "shown" is nothing more than your David Barton-sanctioned version of US history, which has been debunked by REAL historians, with REAL evidence.

I dont know who is teaching you but I would be more then happy to have a debate with them in US history.

Then you can debate the professors at Cornell University, if you feel that you know better than they do.

Being of a a certain christian denomination was part of the standard to hold a position in office in the states in our beginning.

That was BEFORE the Constitution was written and ratified. Any states that still had such laws after that time were not allowed to enforce them; six states still had such laws on their books after that time, until Torcaso v. Watkins settled the issue once and for all. After the US declared its independence from Britain, seven states had requirements that officeholders be Protestant, while three required that they be Christians.

BTW, at least 10 of our Presidents, starting with James Madison, had NO religious affiliation, or their religious views were "doubtful". Furthermore, Theodore Roosevelt, John Quincy Adams, and Lyndon Johnson did NOT use a bible when they were sworn in. And the majority of Americans today say they would vote for an atheist as President.

You sicken me with your dogmatic view when you toss FROM religion in there. You might fool those who dont know any better erin, but I know your a snake in the grass with twisting history. FROM religion, you make me sick how you just add words to the constitution to try to make it mean something it doesnt. Get a new minor erin because yours isnt working. ALso tell your teacher who ever it is I said they are wrong

Marmaduke, you are such a deluded POS that it's almost not worth arguing with you, because it's so easy to prove you wrong. There can be no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

You christo-bigots sicken me and all other rational, intelligent people with your constant unfounded claims that this country is a "Christian nation" or that it was built on "Christian values". If YOU are an example of what having "Christian values" does to a person, perhaps it's time we require that ANY officeholder (especially the President of the United States) be an atheist. People like you are nothing more than terrorists: you rewrite history and deliberately misconstrue our laws and governing documents to suit your own determination to inflict your so-called "morality" on everyone else. That is not "morality," Marmaduke: it is IMMORALITY of the most egregious kind.

Oh, and your contention that we are a "Christian nation" because the majority of Americans are Christians is ludicrous in the extreme; in the first place, the US is not a country of majority rule; and in the second, if you follow that convoluted "logic" to its natural conclusion, you could also say that the US is a "white" country because the majority of Americans are white; that the US is a "Protestant nation" since more than half of all Americans identify as Protestant; or that we are a "German nation" since people of German ancestry make up the largest ethnic group in this country.

Seriously, go to history class -- and civics class, too. You obviously missed BOTH.

Marmaduke, you are such a deluded POS that it's almost not worth arguing with you, because it's so easy to prove you wrong. There can be no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

Once again erin your view is beyond reasoning. Once again your making a huge assumption by adding and leaving out words. How about all of it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

Erin the words FROM does not exist, and when you add them the way you do , you are guilty of butchery of our history and documents.

I posted a question a while back on an actual american history forum, and have people who are specialized in this subject.
So far from what I have read in responses seems that we are a christian nation, with the right to freely express our christian views whether your in office, or at your job, or talking about it publicly. They have shown me that people are guilty of just using snips and clips from early documents, or personal words. When everything is put together and left in total context, we are , or i should say, we were a christian nation, until people like you have twisted the view.

I do have some books they offered up to read as a starting point.

The Faiths of Our Fathers: What America's Founders Really Believed: Alf J.,Jr. Mapp: 9780742531147: Amazon.com: Books

Founding Faith: Providence,Politics,and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America [Hardcover]: Steven Waldman: Amazon.com: Books

American Colonies: The Settling of North America (The Penguin History of the United States,Volume1) (Hist of the USA): Alan Taylor: 9780142002100: Amazon.com: Books

A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic: John Ferling: 9780195176001: Amazon.com: Books

Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic,1789-1815 (Oxford History of the United States): Gordon S. Wood: 9780199832460: Amazon.com: Books

And yes I would be more than happy to debate such professors. Give me an email to one of them and I will begin.

You know what you can do with those books, Marmaduke -- or do you need me to spell it out for you? Of course the only reason you believe them is because they are the only sources you consult. You have not bothered to consider both sides of the issue, and your own faith prevents you from seeing it objectively. That is called "bias," Marmaduke, and you are full of it (among other things you're full of).

The Supreme Court has stated emphatically -- more than once -- that we are not a "Christian nation," and that we are a secular nation.

You cannot grasp the concept that there is no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. People can worship AS they choose, IF they choose.

My professors would find you and your arguments laughable to say the least, and have better things to do with their time (although it would take them all of about five minutes -- after they'd finished laughing at your pompous bull@!$%# -- to completely dismantle your "arguments").

What a moron.

Erin if they wanted us to be free FROM religion they would have said it.. Do they say it erin ? Do they ? Stop lying to yourself and to people on here. I hope people with half a brain can read exactly what it says. Also what you like to do is just use bits and clips to try to prove your point, ripping something out of context to make it fit your agenda.

Use the entire First ammendment ERIN and choke on the truth of what it says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

How much more clear can this be. You seem to think there is some hidden agenda with this wording. It was wrote as plain as day to be followed as plain as day, we have the right to exercise our religious views when ever and where ever, whether in private or in the public in politics Period.

On the american history forum I was on, they warn of people like you , who rip just little parts of founding fathers words , instead they say to read the ENTIRE document or bill or what ever in its entirety and you will clearly see how they felt, and one of them was a bill that Thomas Jefferson was doing to get passed. I dont have that here either, but it showed me that if i want to see how much of a nation of christian views this was, just read everything in the entire context.

Also the Supreme Courts did defend our views as a christian nation and our government and christian views were very much intermingled until thes epast 50 years when people like you distort it and try to change things.

Erin if they wanted us to be free FROM religion they would have said it

They didn't think they needed to say it, Marmaduke, because rational and intelligent people understand that you can't have one without the other. They also didn't say explicitly that we have a right to privacy, but the Supreme Court has found that to be so -- and it was always understood to be so. They also didn't explicitly say we have a right to marry, but the Supreme Court has found that to be so, and we have always understood that to be so.

But if you want to be literal, tell me where in the First Amendment the words "freedom of religion" are. It actually says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

BTW, the Supreme Court actually incorporated the Establishment Clause on the states in 1947 -- quite a bit more than 50 years ago (but I guess math doesn't matter to the uneducated). And Reynolds v. US was decided in 1879, and that was quite an important decision in the separation of church and state. So YOU are lying by trying to make anyone believe that the Supreme Court has only interpreted the First Amendment correctly in the last 50 years.

It was wrote as plain as day to be followed as plain as day, we have the right to exercise our religious views when ever and where ever, whether in private or in the public in politics Period

"It was wrote"? ROFLMAO! Yes, we have the right to exercise our religious views -- except in politics and government. PERIOD. We also have the right to exercise NO religious views, if we choose to not to worship at all. That is what the First Amendment is all about.

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

Reynolds v. US, 98 US 145 (1878)

I'm sure that those on your American history forum don't like what I have to say, nor do they like the fact that the Founding Fathers would agree with me, as does the Supreme Court. YOU can misinterpret and misconstrue the Constitution to your heart's content, and try to twist the meanings of the words and the intent of our Founding Fathers, but the truth is far different -- whether you admit it or not. PERIOD.

Jefferson didn't just reject the Christian belief that the Bible was "the inspired word of God"; he rejected the Christian system too. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he said of this religion, "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites" (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, "Politics and Religious Illiteracy," Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33). Anyone today who would make a statement like this or others we have quoted from Jefferson's writings would be instantly branded an infidel, yet modern Bible fundamentalists are frantically trying to cast Jefferson in the mold of a Bible believing Christian. They do so, of course, because Jefferson was just too important in the formation of our nation to leave him out if Bible fundamentalists hope to sell their "Christian-nation" claim to the public. Hence, they try to rewrite history to make it appear that men like Thomas Jefferson had intended to build our nation on "biblical principles." The irony of this situation is that the Christian leaders of Jefferson's time knew where he stood on "biblical principles," and they fought desperately, but unsuccessfully, to prevent his election to the presidency.

James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion. This paper, long considered a landmark document in political philosophy, was also cited in the majority opinion in Lee vs. Weisman. The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly, and in 1786, the Assembly adopted the statute of religious freedom of which Jefferson and Madison were the principal architects. The preamble to this bill said that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." The statute itself was much more specific than the establishment clause of the U. S. Constitution "Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise [sic] diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities".

Here is firsthand testimony from the rectors of the church that Washington attended with his wife, and they both claimed that he never participated in the communion service. Writing in the Episcopal Recorder, the Reverend E. D. Neill said that Washington "was not a communicant, notwithstanding all the pretty stories to the contrary, and after the close of the sermon on sacramental Sundays, [he] had fallen into the habit of retiring from the church while his wife remained and communed" (Remsberg, p. 107). In this article, Neill also made reference to Abercrombie's reprimand of Washington from the pulpit, so those who knew Washington personally or who knew those who had known him all seem to agree that Washington was never a "communicant." Remsberg continued at length in his chapter on Washington to quote the memoirs and letters of Washington's associates, who all agreed that the president had never once been known to participate in the communion service, a fact that weakens the claim that he was a Christian. Would preachers today consider someone a devout Christian if he just attended services with his wife but never took the communion?

As for Washington's membership in the vestry, for several years he did actively serve as one of the twelve vestrymen of Truro parish, Virginia, as had also his father. This, however, cannot be construed as proof that he was a Christian believer. The vestry at that time was also the county court, so in order to have certain political powers, it was necessary for one to be a vestryman.

These terms by which Washington referred to "God" in his inaugural address are dead giveaways that he was Deistic in his views. The uninformed see the expression "nature's God" in documents like the Declaration of Independence and wrongly interpret it as evidence of Christian belief in those who wrote and signed it, but in reality it is a sure indication that the document was Deistic in origin. Deists preferred not to use the unqualified term "God" in their conversation and writings because of its Christian connotations. Accordingly, they substituted expressions like those that Washington used in his inaugural address or else they referred to their creator as "nature's God," the deity who had created the world and then left it to operate by natural law.

At the constitutional convention, Luther Martin a Maryland representative urged the inclusion of some kind of recognition of Christianity in the constitution on the grounds that "it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." However, the delegates to the convention rejected this proposal and, as the Reverend Bird Wilson stated in his sermon quoted above, drafted the constitution as a secular document. God was nowhere mentioned in it.

As a matter of fact, the document that was finally approved at the constitutional convention mentioned religion only once, and that was in Article VI, Section 3, which stated that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Now if the delegates at the convention had truly intended to establish a "Christian nation," why would they have put a statement like this in the constitution and nowhere else even refer to religion? Common sense is enough to convince any reasonable person that if the intention of these men had really been the formation of a "Christian nation," the constitution they wrote would have surely made several references to God, the Bible, Jesus, and other accouterments of the Christian religion, and rather than expressly forbidding ANY religious test as a condition for holding public office in the new nation, it would have stipulated that allegiance to Christianity was a requirement for public office. After all, when someone today finds a tract left at the front door of his house or on the windshield of his car, he doesn't have to read very far to determine that its obvious intention is to further the Christian religion. Are we to assume, then, that the founding fathers wanted to establish a Christian nation but were so stupid that they couldn't write a constitution that would make their purpose clear to those who read it?

As for the religious beliefs of the general population in pre and post revolutionary times, it wasn't nearly as Christian as most people think. Lynn R. Buzzard, executive director of the Christian Legal Society (a national organization of Christian lawyers) has admitted that there is little proof to support the claim that the colonial population was overwhelmingly Christian. "Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian," Buzzard wrote, "but the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776" (Schools They Haven't Got a Prayer, Elgin, Illinois David C. Cook Publishing, 1982, p. 81). Historian Richard Hofstadter says that "perhaps as many as ninety percent of the Americans were unchurched in 1790" (Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, New York Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 82) and goes on to say that "mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom," noting that "in 1800 [only] about one of every fifteen Americans was a church member" (p. 89). Historian James MacGregor Burns agrees with these figures, noting that "(t)here had been a `very wintry season' for religion every where in America after the Revolution" (The American Experiment Vineyard of Liberty, New York Vintage Books, 1983, p. 493). He adds that "ninety percent of the people lay outside the churches."

Historians, who deal with facts rather than wishes, paint an entirely different picture of the religious composition of America during its formative years than the image of a nation founded on "biblical principles" that modern Bible fundamentalists are trying to foist upon us. Our founding fathers established a religiously neutral nation, and a tragedy of our time is that so many people are striving to undo all that was accomplished by the wisdom of the founding fathers who framed for us a constitution that would protect the religious freedom of everyone regardless of personal creed. An even greater tragedy is that they many times hoodwink the public into believing that they are only trying to make our nation what the founding fathers would want it to be. Separation of church and state is what the founding fathers wanted for the nation, and we must never allow anyone to distort history to make it appear otherwise.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

But you keep clinging to your pathetic delusions, Marmaduke; don't let pesky facts get in the way of them.

Erin NJ - Be nice! Jesus loves you.

by
Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Those who insist that America was not intended to be a “Christian nation” point to the obvious absence of specific directives regarding Christianity in the federal Constitution. The popular propaganda since the 1960s has been that “the irreligious Framers did not want the nation to retain any attachment to the Christian religion.” Such an assertion is a monstrous perversion of historical fact. The truth of the matter is that they were fearful of the potential interference by the federal government in its ability to place restrictions on the free exercise of the Christian religion. Consequently, they desired that the specifics of religion be left up to the discretion of the several states.

Nevertheless, we must not think for a moment that the federal Framers did not sanction the nation’s intimate affiliation with Christianity, or that they attempted to keep religion out of the Constitution. On the contrary, the Christian religion is inherently assumed and implicitly present in the Constitution. In fact, the United States Constitution contains a direct reference to Jesus Christ! Consider three proofs for these contentions (SeeConstitution of the United..., 1789).

First, consider the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” We have been told that, by “establishment of religion,” the Framers meant for the government to maintain complete religious neutrality and that pluralism ought to prevail, i.e., that all religions (whether Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism), though equally tolerated, must not be given any acknowledgement in the public sector. But such an outlandish claim is absolutely false. All one has to do is to go directly to the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the First Amendment in order to ascertain the context and original intent of the final wording (Annals of Congress, 1789, pp. 440ff.). The facts of the matter are that by their use of the term “religion,” the Framers had in mind the several Protestant denominations. Their concern was to prevent any single Christian denomination from being elevated above the others and made the State religion—a circumstance that the Founders had endured under British rule when the Anglican Church was the state religion of the thirteen colonies. They further sought to leave the individual States free to make their own determinations with regard to religious (i.e., Christian) matters (cf. Story, 1833, 3.1873:730-731). The “Father of the Bill of Rights,” George Mason, actually proposed the following wording for the First Amendment, which demonstrates the context of their wording:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244, emp. added).

By “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the Framers intended to convey that the federal government was not to interfere with the free and public practice of the Christian religion—the very thing that the courts have been doing since the 1960s.

Second, consider the wording of a sentence from Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....” “Sundays excepted”? The government shuts down and does not transact business on Sunday? Why? If this provision had been made in respect of Jews, the Constitution would have read “Saturdays excepted.” If provision had been made for Muslims, the Constitution would have read “Fridays excepted.” If the Founders had intended to encourage a day of inactivity for the government without regard to any one religion, they could have chosen Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Instead, the federal Constitution reads “Sundaysexcepted”—proving conclusively that America was Christian in its orientation and that the Framers themselves shared the Christian worldview and gave political recognition to and accommodation of that fact.

Third, if these two allusions to Christianity are not enough, consider yet another. Immediately after Article VII, the Constitution closes with the following words:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Did you catch it? Their work was done “in the Year of our Lord.” The Christian world dates all of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. “B.C.” means “before Christ,” and “A.D.” is the abbreviation for the Latin words “anno Domini,” meaning “year of our Lord.” If the Framers were interested in being pluralistic, multi-cultural, and politically correct, they would have refrained from using the B.C./A.D. designation. Or they would have used the religionless designations “C.E.,” Common Era, and “B.C.E.,” Before the Common Era (see “Common Era,” 2008). In so doing, they would have avoided offending Jews, atheists, agnostics, and humanists. Or they could have used “A.H.” (anno hegirae—which means “in the year of the Hijrah” and refers to Muhammad’s flight from Mecca in A.D. 622), the date used by Muslims as the commencement date for the Islamic calendar. Instead, the Framers chose to utilize the dating method that indicated the worldview they shared. What’s more, their reference to “our Lord” does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son—an explicit reference to Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: theConstitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ—not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, nor the gods of Hindus or Native Americans!

Let’s get this straight: The Declaration of Independence contains four allusions to the God of the Bible. The U.S. Constitution contains allusions to the freedom to practice the Christian religion unimpeded, the significance and priority of Sunday worship, as well as the place of Jesus Christ in history. So, according to the thinking of the ACLU and a host of liberal educators, politicians, and judges, the Constitution is—unconstitutional! Go figure.

BTW, the Supreme Court actually incorporated the Establishment Clause on the states in 1947 -- quite a bit more than 50 years ago (but I guess math doesn't matter to the uneducated). And Reynolds v. US was decided in 1879, and that was quite an important decision in the separation of church and state. So YOU are lying by trying to make anyone believe that the Supreme Court has only interpreted the First Amendment correctly in the last 50 years.

Excuse me, 65 years ago , we good now ? SO now were only talking about 2 court cases out of how many thousands of others ? You have a clear mis understanding of the wall of separation. The wall is meant for the government to not be able to establish a state religion. That was the issue back then. No where did it ever indicate that people of faith can not express their religious views. The wall was meant for one thing and one thing only. If it was meant to be a two way wall then they would had specifically stated , people of faith should not be in office, nor let their faith influence their decisions. When you read about our early american fathers, you will see this couldnt be farther from the truth. Their lives were guided by the influence of God. But no where do they ever try to impose their religion and make people worship God, or make the USA have some state religion. That would be the reason for the Separation. As i said no where do they ever indicate people in public office need to have lives void of religion. It was part of their lives, a big part.

"It was wrote"? ROFLMAO! Yes, we have the right to exercise our religious views -- except in politics and government.

WRONG !!! That is just your progressive liberal view. Where in the world does anything say in any document in our beginning that religous views are not allowed in politics and government ? You seriously think they never spoke about God at their meetings ? Or held prayers before their meetings asking for divine influence and guidance for this nation ? I hate when people try to strip away the beliefs of our ancestors and try to make early america like it was void of God.

Reynolds v. US, 98 US 145 (1878)

I'm sure that those on your American history forum don't like what I have to say, nor do they like the fact that the Founding Fathers would agree with me, as does the Supreme Court. YOU can misinterpret and misconstrue the Constitution to your heart's content, and try to twist the meanings of the words and the intent of our Founding Fathers, but the truth is far different -- whether you admit it or not. PERIOD.

Your more then welcome to come to the History Forums. At least there the conversations are more civilized and not some name calling event like here all the time. Historum.com i think is the website

Chic-Fil-A didn't back down or change their position.

The radical gays are claiming they backed down so they could claim another 'victory'.

I know..... I think maybe 6 gay couples showed up on what was a failed demonstration.

as i'm sure your ancestors new the rules when they came to this country.. looking for the opportunity to be treated fairly and equally...

you're wrong and dated. someone build this guy a time machine so he can go back to the 50's and beat up black people without consequence

This young man joined when he was a child. I doubt he knew what gay was or even thought about sexuality at the time.

truetexan

So at seven years of age you knew the riles of every organization you joined?

How the hell is equality political correctness?

why is it that when somebody thinks one way about an issue like this crap everybody makes comments about other things like beating up blacks or jews? The BSA has the right not to allow what ever they want to or have rules for a reason to not corrupt young people with this GARBAGE about being gay is ok, ITS NOT!

Why must bigots try and cram their filthy hate down everyone elses throats? Bigotry is ugly and the people who embrace it are a blight on society.

Would YOU have known you were gay at 7, 8, 9..years of age???? And then what: Sorry Dad and Mom, I can't be a boy scout-they won't let me join-I think I may be gay. Another complete idiot posting in here. I, personally, think the 'rule' is just SO WRONG. The BSofA better start changing their 'way of thinking' or the whole organization will be shut down. Baden-Powell must be turning over in his grave.

joe spence

Actually it is OK to be gay, kind of like its ok to have blue eyes, can't help either.

Yes they have the right to not allow gay people in their group and we have a right to disagree with them strongly.

Filth? OK, then you are a bible thumping breeder. Gotta love name calling...

A$$hole. I got your filth right here>>>

Would YOU have known you were gay at 7, 8, 9..years of age???? And then what: Sorry Dad and Mom, I can't be a boy scout-they won't let me join-I think I may be gay.

So when did he find out he was gay. At 14? Was it before he tried to become and Eagle Scout? Then yes, I say he knew what he was doing when he continued to LIE.

So if he comes out, he's no longer a worthy scout and if he hides who he is, he lied and no longer a worthy scout. It's nothing but a conundrum. At least he doesn't have to hide who he is to please those who won't accept him for who he is.

truetexan-- What you call filth is a misconception. People fall in love with who they fall in love with. Anything gay couples engage in very often are the same things Hetero's engage in.

Be careful running your mouth about gays wherever you are,some of them might teach you a lesson about mutual respect. Not every gay man prances around. Some could probably tie you in a knot 6 different ways.

By the way, don't compare yourself to other Texans some of us have a mind and respect other people regardless of their lifestyle.

So if he comes out, he's no longer a worthy scout and if he hides who he is, he lied and no longer a worthy scout. It's nothing but a conundrum. At least he doesn't have to hide who he is to please those who won't accept him for who he is.

I'm saying he could no longer fulfill his obligations to be in the BSA. As an eagle scout, he will be set apart as an example to others. Can you honestly say his deception is what others should do in order to get ahead? People on this site, judge pastors for exhibiting any type of sin whether it be for child molestation, adultery,etc..... Are you saying that you can judge them and this person is not allowed to be judged?

That's hypocrisy!

What "deception" has he perpetrated, Unhappy?

Augure666

So if he comes out, he's no longer a worthy scout and if he hides who he is, he lied and no longer a worthy scout. It's nothing but a conundrum. At least he doesn't have to hide who he is to please those who won't accept him for who he is.

So then we shoudl show the same equality for maybe elemtary school teachers that might be secretly a pedophile , or perhaps someone who killed kids over in some other country, but he decided to come out also and let the public know he did all these things.. You think parents will still feel the same way about the teacher ? What is the standard of being a teacher is someone who doesnt lust for kids, or has no past criminal record, and 20 years later they find out, or he comes out saying what he has done, does he still fit the standard of being in a position of school teacher ?

well said

That HOMO is a celebraty now. He was on Ellens show! He will be making a vidio titled"THE BOYSCOUTS MADE ME CRY"All you homos can cry along with him!!

I read that somewhere. But the Catholic church also has its hands into scouting and has been there for a VERY VERY long time. I know that BYU offers a degree major in scouting.

I'm not sure that I view these ties as a negative. After all... if you have ever been deeply involved in scouting... you know what I mean.

"All Scout groups" I belonged to the scouts as a youth and came from an area that had no Mormons. Besides what does being a Mormon have to do with the standards set by the Scouts themselves. If you don't like their position, don't join them.

Actually the BSA at the national level is controlled by both the Mormons and Southern Baptists, two cults which have historically been profoundly racist and homophobic.

At the local troop level things are different, and usually far more tolerant.

Either way, I would not be proud to be part of an organization whose highest leaders are ultimately bigots. I was a scout for many years, earned my badges, rose through the ranks honorably, and have good memories and learned. But, have lost respect for the leadership and name 'Scouts'. Maybe it is time to start a more honorable group of enterprising youth.

I was a den leader for a Mormon congregation. We had to register our troop with the BSA just like everyone else. The Mormon Church does support Scouting, but does not "oversee" the BSA. Many military bases, schools, and other orgs have scout troops.

I can't wait until my son gets old enough to join Scouts. It's a great organization. If you think that troops are teaching hatred and intollerance, obviously you've never been to a pack meeting...just rediculous. When I was a scout, I didn't even know that this was a rule b/c the question of sexuality never even came up. To me, it sounds like this was a non-issue until the "almost-Eagle" made it one.

@Wendy

what is your source regarding who "runs" the Scouts? In my experience, you will find things quit different based upon which geographical area you live in, and the vast majority are focused on community service and leadership- not pushing a political agenda.

Though media outlets do push social agendas under the cover of journalism. As the article quotes one-sided souces for the entire story, I would say that it lacks credibility - entirely. It's good only for generating comments, but of minimal value as a source of reliable information.

Wendy-3462028

All Scouts groups are overseen by the Mormons, so I'm not shocked they don't like Homosexuals. From the top down, the scouts are no longer what they used to be. I would not be a part of them without great embarrassment. A shame most parents are unaware of the Mormon ties

Catholics are ALSO against homosexuality not to mention THOUSANDS of other religions are ALSO against homosexuality,so what's your point? Besides trying to make this about who is running for president. It's aridiculous and pathetic attempt to try to make someone running for president look bad. So I guess Joe Biden who is Catholic shouldn't be in office either b/c Catholics do not accept homosexuals either. You ARE the embarrassment.

Wendy1071 - Catholics are ALSO against homosexuality not to mention THOUSANDS of other religions are ALSO against homosexuality,so what's your point?

Ummmm.....it's the Catholic hierarchy which hates gays, not Catholics in general. For example, 71% of Catholics support marriage equality even though their church leaders don't.

Just like with the BSA, it's the leaders who are the dumb bigots.

Amen! I couldn't have said it better. This country used to be a melting pot for the common good, now it is a tossed salad of "my rights". When and where do your rights come into conflict with my rights. Or as a Christian, do I have any?

Humphs- I'm so tired of Christians who complain about their rights being violated. Complainers are mostly conservatives who want to pass laws to make it criminal to disagree with them on issues like abortion and gay marriage. You ought to try talking to non-Christians about their experiences.

PS- before you label me a Christian-hater, I need to mention that I've been very active as a Christian in churches all my adult life.

Wow.

Hi GeorgeBurnsWasRight,

It just goes to show why the Vatican is pulling out of America. We have people who are gay sneaking into the Priesthood, we have people like you claiming tht being a downright queer is right, and being active in our Christian churches spreading their poison. The earth truely belongs to Satan, and you are proof of it.

Rich-807761 You can protest all you want. I wouldn't mind seeing you get the snot beat out of you.

Rich-807761,

What you advocate is bullying. That would be a blatant attempt to humiliate or coerce that man into doing your will instead of what his conscience or his obligation to the organization required.

I agree with Rich - the dumb bigot should be exposed. If he's so proud to be a homophobe, why doesn't he publicly accept personal responsibility for those views?

After all it's the scout master who encouraged Ryan to do all the work for the Eagle badge, and then turned around and denied it to him.

So protesting is bullying now? Scouts have 'their' rights but we are not allowed to protest? My, my. Stinks of stiffling the 1st amendment to me.

Dean-801011,

Protesting isn't bullying, but I think "It is time to publically identify the scout master. Maybe some marches on his home and family will wake the turd up" definately qualifies as bullying.

Scouting is fun- interesting that you completely ignored the post about "not minding seeing you get the snot beaten out of you".

I don't completely agree.

The scout master knew the boy was gay, allowed him to remain in the troop and to continue to work on his eagle scout badge. That created an expectation that he and his homosexuality were accepted.

The scout master failed to enforce "the rules" until it came time to make the award, then he denied it. That is disgraceful and the scout master should be forced to resign.

But I do agree that this situation should not be used to make the Boy Scouts change their policy. That has already been challenged and settled in court.

I think the scoutmaster was trying to let it slide since it was not public knowledge. If I read correctly, the young man came out before getting the award. It was at that point that the scoutmaster could no longer look the other way.

The BSA has a don't ask don't tell policy which applies to members and leaders who are gay, atheist, or agnostic. As long as you pretend to be attracted only to the opposite sex, and to have some kind of religious belief you can remain in the organization. It is more a mater of keeping up appearances than being honest and truthful.

Look.... this isn't the NAZI youth. You don't have to join if you don't want to.

This is so typical of these vines. People accusing the BSA of hatred against gays and atheists, when all you have to do is read any vines regarding gays or religion to see that gays and atheists are some of the most hateful and intolerant people on around. The hypocrisy is laughable as usual!!!!

Well said, Chris.

Hi,

The BSA is for boys not faggots. It is to try to teach boys how to become MEN, not perverts, or queer sex partners. Get one thing straight (if you can) straight males don't like homosexuals, we despise you, we don't want to even see you, hate is to weak of a term. You break every rule of nature. Think about it, if we all became homsexuals, who would repopulate the world.

The BSA don't allow girls in, they don't cry about being dicriminated against, they started their own club, called Girl Scouts of America. Have you tried joining them?

If you don't like our rules. to bad. We didn't change our rules for the girls, and I don't think we will change them for a bunch of limp wristed crying faggots either.

Why don't you just start your own club, called the Faggots of America, their you could teach such things as you know proper whatever you homo's do.

But

Don't try teaching how to be real men, you definetly failed that in high school.

And you know... one of the leaders in his troop if not all of them had to sign off on the scout's accomplishments many times on his way through various ranks toward Eagle. I wonder what he said to the boy... if anything?

Hi Rich,

He was probably trying to be nice, and trying to teach his real boy scouts, how to cope with real world situations, like there are times when there are things you aren't going to like but you just have to put up with them and ignore the main subject, like a person being gay. Back in the old days if a man was like this he would have to hide it, because if the populus knew they would force him out of their tribe, and out into the wild by himself where mother nature would take care of the queer problem, get the hint, MOTHER NATURE usually took care of the problem, the queer baby became sabre tooth tiger feces, but you queers should like that, after all you are always trying to get in that way.

Yes he did. That is a fact!

We live in a land of hypocracy. So this really is no surprise is it?

What's there to not understand?

The oath says he will do his "duty to God." It doesn't say which one. From what I understand, the BSA allows their members to hold a variety of religions. So unless they vetted every single religion as "god hates homos" religion, it's very well possible that his "God" doesn't think homosexuality is bad.

So is every sin a failure to do duty to God, and therefore every sinner should be kicked out of the BSA? Or is being gay somehow a worse sin than others?

The oath says he will do his "duty to God." It doesn't say which one. From what I understand, the BSA allows their members to hold a variety of religions. So unless they vetted every single religion as "god hates homos" religion, it's very well possible that his "God" doesn't think homosexuality is bad.

Except in every religion, where they look to a higher power, homosexuality is considered forbidden. So name one religion where " GOD" doesn't think homosexuality is bad?

Wrong again. The BSA will change their policy when they decide to become an atheist, humanistic organization.

In the meantime, Good job BSA for standing with Godly morals and ethics.

Well said Herald9

Congratulations on the pin from your fellow scout. You should be getting it from the national office. My son is an Eagle Scout and got his pin this summer. NO, he is NOT gay. But, he would be very proud of you. Stay the hard working and caring young man that you are.

Well said Herald9, good backup ScoutingIsFun, and kudzupatch, how can a faggot stay the hard working and caring young man, to be a man you have to notice and be after the female gender as mother nature intended in ever plant and animal. The only thing this queer boy will earn in the future is HIV, which in some way will cost you and the government taxpayers money. I am really happy that your son isn't gay, but I am somewhat concerned about you.

Congratulating a homosexual is like patting a rabid dog. Neither is a good thing.

I would say that is not uncommon in religiously based organizations and institutions. They would rather cover something up and protect their precious godly image than do the right thing and take care of problems.

I've been part of my Protestant church for 32 years and can say that you are wrong.

BTW: The right thing to do, always, is agree with God and not rebel against Him. Nobody ever wins a fight with God.

The BSA is not a religious organization, but it does have a history of problems with adult, heterosexual child molesters.

Pedophiles are a risk in any children's organization - scouts, schools, church groups. Look at the Sandusky story.

Just as the Catholic church homosexuals are infiltering and screwing up everything that man has held sacred for centuries. Americans today are weak, they won't stand up for what they believe is right, therefore we have illegal immigrants infilterating the country and slowly tearing down what Americans have built up for the past 200 years, we also have homosexuals infilterating the system and tearing down what we taught was morally right. We won't get rid of illegal immigrants or homosexuals until we let our politicians know that we don't want or like this.

Take a look at our country, remember when you knew who your neighbor was, that you knew everyone around your neighborhood, if you didn't like the politician running your town, you gathered together with a bucket of hot tar and feathers and ran his derlick butt out of town, then re-elected a new mayor.

We Americans have become afraid, and the politicians know this and try to keep us in fear, which keeps us apart, we no longer talk to each other and say no to what they are doing, therefore the politicians knowing that we are living in fear do what they want and do things to keep us in fear, like project housings, they purposely move bad people into communities that the people are close together to instill fear in your neighborhood therefore keeping you apart and having more control of your community.

Take a good look around you, is your city in financial trouble, are they cutting the police and fire department employees to save money, is crime up in your city, town etc. Are the politicians still receiving huge salaries. Are you planning to install bars on your windows, steel doors, security systems, how about are you planning to buy a gun, or do you already have one for protection.

Why are we being bullied into spanish, why is spanish and no other languages being incorporated into our life style. Why is Obama making citizens out of illegal immigrants through a certain age limit?

and finally

Why is America supporting homosexuality, when our forefathers forbid this and had extablished sodomy laws which have all but been repelled?

Let's start asking questions, and demanding that our laws as established by our forefathers be upheld.

Smerf--The answer to most of your "why" questions is that most people have learned something in the last 200 years. I doubt 200 more would help you, however. Fortunately you are in the minority.

Sorry. That's like forcing a church to perform same-sex marriage.

No, it's not. Scouting is not protected by the First Amendment.

Very Interesting,

No one is forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages. Even in places where same-sex marriage is legal, churches do not have to perform them. There are special protections in the law that allow churches to conduct their services as they see fit. A church can legally deny marrying anyone it chooses and they already do so. For example, many churches deny conducting services for those who are not members of the church. They also deny conducting services when one of the people getting married is of a different faith or denomination. Please make sure you understand your facts.

Very Interesting - That's like forcing a church to perform same-sex marriage. Why should it be forced on them?

Sounds like your name should be "Very Clueless".

Apparently you've never heard of the 1st Amendment and have confused a legal contract with a religious rite.

Then you are part of the problem.

You're over reacting... I'm pretty sure gays don't recruit boys to be gay... Now if one of your sons turns out to be gay... then YOU could have a problem.

Hey... you never know :-)

Better have your daughter keep him indoors, home schooled and sheltered from other people so he won't run into any gay and lesbian types in the real world. We surely wouldn't want to him to have an open mind, now would we, grandma?

Linda, the best thing your daughter could do for her grandson is to keep him away from an ignorant bitch like you.

Andrew

That was soooooooooooooooo funny. Thank you.

Linda, if they were called the gay transgender scouts of america, then this kid would ahve gotten his eagle award and there wouldn't be a story. so feel free to encourage your grandchildren to join scouts since they are anti gay, then maybe they will learn to be just as narrowminded as their grandmother.

And most people with any kind of Morals Linda would not, of course here on msn you are out numbered because the free will, anything goes society with no morals will out number the few that oppose. Just like Rome. People in the 21st century on their own have chose to modify the word of God to suit their needs, and that is a very serious mistake. Modifying the word of God, well I don't want to be in those shoes.

One day all will have to answer for the road they choose.

Promod,

Hilariously, if anyone has modified the word of God, it's Christians. Unless you're an Orthodox Catholic, you have changed the sacrements, you have changed what is and isn't considered sinful (divorce, anyone?). You've changed marriage rites, including for your own pastors. You've changed all kinds of things over hundreds of years. And suddenly NOW you have a problem with the changes? It's the obvious specific bias against homosexuality that makes it so apparent that this has nothing to do with the God or the Bible. If it did, where is the outrage about all the other changes? All the other sins people commit on a daily basis that no one still adheres to?

It's patently obvious that people are using God and their religion as an excuse to justify their hate and fear of a group of people. And, assuming God does exist, you will be answering to Him for that.

there ain't no badge for gayness...most folks like it better when sexuality isn't a factor...in their dealing with groups...who cares what some some young puss...wants you to know his sexual preference...

When you Judge someone on what they do with their Private parts.. you are Superficial Person ...there's alot more to a person than their Sexuality...and if you don't get that ..you are one unevolved Human being...and also time to check where you fall ..on The Kinsey Scale...