I am not a scout, never was one, never cared for it.
However, I have had friends growing up who were and I can say that while I
didn't care to be one, it was fun for them and I'd support that. Today, after a
long break from writing, I am back with this issue: My problem with the scouts.
In the recent months they have come under fire for their
stance on homosexuals and now that they're more accepting, they have slid back
out of the limelight. I honestly believe they should have accepted homosexuals
in the first place and just left it at that. However, there are others that
believe their very presence is a sin and these people are called scout parents.
If you were to ask a child if they care whether their friend is gay of not,
more often than not you would receive a non committal grunt indicating they
really couldn't care less. Ask a parent, and that's when the phobia and the
hate starts.
I find it bothersome that homosexual people are boiled down
to single issue people. Yes, their desire to be treated equal have made plenty
of homosexuals very visual in the news, but there are two problems here. First, straight
people support them at rallies as well. Second, even after the rights rally is
over, they have other things they want too, whether it be immigration reform,
pro-choice/life issues, taxes (yes, them "queerosexuals" pay your
national defense too), or just getting to the store to get things for dinner.
Like any of us, they are more than our biggest political issue.
Why am I so bothered about this right now? Well, I went and
stuck my nose somewhere I knew would rile me up. I was doing research on
varying types of political interest groups and came across this gem on the Family
Research Council website, courtesy of one Rob Schwarzwalder:
"We also have
to face the fact that homosexual predation within Scouts has been a significant
problem. Is every homosexual a pedophile or predator? Of course not; no one
suggests, or should suggest, that. Yet the abuse that has taken place in the
Scouts has been initiated by homosexuals."
I would like to immediately point out that this person is saying that all of the sexual abuse has been done by homosexuals. There hasn't been a single straight or bisexual person that was abused and is taking it out on the kids, at least, according to him.
And then we have this:
"Many of us have
homosexual friends, neighbors and family members. It's my hope that all
believers treat them with love and respect. Yet as a Christian, I affirm
Scripture's teaching that the only appropriate sexually intimate conduct exists
between a man and a woman within marriage. This means I don't want, as role
models or life-influencers for my sons, heterosexual adulterers or
fornicators-or homosexuals. This is grounded in the teachings of the Word of
God, not hatred or bigotry."
Alright, I'll be controversial and say it is his right how
to raise his family and whether or not he accepts homosexual behavior. However,
he makes the massive assumption that because a scout master is gay, that means the
scoutmaster is incapable of teaching right from wrong. How can one "treat
them with love and respect" when one isn't willing to trust that they
aren't some kind of evil, anti-Christian, homo converters? It makes me wonder whether
this person has ever taken a class administered by a homosexual teacher. I
have, many classes in fact, and I can say that in all of my experiences, they
don't teach any different than the heterosexual teachers.
This author has boiled morals down to a single issue: who's
company someone prefers in the bedroom. Morals are a complex set of issues that
span many subjects, to boil a person down to one issue and deny them the same
respects you give anyone else is, in my opinion, one of the most amoral things
possible. If we were to turn the tables on this man and choose another issue,
let's say loving thy neighbor, then he would fail miserably.
The biblical proof that "god hates fags" (to quote
the Westboro Baptist Church) is a quote from Corinthians and a quote from Leviticus.
In researching the Corinthian quote I found a number of different translations
carrying different meanings. Then we come to Leviticus and yes, I will trot out
the old argument. Why? Because it is true. If you're willing to go back to
Leviticus for unbreakable, rules, then you better be prepared to live by all of
its rules, this includes bans against: eating fat, eating blood, touching an
unclean animal, letting your hair become unkempt, going to church up to 33 days
after giving birth to a boy (66 for a girl), spreading slander (Baptist
churches are predispositioned to fail at this), practicing divination or seeking
omens (no more reading your horoscope), trimming your beard, cutting your hair
at the sides, getting tattoos, mistreating foreigners (that's 95% of the south
there), Blashpemy (punishable by death), and eye for an eye. Christians are
more than happy to forgo many, if not all of these and more under the guise of
"well, it's only meant to be a guide, not unbreakable rules." Some of
these rules are great, such as the ones stating you are not allowed to bear a
grudge, mistreat foreigners, or use dishonest weights and scales.
The counter to my argument is that some of these laws are
either immoral or illegal and we need to be better. However, I'm going to pull
the same counter they would use against allowing homosexuality: it is a
slippery slope. It clearly states in the bible that any blasphemy means the
blasphemer should be put to death, how far do we go until laws such as that
become seriously considered?
We live in a time where the close-minded tribe mentality from over two millennia ago can not guide us. Such materials, when taken literally, can be used to oppress and harm people who have done nothing but simply exist. Homosexuals are one such group and they deserve better. When we reduce them to only one aspect we have trouble seeing a whole person, only an issue. A gay scout master is still a scout master, he will still teach right versus wrong, survival skills, and all the other skills the organization teaches, the only difference is when he goes home it will not be to a woman.
We live in a time where the close-minded tribe mentality from over two millennia ago can not guide us. Such materials, when taken literally, can be used to oppress and harm people who have done nothing but simply exist. Homosexuals are one such group and they deserve better. When we reduce them to only one aspect we have trouble seeing a whole person, only an issue. A gay scout master is still a scout master, he will still teach right versus wrong, survival skills, and all the other skills the organization teaches, the only difference is when he goes home it will not be to a woman.
Reference articles:
