The Boy Scouts now allow homosexual boys to participate fully in its programs.
What does this mean?
Weren’t all boys always welcomed into the Boys Scouts? Weren’t all boys invited to be morally trained in courage, tenacity, community service, trustworthiness, and good citizenship? Weren’t all boys equally mentored to develop character and skills that honor God, country, and neighbor?
Has there ever been a time when a Boy Scout had to declare himself a heterosexual?
Who turns the heads of boys to think they must demand their rights to sexual preference? Is sexual identity a pre-cursor to responsible citizenship? In the name of common sense, we’re talking about children here!
Sexual identity rules the day… even for a Boy Scout. Alfred Kinsey would be proud. He’s the one who coined the phrase we’ve heard over and over again: “Children are sexual from birth.” Prior to Kinsey, no one ever referred to children as being “sexual” or inferred that they enjoyed or responded pleasurably to a sexual experience. Prior to the 1950s, a child was never defined as “sexual” except in the mind of a predator or pedophile.
A Boy Scout pledges on his honor to do his best “to do my duty to God and my country . . . to help other people at all times . . . to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.” What does it mean to honor God who never once identifies children as “sexual beings?”
God calls boys and girls by name. He entrusts children to moms and dads within the faithfulness of marriage so that they won’t be mistreated by those who do not see them as He does. To guard their personhood, God sets children apart from animals who are captive to instincts and bound to do whatever it is they do. Honoring God, boys are equipped to mature into self-controlled men who rise above selfish interests.
In a sin-drenched world, boys battle sinful natures and the distortion of identity. But a boy who is baptized is a son of God in Christ. He is not defined as sexual, but holy. He is not common, but uncommon. He is not slave to the weakness of body, but strong of spirit.
Baptized or not, we are all – beginning in the womb of our mothers – both body and spirit. Our bodies will change, but our spirits will live forever – either with God or apart from Him. Spiritual identity matters for eternity.
So here is my plea to the Christian community: Do not hide behind choice words like “tolerance” or “compassion.” Linger no longer in organizations shape-shifted by humanist ideologies. Take a stand for the sake of boys who journey to manhood. Treat them not as slaves to themselves, but as heirs of a Kingdom not of this world.
P.S. Fathers, grandfathers and pastors interested in alternatives to the Boy Scouts might visit Vision Forum. This ministry offers exciting resources to mentor godly young men.
Ezerwoman's Blog 
Marriage: It Is What It Is
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Commentaries of others, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Relationships, tagged " homosexuality, agape love, Aristotle & marriage, children, civilization, Defense of Marriage Act, eros, family, gay marriage, Greek culture, homosexual marriage, husband and wife, Mercatornet, passion, Plato & marriage, Robert Reilly, sodomy, state, Supreme Court, truth on March 29, 2013| Leave a Comment »
Marriage is defined by the One who created it. That would be God.
Marriage is time-honored for a reason. It benefits men, women, children and civilization itself.
Marriage, reasoned the Greeks, was upheld for the good of the state.
Proponents of homosexuality often point to ancient Greece as a culture that embraced men with men and women with women. But Robert R. Reilly, writing for MercatorNet (3-11-13), has helped me understand that the great classical philosophers would have regarded such pairings as destructive for society. Socrates and Plato condemned homosexual acts as “unnatural.” The notion that someone was a “homosexual” for life — or found his identity in this behavior — would have struck them as quite odd. The practice of sodomy was accepted between an adult male and a young boy, but only temporarily because the youth was expected to get married and start a family as soon as he reached maturity.
Plato called the act of men with men “contrary to nature” and “due to unbridled lust.” Socrates loathed sodomy, noting that it is the practice of one enslaved to his passions rather than one who seeks the good of others. “The lesson,” writes Reilly, “is clear. Once Eros is released from the bonds of family . . . passions can possess the soul. Giving in to them is a form of madness because erotic desire is not directed toward any end that can satisfy it. It is insatiable.”
“That which causes evil in the soul,” said Plato, will ultimately result in political disorder. Plato understood the unbridled practice of sodomy to cause such evil and, thus, bring chaos to a nation built on order and logic.
It is for this reason that Greek philosophers spoke of the virtues of chastity and procreation within marriage. Aristotle described man and woman together in family without which the rest of society cannot exist.
Reilly explains, “Without family, there are no villages, which are associations of families, and without villages, there is no polis. ‘Every state is [primarily] composed of households,’ Aristotle asserts. In other words, without households – meaning husbands and wives together in families – there is no state. In this sense, the family is the pre-political institution. The state does not make marriage possible; marriage makes the state possible. Homosexual marriage would have struck Aristotle as an absurdity since you could not found a polity on its necessarily sterile relations. This is why the state has a legitimate interest in marriage, because, without it, it has no future.”
The Greeks understood the importance of marriage which is, as they saw it, the pairing of male and female as husband and wife. With that in mind, Reilly explains, “then chastity becomes the indispensable political principle because it is the virtue which regulates and makes possible the family – the cornerstone unit of the polis. Without the practice of this virtue, the family becomes inconceivable. Without it, the family disintegrates.”
“Homosexual” marriage, to Aristotle, would have been a self-contradiction. Perhaps that is why the word “homosexuality” did not exist in Greek, or any other language, until the late 19th century. Why would it? Truth dictates that “homosexual” is an oxymoron.
Jesus is Truth. He is also Love and Life. He instituted the agape love of marriage so that life might abound. He mourns the consequences of sinful choices. He does not rejoice in the pain that comes from confusion and slavery to selfish passion. But, He is faithful to the repentant who call upon His name.
Sin deceives. It distorts the meaning of love and alters relationships. But, the wisdom of Truth prevails.
The Greeks might not have acknowledged the source of truth, but they saw the wisdom of it.
Appreciation to Robert R. Reilly, MercatorNet, 3-11-2013
Read Full Post »