Based on their official statement, the Mormons are compromising with moral corruption. So what if an open homosexual isn’t having sex? That’s not the issue. The issue is open advocacy for homosexuality. This isn’t about
sympathy for a child who is struggling with same-sex attraction and helping them overcome homosexuality. It’s about normalization of homosexuality.
That’s the same reason why I would never allow an unrepentant homosexual to join my church. An unrepentant homosexual cannot be a Christian, because they believe they aren’t sinning. So what if they don’t act on it. If they advocate acceptance of homosexuality without condemning it as sin, they aren’t Christian.
Once these folks get their foot in the door, it’s only a matter of time before they want to serve as leaders. It also has a chilling effect on free and open speech. In churches, it starts with pastors who don’t want to discuss homosexuality or sin for fear of offending someone, and once the unrepentant homosexuals are in leadership positions, it reaches open acceptance of their sin.
One cannot be both morally straight and an open advocate for homosexuality. Have no doubt that that is the ultimate agenda here. Homosexuals will not be satisfied until their sexual sin is completely normalized and any dissenters are shouted or litigated out of the public sphere.
What you posted makes a lot of sense, but nothing more than this summary statement. I, too, do not believe there are grounds for compromise between the morally straight part of the Scout oath and open advocacy of disgusting, degenerate and dangerous lifestyle.
However, I also understand that there are boys who are genuinely confused thanks to a constant drumbeat and bombardment from popular culture.
This confusion includes not only homosexual inclinations but the even more popular view that sex outside of marriage is perfectly fine. The link I posted leaves no room for compromise in either case.
If troops are free to welcome a boy with either type of confusion but who does not engage in either type of sinful behavior, then I believe that there are grounds for compromise insofar as the potential sinner can be led away from their sin, as opposed to preying adult leadership which would affirm such sin.
Still, I remain highly skeptical that one can be an open homosexual without being a practitioner and, thus, a violator of the morally straight part of the Scout oath.
Nonetheless, if such boys actually exist, then I am far more willing to entrust them to morally straight adult leaders who could turn them on the right path than to throw them to society at large where the odds against it are even longer.
In short, I am willing to fight further to prevent a fine institution from being taken over completely by the homo barbarians than to abandon and surrender the entire tent because the camel has managed to get its nose in.