Perhaps it would be easier to grasp this "bigotry" if we were to change the label of the sin involved. Let's say a group of people came out of the closet as having the proclivity for robbing banks. They say it is in their genetic code to want to rob banks. They can't help it. It is how they were created. Now they want social acceptance. They band together to start a bank-robbing movement. They infiltrate government, schools and even churches to win the acceptance they are looking for. They don't want help overcoming their sin; they want people to look at it as if it weren't even a sin. They label those who condemn their actions as wrong, as being "bankrobophobic" and start swaying public opinion against those who still cling to their own sense of morality.

What would we in the church do? I would hope that we would respond Biblically by approaching each sinner individually out of love and confront him in his sin, urging him to repent. Counsel him that robbing banks is wrong and that through Christ, he can resist his bank-robbing tendencies. If he doesn’t listen you, take one or two others along, so that there are witnesses. If he maintains that bank robbing is not wrong, we should then go the church and with the elders again confront him in his sin. If he WILL NOT REPENT, then he should be cut off from the church lest he influence others to sin as well.

Now of course this is a ridiculous analogy because bank robbing is not a victimless crime, so no one (I would hope) would ever be persuaded to change their views on bank robbing. But everyone needs to understand that neither is homosexuality victimless. The victims are the future generations who are being raised to believe that it is not wrong. In middles schools today, there is talk about how homosexual experimentation is a “safe” alternative because no pregnancy results. “It doesn’t mean you’re gay, it’s just having fun.”

The Boy Scouts of America has never discriminated against someone with a homosexual proclivity, just against someone who openly condones the immoral behavior. So maybe it’s just confusing that there isn’t a different term for someone who has the proclivity and someone who lives the lifestyle and is unrepentant. After all you wouldn’t label someone a bank robber just for loving those type of films, secretly planning/fantasizing about them and imagining the thrill of being clever enough to get away with it, but would never actually pull one off? No, bank robber is a label reserved for those who actually commit the crime. The policy of the BSA has not been to exclude homosexuals (the proclivity) but only exclude those who practice/endorse the deviant sexual behavior of homosexuality just as it has excluded those who practice/endorse any other immoral behavior because it goes against their teachings. And now BSA has cow-tailed to political and social pressure and watered down their sense of morality. This policy has opened the door to even more change. Shame on them!

And shame on you, Rev. Larry Seiferth, for joining the homosexual agenda in condemning those who are standing firm against changing our sense of morality to bring social acceptance of their continued immoral behavior and labeling us bigots. God’s view on homosexuality (the act) is clear. It is an ABOMINATION! And we as Christians need to remember that while Christ loves and died for all, he didn’t stop at just forgiving us, he admonishes us to go and SIN NO MORE. God’s forgiveness is not a license to keep on sinning. Anyone who denies and endorses any sin should be cut off from the church body. Does that mean we stop loving them? No. Does that mean we stop praying for them? No. Does it mean we don’t welcome them back if they repent? No. It means we exclude them while they are in denial of their sin to keep them from influencing the weak among us. Homosexuality (the act) is just the sin du jour because denying the sin is exactly what the homosexual movement is doing!

And who among us is more weak and in need of our protection than our children?