View Full Version : It's Official: Boy Scouts vote to allow gay members
VooDoo6Actual
05-23-13, 19:12
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/23/boy-scouts-gay-vote/2352077/
Should be interesting to see the demographic populations & cultural/ethnic et al etc. shifts transpire. I have a clue what will transpire but given the polemic nature & current vitriol here I'll refrain from my prognostications.
Belmont31R
05-23-13, 19:18
BSA is out for my family and several people I know.
GeorgiaBoy
05-23-13, 19:19
Welcome to 2013, Boy Scouts of America.
Gonna have to let females into the Boy Scouts. Why should the gays be the only ones who can have sex in their tents? Discrimination!!
VooDoo6Actual
05-23-13, 19:29
Gonna have to let females into the Boy Scouts. Why should the gays be the only ones who can have sex in their tents? Discrimination!!
Sure why discriminate might as well be LBGT et al etc. as well
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/photo_zpsed350f39.jpg (http://s40.photobucket.com/user/teehee321/media/photo_zpsed350f39.jpg.html)
Moose-Knuckle
05-23-13, 20:15
I find it wholly ironic.
The same people who demand that private institutions such as the BSA adhere to the beckon call of something they do not agree with utilize the same tactics that they accuse said institutions of . . . . . intolerance.
Why is it that the LBGT community and their supporters cannot respect the rights of the BSA?
"Can't see the forrest through the trees . . . "
steyrman13
05-23-13, 20:22
I am contemplating sending my Eagle Scout certificate back to the national office in disgust
I find it wholly ironic.
The same people who demand that private institutions such as the BSA adhere to the beckon call of something they do not agree with utilize the same tactics that they accuse said institutions of . . . . . intolerance.
Why is it that the LBGT community and their supporters cannot respect the rights of the BSA?
"Can't see the forrest through the trees . . . "
So if a private institution wants to be racist or sexist or religion...ist... Is that ok? Or would you consider those institutions intolerant of those other races, the other sex, or other religions?
ridgerunner70
05-23-13, 20:28
We had a chief of police running our chapter just a few years ago. Come to find out he molested 4-6 of the kids for years. It was a wake up call to a small community.
We had a chief of police running our chapter just a few years ago. Come to find out he molested 4-6 of the kids for years. It was a wake up call to a small community.
What's your point? That all chiefs of police molest kids and can't be trusted? Or is that an over simplification and vast generalization I just made?
Moose-Knuckle
05-23-13, 20:32
So if a private institution wants to be racist or sexist or religion...ist... Is that ok? Or would you consider those institutions intolerant of those other races, the other sex, or other religions?
You may not agree with someone's or some organization’s views as that is your right but they still have the right to have said views.
You may not agree with someone's or some organization’s views as that is your right but they still have the right to have said views.
So it's ok for, say, Wal-Mart to ban all African Americans because they dislike them and because statistically they are probably less affluent than Caucasians and are thus probably more statistically likely to steal?
And you're saying their right to have and voice an opinion trumps everyone else's right to also have and voice an opinion?
Moose-Knuckle
05-23-13, 20:40
So it's ok for, say, Wal-Mart to ban all African Americans because they dislike them?
And you're saying their right to have and voice an opinion trumps everyone else's right to also have and voice an opinion?
So your saying that if you don't agree with somone or some orignization they do not have a right to their rights?
steyrman13
05-23-13, 20:41
So it's ok for, say, Wal-Mart to ban all African Americans because they dislike them and because statistically they are probably less affluent than Caucasians and are thus probably more statistically likely to steal?
And you're saying their right to have and voice an opinion trumps everyone else's right to also have and voice an opinion?
Race is a protected issue, sexual orientation is not
ridgerunner70
05-23-13, 20:42
What's your point? That all chiefs of police molest kids and can't be trusted? Or is that an over simplification and vast generalization I just made?
No, I'm saying that it could be anyone to do bad things where our small community put trust in. It was a shock and unexpected.
So your saying that if you don't agree with somone or some orignization they to not have a right to their rights?
No.
People have a right to their opinion. Other people have a right to their opinion on your opinion. Both are protected.
If you hate the military and wish to voice that opinion, that's your right in the USA. It's also my right to voice my disagreement with your opinion.
You are putting forth that people should blindly respect all other people's opinions. Screw that. People can have retarded opinions and deserve to be called out on it.
Race is a protected issue, sexual orientation is not
Yes, sexual orientation is not a protected class. That's the entire point of the lgbt civil rights movement.
No, I'm saying that it could be anyone to do bad things where our small community put trust in. It was a shock and unexpected.
Copy that.
steyrman13
05-23-13, 20:49
Scout Oath:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
Just thought I would highlight the main belief of scouts.....meaning that this new decision is one completely opposite decision from their core beliefs!
Scout Oath:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
Just thought I would highlight the main belief of scouts.....meaning that this new decision is one completely opposite decision from their core beliefs!
On the other hand, wouldn't you say intolerance because of a genetic trait is pretty morally crooked?
Mauser KAR98K
05-23-13, 20:53
As an Eagle Scout, I am ashamed at this.
steyrman13
05-23-13, 20:53
On the other hand, wouldn't you say intolerance because of a genetic trait is pretty morally crooked?
Should we tolerate drug addicts, alcoholics, other genetic issues that are wrong?
Smuckatelli
05-23-13, 20:59
On the other hand, wouldn't you say intolerance because of a genetic trait is pretty morally crooked?
Is it a genetic trait? I have heard that before but I haven't seen anything links to medical or scientific work that backs that up.
On the other hand, wouldn't you say intolerance because of a genetic trait is pretty morally crooked?
There's nothing about homosexuality that's genetic. Perhaps you meant psychological?
steyrman13
05-23-13, 21:06
Is it a genetic trait? I have heard that before but I haven't seen anything links to medical or scientific work that backs that up.
I have seen info from both sides to regards of that so I play it in their field with their own ball... It is in same field as alcoholic or drug addiction genetics. It is still wrong and STILL a decision
Straight Shooter
05-23-13, 21:07
"Genetic Trait" MY HAIRY ASS, said semi-angrily.:mad:
NOBODY is born "gay". They are influenced or CHOOSE that lifestyle.
And NOBODY HERE can provide evidence otherwise.
And FOR THE RECORD, it is my personal belief, and yes Ive seen stats somewhere, that homosexuals are FAR FAR more likely to molest and abuse kids sexually than straights.
Moose-Knuckle
05-23-13, 21:13
No.
People have a right to their opinion. Other people have a right to their opinion on your opinion. Both are protected.
If you hate the military and wish to voice that opinion, that's your right in the USA. It's also my right to voice my disagreement with your opinion.
I categorically agree with you.
You are putting forth that people should blindly respect all other people's opinions. Screw that. People can have retarded opinions and deserve to be called out on it.
And you are taking the stance that the BSA cannot do the same with the LBGT community.
Yes, sexual orientation is not a protected class. That's the entire point of the lgbt civil rights movement.
So then why are traditionally heterosexual institutions such as the BSA not afforded those same civil rights to be left alone and conduct business as usual so long as they are not breaking the law and or physically harming anyone? Being a member of a privat club is not a right, if it was I would be sitting in on the meetings of Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, the Boule, etc.
If the LBGT community and their supporters so desire a scouting origization for LBGT youth, then by all means they can create one.
I categorically agree with you.
And you are taking the stance that the BSA cannot do the same with the LBGT community.
So then why are traditionally heterosexual institutions such as the BSA not afforded those same civil rights to be left alone and conduct business as usual so long as they are not breaking the law and or physically harming anyone? Being a member of a privat club is not a right, if it was I would be sitting in on the meetings of Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, the Boule, etc.
If the LBGT community and their supporters so desire a scouting origization for LBGT youth, then by all means they can create one.
So the phrase "separate but equal" is agreeable to you?
And no, I am not taking the stance that the BSA cannot have its own opinion. Where do you even get that? Have I done anything in this thread besides ask questions (with one or two exceptions)?
steyrman13
05-23-13, 21:21
If the LBGT community and their supporters so desire a scouting origization for LBGT youth, then by all means they can create one.
I've been saying the same thing. Start a LBGT scouts of America or something.
If you disagree with an orgs standards or beliefs, most people choose to join a different one or start their own, not force that org to change its stance.
Hence different denominations in Christianity, Islam, etc.
...
...
WHO GIVES A ****
Eagle Scouts apparently.
I just love how the same group of guys who will go down shooting for their gun rights can be so ****ing bigoted about the most insignificant shit.
I just love how the same group of guys who will go down shooting for their gun rights can be so ****ing bigoted about the most insignificant shit.
There is a reason for that. People aren't being intellectually inconsistent here. Not a single person in this thread is hypocritical from his or her point of view.
Moose-Knuckle
05-23-13, 21:48
So the phrase "separate but equal" is agreeable to you?
I think that the BSA can let anyone in their club that they so choose to and they should not have to let those they do not want in due to being pressured by the LBGT community and their supporters.
And no, I am not taking the stance that the BSA cannot have its own opinion. Where do you even get that? Have I done anything in this thread besides ask questions (with one or two exceptions)?
Okay, but you are taking the stance that they should be forced by rule of law to accept homosexuals that want to be members no?
I think that the BSA can let anyone in their club that they so choose to and they should not have to let those they do not want in due to being pressured by the LBGT community and their supporters.
Okay, but you are taking the stance that they should be forced by rule of law to accept homosexuals that want to be members no?
So I go back to my original question, if the issue was about race instead of homosexuality, would you still be ok with that?
No, I'm not taking any stance about forcing anyone to do anything. I'm just asking questions.
Moose-Knuckle
05-23-13, 21:53
WHO GIVES A ****
Why do you give a **** that we give a ****?
I just love how the same group of guys who will go down shooting for their gun rights can be so ****ing bigoted about the most insignificant shit.
I think that is ****ing bigoted to have homosexuality forced upon individuals and groups who do not agree with it.
Moose-Knuckle
05-23-13, 21:58
So I go back to my original question, if the issue was about race instead of homosexuality, would you still be ok with that?
I don't agree with the New Black Panthers on a damn thing but I contend they have the right to exist so long as they do not harm the physcial well being of others.
No, I'm not taking any stance about forcing anyone to do anything. I'm just asking questions.
Solid copy.
I don't agree with the New Black Panthers on a damn thing but I contend they have the right to exist so long as they do not harm the physcial well being of others.
That's not what I was getting at, my fault.
What I mean is, if a private organization, like the BSA, wanted to deny membership based solely on race, would that be ok with you like how denying membership based solely on sexual orientation is ok?
Disregard the law and assume there are no protected classes of people for now.
GeorgiaBoy
05-23-13, 22:18
I think that is ****ing bigoted to have homosexuality forced upon individuals and groups who do not agree with it.
How do you "disagree" with what someone is? Why is it so offensive to you that a group of people that have longed been ridiculed and given little tolerance are desiring to have more equal tolerance, status, and opportunities? Your statement practically mirrors the statements made by anti-civil rights advocates.
Why should it matter any more if a potential Boy Scout puts on his application that he is gay than that he is black, Asian, or has blue eyes?
The tactic is, infiltrate and overtake, and ruin it.
The BSA has effectively been ruined. Many churches will stop sponsoring, many scouts and leaders will leave. I hope they form another group, but as sure as the sun is coming up in the morning, they will again be lambasted and infiltrated. Most young boys that age wouldn't even know what gay was, except the LBGT community seems hell bent on telling them exactly what it is, so they can tell them it's "ok".
The rule will NOT work. Openly gay scouts when confronted with straight scouts who disagree with their choice will cause conflict; now the scout leader will have to give protected status to the gay scout over all the straight scouts, and then the indoctrination of "gay is great" begins - either embrace it, or quit.
The LBGT community didn't WANT an alternative organization to the BSA, they wanted to DESTROY the BSA and they just got away with it.
The scouts are a private organization, therefore they can make whatever rules they damn please. I wish they'd had the good sense to stick with their beliefs instead of caving.
They will have to change their oath otherwise it's hypocritical, and exactly what made the BSA special just got destroyed. Watch and see.
And of course, the battle for openly gay scoutMASTERS continues...
steyrman13
05-23-13, 22:26
The tactic is, infiltrate and overtake, and ruin it.
The BSA has effectively been ruined. Many churches will stop sponsoring, many scouts and leaders will leave. I hope they form another group, but as sure as the sun is coming up in the morning, they will again be lambasted and infiltrated. Most young boys that age wouldn't even know what gay was, except the LBGT community seems hell bent on telling them exactly what it is, so they can tell them it's "ok".
The rule will NOT work. Openly gay scouts when confronted with straight scouts who disagree with their choice will cause conflict; now the scout leader will have to give protected status to the gay scout over all the straight scouts, and then the indoctrination of "gay is great" begins - either embrace it, or quit.
The LBGT community didn't WANT an alternative organization to the BSA, they wanted to DESTROY the BSA and they just got away with it.
The scouts are a private organization, therefore they can make whatever rules they damn please. I wish they'd had the good sense to stick with their beliefs instead of caving.
They will have to change their oath otherwise it's hypocritical, and exactly what made the BSA special just got destroyed. Watch and see.
And of course, the battle for openly gay scoutMASTERS continues...
This!
Why couldn't they have been satisfied with the charter by charter decision rather than BSA wide? Exactly your point to infiltrate and destroy. And as stated churches are going to be dropping charters left and right
How do you "disagree" with what someone is? Why is it so offensive to you that a group of people that have longed been ridiculed and given little tolerance are desiring to have more equal tolerance, status, and opportunities? Your statement practically mirrors the statements made by anti-civil rights advocates.
Why should it matter any more if a potential Boy Scout puts on his application that he is gay than that he is black, Asian, or has blue eyes?
Black, Asian, Blue eyes - all visible differences. Is gay a 'visible difference'? (btw, in a lot of instances but not all, yes it is).
In response, why does he even need to profess that he's gay on an application? Unless there's a merit badge I've never heard of, there's no activity the Scouts would be involved in that created any gay or straight conflicts. So, the only time Gay comes up is if the gay scout makes a sexual pass on another, straight scout. And that would still (for now) be against the rules, right?
I'll answer my own question: It's because they want SPECIAL STATUS; they want to destroy anyone or anything that doesn't EMBRACE their gayness. They WANT a "gay-pride' merit badge to display their special status; they want to ram that 'special status' down everyone else's throats...wow that starting to sound like a merit badge they'd like, doesn't it.
My Brother is a local Scoutmaster, and my nephew was a promising young scout (he has some vague clue about 'gay' but that's about it). This troop will disband, and these boys will lose - all for someone else to be 'special'....I really won't matter how BADLY they want to seek/demand/legislate/sue for acceptance, it's still not going to fill the HUGE hole in their soul....
Straight Shooter
05-23-13, 22:56
HOT DAMNED RIGHT ON SKYDIVR.
They think they ****in "enlightened" or some shit. Like THEY are the NATURAL order of things.
Ill never ever accept it...I wont ever be forced to accept it, and Ill never knowingly associate with any of them.
If that sounds ANGRY..****in A good.
The butt hurt (haha) in this thread is staggering.
Claims that people are trying to destroy the BSA? Get over it. This is about equal treatment and nothing more. It isn't about people being able to scream about their sexuality. It is about people being able to be scouts no matter their sexual orientation.
Groups disbanding over this? Sorry but that is pathetic. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
steyrman13
05-23-13, 23:02
Black, Asian, Blue eyes - all visible differences. Is gay a 'visible difference'? (btw, in a lot of instances but not all, yes it is).
In response, why does he even need to profess that he's gay on an application? Unless there's a merit badge I've never heard of, there's no activity the Scouts would be involved in that created any gay or straight conflicts. So, the only time Gay comes up is if the gay scout makes a sexual pass on another, straight scout. And that would still (for now) be against the rules, right?
I'll answer my own question: It's because they want SPECIAL STATUS; they want to destroy anyone or anything that doesn't EMBRACE their gayness. They WANT a "gay-pride' merit badge to display their special status; they want to ram that 'special status' down everyone else's throats...wow that starting to sound like a merit badge they'd like, doesn't it.
My Brother is a local Scoutmaster, and my nephew was a promising young scout (he has some vague clue about 'gay' but that's about it). This troop will disband, and these boys will lose - all for someone else to be 'special'....I really won't matter how BADLY they want to seek/demand/legislate/sue for acceptance, it's still not going to fill the HUGE hole in their soul....
There already is a "gay pride" badge in some scouts eyes. The little world scouts emblem that's a purple fleur de Lis. I forgot the whole reason why some local charters quit wearing them, but it had to do with some international scouting that support gay members.
We all see how the SPECIAL status worked out for other minorities wanting it
GeorgiaBoy
05-23-13, 23:05
Sometimes I wonder if the Internet was available in the 1960's how similar the discussions would be about another group of people...
It's so stupid that its hilarious.
Why should it matter any more if a potential Boy Scout puts on his application that he is gay than that he is black, Asian, or has blue eyes?
Really, this is your "argument"? That 3 or 4 Boy Scouts sleeping in a tent with one having blue eyes is no different than one them wanting to engage in acts of homosexual sodomy with the others? And that while the majority of Blacks themselves reject the ad nauseam regurgitated liberal nonsense that being black is like making the choice to commit homosexual acts and live a homosexual lifestyle, you believe that like you they should reject their beliefs and convictions about this and unfurl a bunch of rainbow flags and march in lockstep behind Obama's liberal ****tard agenda?
How do you "disagree" with what someone is? Why is it so offensive to you that a group of people that have longed been ridiculed and given little tolerance are desiring to have more equal tolerance, status, and opportunities? Your statement practically mirrors the statements made by anti-civil rights advocates.
Why should it matter any more if a potential Boy Scout puts on his application that he is gay than that he is black, Asian, or has blue eyes?
I suppose that is the big question. Is homosexuality an innate trait like race, height, or hair color? Or, it's it a behavior where the person has control? I think that most homosexuals would argue that it is completely innate - they are born attracted to the same sex. Even those who realize their alternative sexual orientation later in life will tell you that they felt "different" throughout their youth. The natural extension of this belief is that, because they are born attracted to the same sex, homosexual behavior such as sodomy is an appropriate means to express this affection.
Personally, I'm in total agreement with the first half of the equation. I have no problem believing that most gays popped out of a vagina and decided from birth that they were never going back inside. It is the second part where they act on that attraction with homosexual behavior that I get lost. The scientist in me simply can't see sodomy as natural, healthy, or anything other than maladaptive.
Thus, I have no problem with gay Boy Scouts. I do have a problem with gay Boy Scouts who want to act on their attraction during troop activities. In other words discussions of sex or sexual behaviors should have no place in a troop. Everybody should all get along if they just obey that simple rule. Sadly, the realist in me gives that rule a snowball's chance in hell...
Grand58742
05-23-13, 23:25
Groups disbanding over this? Sorry but that is pathetic. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If the NRA or GOA was suddenly to come out and say "we support a wholesale ban on assault type rifles, support magazine bans of over ten rounds and universal background checks" you don't think that would hurt their membership? You don't think people would send in their membership cards and use the American Rifleman to line their kitty litter box?
As the BSA is a religious based organization and many if not most churches have deemed homosexuality to be a sin and morally wrong, this decision is a slap in the face to the hundreds or thousands of churches that sponsor troops, packs, posts, crews and dens. So if they feel that the BSA decision to allow gay scouts is wrong and disband the various units, this is pathetic? Or the individual Scoutmasters, Troop Committee members or any other volunteer in that organization that feels the need to walk away because they made a choice not to compromise their morals. Scouting is based on volunteers and without those there is no Scouting. And this will hurt them by alienating the volunteers.
Just like standing up to the NRA if they came out with something that went against the bedrock principles the organization was formed on the individuals in scouting will make their choices. And if they decide to walk away because of something they stand for, this isn't pathetic, it's admirable. It means they won't cave in to pressure. And frankly, that's something you obviously missed with your childish statement.
30 years of Scouting in my life and over 35 years in my father's. I had some great times in Scouting, but frankly, never again until they stop caving to political and financial pressure.
steyrman13
05-23-13, 23:26
I suppose that is the big question. Is homosexuality an innate trait like race, height, or hair color? Or, it's it a behavior where the person has control? I think that most homosexuals would argue that it is completely innate - they are born attracted to the same sex. Even those who realize their alternative sexual orientation later in life will tell you that they felt "different" throughout their youth. The natural extension of this belief is that, because they are born attracted to the same sex, homosexual behavior such as sodomy is an appropriate means to express this affection.
Personally, I'm in total agreement with the first half of the equation. I have no problem believing that most gays popped out of a vagina and decided from birth that they were never going back inside. It is the second part where they act on that attraction with homosexual behavior that I get lost. The scientist in me simply can't see sodomy as natural, healthy, or anything other than maladaptive.
.
Same point I was making with being born alcoholic or addicted to drugs. Bc you are born a crackhead is it perfectly ok to smoke crack the rest of your life or fight the temptation because it is unhealthy and wrong?you worded it better though.
I suppose that is the big question. Is homosexuality an innate trait like race, height, or hair color? Or, it's it a behavior where the person has control?
Although no one has ever been able to prove that same-sex attraction is genetic, even if it was, the fact still remains that all homosexual behaviour is a deliberate wilful choice.
Same point I was making with being born alcoholic or addicted to drugs. Bc you are born a crackhead is it perfectly ok to smoke crack the rest of your life or fight the temptation because it is unhealthy and wrong?you worded it better though.
I intentionally avoided that analogy so as not to give the appearance that I was equating homosexuals and drug addicts.
Although no one has ever been able to prove that same-sex attraction is genetic, even if it was, the fact still remains that all homosexual behaviour is a deliberate wilful choice.
Agreed
GeorgiaBoy
05-23-13, 23:30
Really, this is your "argument"? That 3 or 4 Boy Scouts sleeping in a tent with one having blue eyes is no different than one them wanting to engage in acts of homosexual sodomy with the others?
How exactly do males and females not walk around together and constantly have sex with each other?
Oh yeah, it's something called restraint. And a lack of attraction to every person that is the gender you are sexually attracted too.
Your "argument" that a gay Boy Scout is somehow magically going to convince other non-gay Boy Scouts to "sodomize" falls flat on its face.
Not withstanding that ALL of this could have occurred prior to allowing OPENLY gay Boy Scouts. That's all this is.
steyrman13
05-23-13, 23:32
The butt hurt (haha) in this thread is staggering.
Claims that people are trying to destroy the BSA? Get over it. This is about equal treatment and nothing more. It isn't about people being able to scream about their sexuality. It is about people being able to be scouts no matter their sexual orientation.
Groups disbanding over this? Sorry but that is pathetic. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Obviously you weren't in the Boy Scouts. They were allowed to be in scouts no matter their sexual orientation, they just weren't allowed to " scream about their sexuality" as you put it. Basically it was along the same lines as don't ask don't tell for military. They did however ban gay scoutmasters because it is inappropriate.
It isn't just the members deciding to disban, rather the places of meeting and financial support(churches) to pull the plug on their sponsorship.
How exactly do males and females not walk around together and constantly have sex with each other?
You must have skipped freshman year at UGA. :D
steyrman13
05-23-13, 23:34
I intentionally avoided that analogy so as not to give the appearance that I was equating homosexuals and drug addicts.
Sorry. It's just that hits home with people that argue that they can't choose to not act upon a desire that is genetically ingrained. Maybe I should find another genetic trait like obesity or something
steyrman13
05-23-13, 23:38
How exactly do males and females not walk around together and constantly have sex with each other?
Oh yeah, it's something called restraint. And a lack of attraction to every person that is the gender you are sexually attracted too.
Your "argument" that a gay Boy Scout is somehow magically going to convince other non-gay Boy Scouts to "sodomize" falls flat on its face.
Not withstanding that ALL of this could have occurred prior to allowing OPENLY gay Boy Scouts. That's all this is.
Ahh restraint in consenting adults, but wait....these are kids. 11-18. Completely illegal in many cases if it were to happen. No reason to expose or tempt. Can you imagine having a bunch of 17 year old boys and 12 year old girls sleeping in the same tent, changing clothes in front of each other, doing physical activities that involve touching the body to assist over walls etc
Obviously you weren't in the Boy Scouts. They were allowed to be in scouts no matter their sexual orientation, they just weren't allowed to " scream about their sexuality" as you put it. Basically it was along the same lines as don't ask don't tell for military. They did however ban gay scoutmasters because it is inappropriate.
It isn't just the members deciding to disban, rather the places of meeting and financial support(churches) to pull the plug on their sponsorship.
Actually yes I was. Was always more active in 4H and FFA though. And comparing this to DADT doesn't help the matter at all. A person coming out in any way or being outed would have them kicked out of the military or the BSA. I stopped financially supporting BSA because of their anti Homosexual stance. Now however I will probably start donating to them again.
No, I'm saying that it could be anyone to do bad things where our small community put trust in.
But why do something that will directly increase the likelihood of such things happening?
How exactly do males and females not walk around together and constantly have sex with each other?
Sure, because men and women walking around together is like a homosexual sleeping in a tent with someone's son out in the middle of the woods. And what is the rate of pregnancy again for women serving on Navy ships? And what percentage of sexual abuse was by definition pederasty (i.e. sexual abuse committed by homosexuals against teenage boys) and not pedophilia? Was it 60% or 70%? Or was it closer to 90%?
I'm an Eagle and I wouldn't put my kids in the BSA these days.
And no, not because of this (I support homosexuals in Scouting and while we're at it *gasp* Atheists too).
The BSA didn't even address sexuality whatsoever until the Mormons hijacked them in the late 80's.
ETA: Yes, I agree XYZ group can pick and choose who they want. However, that group should not receive -any- support (whether monetary or via personnel/equipment) from the US Gov (you know, our tax money.)
Alaskapopo
05-24-13, 00:05
You may not agree with someone's or some organization’s views as that is your right but they still have the right to have said views.
So what if they KKK started a verision of the boy scouts. Sorry but thats not a good idea.
pat
I am contemplating sending my Eagle Scout certificate back to the national office in disgust
Don't do it, you earned it when this oath meant something:
On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.
GeorgiaBoy
05-24-13, 00:15
You must have skipped freshman year at UGA. :D
My freshman year was at GSU! :eek:
(Southern not State!)
So what if they KKK started a verision of the boy scouts. Sorry but thats not a good idea.
pat
How is that in any way a parallel? What indoctrination is the BSA giving kids today that's similar to racism? Does the BSA even address the topic of sexuality with scouts? (It shouldn't.)
How is that in any way a parallel? What indoctrination is the BSA giving kids today that's similar to racism? Does the BSA even address the topic of sexuality with scouts? (It shouldn't.)
Don't let Popo stir you up. Just add him to your ignore list along with GeorgiaBoy...
GeorgiaBoy
05-24-13, 01:39
Just add him to your ignore list along with GeorgiaBoy...
It's probably a good idea. Hearing differing opinions/views is usually not good for blood pressure.
Moose-Knuckle
05-24-13, 02:13
What I mean is, if a private organization, like the BSA, wanted to deny membership based solely on race, would that be ok with you like how denying membership based solely on sexual orientation is ok?
Disregard the law and assume there are no protected classes of people for now.
A private organization is just that, private. They can include and exclude whomever they so choose to based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, blood type, height, weight, grade point average, and or whatever other qualifiers they deem appropriate for their organization.
BET will never produce a show about me, Ebony magazine will never publish an article on me, I cannot join various organizations due to the fact that I am white and or that I am a male, I am not eligible for certain scholarships and grants for the same reasons.
Moose-Knuckle
05-24-13, 02:16
How do you "disagree" with what someone is? Why is it so offensive to you that a group of people that have longed been ridiculed and given little tolerance are desiring to have more equal tolerance, status, and opportunities?
I know this will be difficult for you given your support of the LGBT community but you have to realize that there are individuals and organizations that view homosexuality as amoral, such as various religious institutions (Islam, Mormons, etc.) and or private entities such as the BSA in this case. Why can their views not be respected and tolerated? I don’t see the LGBT community lining up to join the Westboro Baptist Church or their local Mosque.
Your statement practically mirrors the statements made by anti-civil rights advocates.
This logic is not only flawed but is inherently offensive to blacks. But I know as a white man that will fall on the deaf ears of the LGBT proponents. So here is E.W. Jackson, a black man on the matter:
http://www.popmodal.com/video/15095/Bishop-EW-Jackson-Message-to-Black-Christians
Why should it matter any more if a potential Boy Scout puts on his application that he is gay than that he is black, Asian, or has blue eyes?
It matters due to the fact that the BSA is traditionally a conservative faith based origination and being that homosexuality does not coincide with these traditions it takes a moral precedence as anyone who is black, Asian, and or has blue eyes can adhere to such traditions and notions.
Moose-Knuckle
05-24-13, 02:17
So what if they KKK started a verision of the boy scouts. Sorry but thats not a good idea.
pat
Well it may not be a good idea but that is a matter of opinion and does not eliminate the fact that they are still afforded the right to create such an organization under equal protection of the law, no different if the New Black Panthers wanted to create a similar organization for their children. You and I would not send our children to such a thing but that does not change the fact that they have the right to peacefully assemble.
I'm an Eagle and I wouldn't put my kids in the BSA these days.
And no, not because of this (I support homosexuals in Scouting and while we're at it *gasp* Atheists too).
The BSA didn't even address sexuality whatsoever until the Mormons hijacked them in the late 80's.
ETA: Yes, I agree XYZ group can pick and choose who they want. However, that group should not receive -any- support (whether monetary or via personnel/equipment) from the US Gov (you know, our tax money.)
I'm with you on this. The Scouts pussied themselves out decades ago, and it has nothing to do with gays.
I never made Eagle (got tired of the bullshit rules and just decided to go camping on my own), but I see no conflict with the scouting laws and accepting gays. To me, telling someone they are excluded because they do something that doesn't harm me, is hardly 'morally straight'.
That said, if BSA as a private organization wants to exclude gays, that's their right. If I disagree with it, I'm free to disassociate myself from them (and I have, for multiple reasons). But when they get my tax dollars in any way, that's unacceptable, regardless of their moral structure. We all profess a desire for small government, right? Is that only small government where 'undesirable' groups are concerned, or is it truly small government? Where in the Constitution does it say we should fund the Boy Scouts from federal tax dollars? Leave them to their own devices, and let them do as they will.
As for the molestation issue, the BSA swept it under the rug for decades despite a ban on gays. Much like the Catholic church, they were too concerned about their image and not the kids under their care. BSA is a business, like any other large 'nonprofit'. It's an institutional juggernaut that doesn't give two shits for the individual members. It's a perfect example of the problems of government that gets too big to be accountable to its constituents.
As for the molestation issue, the BSA swept it under the rug for decades despite a ban on gays. Much like the Catholic church, they were too concerned about their image and not the kids under their care. BSA is a business, like any other large 'nonprofit'. It's an institutional juggernaut that doesn't give two shits for the individual members.
The sexual abuse of minors in the government sector (government school teachers) is 2-3x higher than in the private sector (among the BSA, the Church, dentists, Rabbis, electricians, etc) and that the cover-up by the government is even more "swept under the rug" because in the end the government does not give two shits about your rights or the protection of your children.
And just because if I post this a few more times I get a set of steak knives:
"Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view -- adopted by the Boy Scouts -- is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.)
It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests -- more than 90 percent -- are accused of molesting teen-age boys. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic "Where's Waldo" reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the "teen-ager," the "former student," the "victim" and the "accuser."
Ann Coulter
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2002/03/21/should_gay_priests_adopt/page/full
Moose-Knuckle
05-24-13, 03:31
The tactic is, infiltrate and overtake, and ruin it.
The BSA has effectively been ruined. Many churches will stop sponsoring, many scouts and leaders will leave. I hope they form another group, but as sure as the sun is coming up in the morning, they will again be lambasted and infiltrated. Most young boys that age wouldn't even know what gay was, except the LBGT community seems hell bent on telling them exactly what it is, so they can tell them it's "ok".
The rule will NOT work. Openly gay scouts when confronted with straight scouts who disagree with their choice will cause conflict; now the scout leader will have to give protected status to the gay scout over all the straight scouts, and then the indoctrination of "gay is great" begins - either embrace it, or quit.
The LBGT community didn't WANT an alternative organization to the BSA, they wanted to DESTROY the BSA and they just got away with it.
The scouts are a private organization, therefore they can make whatever rules they damn please. I wish they'd had the good sense to stick with their beliefs instead of caving.
They will have to change their oath otherwise it's hypocritical, and exactly what made the BSA special just got destroyed. Watch and see.
And of course, the battle for openly gay scoutMASTERS continues...
And then there is the matter of this ^ . . .
Just how many gay adolescents are vying for entrance into the BSA?
The LGBT community is being utilized as pawns; same with blacks, women, immigrants, labor unions, as well as other “victims of society” by you know who. Though some will dispute the notion of a "gay agenda" I believe that it is in full swing and evident in such cases as this. No, gay men do not have an agenda of any sorts unto themselves but they are being used none the less to bring about a paradigm shift if you will in the fundamental belief system in this country and bring about social change whether they want it or not.
Again, one must eat an elephant one bite at a time.
Moose-Knuckle
05-24-13, 03:36
That said, if BSA as a private organization wants to exclude gays, that's their right. If I disagree with it, I'm free to disassociate myself from them (and I have, for multiple reasons). But when they get my tax dollars in any way, that's unacceptable, regardless of their moral structure. We all profess a desire for small government, right? Is that only small government where 'undesirable' groups are concerned, or is it truly small government? Where in the Constitution does it say we should fund the Boy Scouts from federal tax dollars? Leave them to their own devices, and let them do as they will.
Well said.
Though we may be on opposite sides of the aisle on the issue, I concur.
Alpha Sierra
05-24-13, 03:38
It is well within the right and authority of a private organization not open to the general public to exclude anyone they want for whatever reason they want. "Protected" categories do not apply in the case of private organizations not open to the general public.
The ones here who do not or cannot understand the above are the ones suffering from intellectual inconsistencies.
Alpha Sierra
05-24-13, 03:43
So what if they KKK started a verision of the boy scouts. Sorry but thats not a good idea.
pat
Is there any aspect of others lives that you do not think you should have control over? Any at all?
Belmont31R
05-24-13, 04:47
There are certain activities that people do that should not have to introduce sexual attraction into the mix. I don't want to send my boys off on a scouting trip with other kids who might have a sexual attraction to them and act on it.
I know some of you have some type of Starship Troopers type fantasy about cohabitation but that's just stupid. It's not much different with gays mixed with straight people and straight people of different sexes. That's why there's Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.
Same reason gays should not be in the military. Would you want your daughter to join knowing she would be forced to bunk, shower, and live in a barracks room with males? There is a reason almost every society has separate facilities for the two sexes. Yet we're forcing straight people to do all that same stuff with gays. Like I said people should be able to do things where sexual attraction is not a factor. We usually do that by separating the sexes.
Alaskapopo
05-24-13, 05:16
How is that in any way a parallel? What indoctrination is the BSA giving kids today that's similar to racism? Does the BSA even address the topic of sexuality with scouts? (It shouldn't.)
Just saying not everything should be ok just because its a private group. There are boundaries.
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-24-13, 05:18
Don't let Popo stir you up. Just add him to your ignore list along with GeorgiaBoy...
If differing opinions stir you up you should not be on a discussion forum.
Pat
Alpha Sierra
05-24-13, 05:20
Just saying not everything should be ok just because its a private group. There are boundaries.
Pat
You are wrong
Alaskapopo
05-24-13, 05:22
You are wrong
Well your entitled to your opinion as wrong as it may be.
Pat
The_War_Wagon
05-24-13, 05:42
R.I.P BSA
February 8, 1910 - May 23, 2013
:(
steyrman13
05-24-13, 08:49
I never made Eagle (got tired of the bullshit rules and just decided to go camping on my own), but I see no conflict with the scouting laws and accepting gays. To me, telling someone they are excluded because they do something that doesn't harm me, is hardly 'morally straight'.
That said, if BSA as a private organization wants to exclude gays, that's their right. If I disagree with it, I'm free to disassociate myself from them (and I have, for multiple reasons). But when they get my tax dollars in any way, that's unacceptable, regardless of their moral structure. We all profess a desire for small government, right? Is that only small government where 'undesirable' groups are concerned, or is it truly small government? Where in the Constitution does it say we should fund the Boy Scouts from federal tax dollars? Leave them to their own devices, and let them do as they will.
.
How do you not see conflict? (Unless you view homosexuality as moral), however there is still conflict because they in their oath is to Serve their duty to God which conflicts homosexuality
As far as the private org not receiving federal funds because you don't believe in their beliefs......why should scientists who believe in global warming receive money from fed when I don't believe they are correct in their ideas? Sexual orientation is not a protected right so that decision to exclude has no bearing on funding sources.
This is similar to saying that certain liberal groups should receive tax exempt status(which might as well be federal funding because they no longer have to pay thousands or millions in taxes) while conservative group cannot receive the same status.
How do you not see conflict? (Unless you view homosexuality as moral), however there is still conflict because they in their oath is to Serve their duty to God which conflicts homosexuality
Not all Judeo-Christians believe that homosexuality is immoral (just ask the Episcopalians, for example) nor is the BSA supposed to Judeo-Christian. Deist/Theist? Yes. Christian? No.
Even then it can be debated.
Alpha Sierra
05-24-13, 09:24
The BSA can be whatever it decides it wants to be. Since when do outsiders get to decide that?
The BSA can be whatever it decides it wants to be. Since when do outsiders get to decide that?
Outsiders didn't decide. The council of 1,400 voted on it. The council voted to allow it.
steyrman13
05-24-13, 09:37
Outsiders didn't decide. The council of 1,400 voted on it. The council voted to allow it.
Because they were blasted with protestors, emails, mail, calls, and whatever other means.
The prob with it being"deist, theist" is most scout troops are sponsored or chartered within a Jude's/Christian church, which do believe it is wrong. Therefore they loose that sponsorship and place of meeting.
There are certain activities that people do that should not have to introduce sexual attraction into the mix. I don't want to send my boys off on a scouting trip with other kids who might have a sexual attraction to them and act on it.
I know some of you have some type of Starship Troopers type fantasy about cohabitation but that's just stupid. It's not much different with gays mixed with straight people and straight people of different sexes. That's why there's Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.
Same reason gays should not be in the military. Would you want your daughter to join knowing she would be forced to bunk, shower, and live in a barracks room with males? There is a reason almost every society has separate facilities for the two sexes. Yet we're forcing straight people to do all that same stuff with gays. Like I said people should be able to do things where sexual attraction is not a factor. We usually do that by separating the sexes.
This. While it isn't my place to judge what other people do with their private lives, it doesn't mean that I want my kids anywhere near them or their beliefs. So no Scouts for us!
C4
The prob with it being"deist, theist" is most scout troops are sponsored or chartered within a Jude's/Christian church, which do believe it is wrong. Therefore they loose that sponsorship and place of meeting.
I'll bet most churches don't just dump their Scout troops on the street because of this decision.
I dont understand some you gents. Lets remove religion from the equation and just look at parenting. Who in the hell would want their son on a camping trip with gay young men? Why would the parent of a gay son want their son to be forced to mingle with disgruntled peers? Ridiculous; I hope the whole program goes the way of Lady Ga Ga, its dead.
/eta.. looks like Belmont mentioned all this.
brickboy240
05-24-13, 09:40
As a former Eagle Scout...I am not sure how I feel about this decision.
My Libertarian side says...let them in. God is going to judge them later for their lifestyle choices (maybe) and it is not my place to judge or tell them how to live. I also believe (since I know several gay people) that young gay Scouts could be able to function and participate and not have their sexual preference become an issue. I also feel that even if gays do join...they might receive so much grief and teasing from other young boys, they drop out and gays entering the Scouts might not be an issue. They might just decide to stay away all on their own.
This is a private organization and if they want to ban or allow whomever...it is their choice.
My OTHER side tells me that allowing these people in might cause disruptions and problems within the troops that they are not facing right now. It might also cause the more evangelical members to quit or bow out and troops will miss out on some great leaders and boys that should be in there associating with others.
I am actually surprised the vote went down like it did.
-brickboy240
Belmont31R
05-24-13, 09:45
Outsiders didn't decide. The council of 1,400 voted on it. The council voted to allow it.
After years of being called bigots and other such non sense.
Saw the gays press conference. This is just the 1st step they said.
How about an organization not even touch the topics of sexuality and religion and just teach kids useful survival skills? They should be thankful kids want to even do that stuff anymore.
My brother is an Eagle, but it seems the only thing he learned was about plants and how to tie knots.
Belmont31R
05-24-13, 09:50
How about an organization not even touch the topics of sexuality and religion and just teach kids useful survival skills? They should be thankful kids want to even do that stuff anymore.
My brother is an Eagle, but it seems the only thing he learned was about plants and how to tie knots.
Varies troop to troop. I was in when younger and my best friend made Eagle. Helped him on his project. Not all are created equal.
How is that in any way a parallel? What indoctrination is the BSA giving kids today that's similar to racism? Does the BSA even address the topic of sexuality with scouts? (It shouldn't.)
And they don't.
They are going to have to change their oath, too...betcha they take "God" out of it also....
What I want to know is WHY does any Scout feel the need to express his sexuality?
Again, this is another example of the "needs of the one outweighing the needs of the many".....
I'm waiting to see what my brother's troop is going to do...
Don't let Popo stir you up. Just add him to your ignore list along with GeorgiaBoy...
If differing opinions stir you up you should not be on a discussion forum.
Pat
There's a difference between holding different opinions (e.g., AR vs AK) and supporting the growth of tyranny or the promotion of deviant acts. You aren't a fool for liking one well-established weapon system more than another, but you might be a fool (or a useful idiot) if your mind is so warped that you can't see evil for what it is and willfully support it in the name of "equality" or so-called "tolerance" (neither of which are accurate or honest uses of those words which have been cleverly co-opted).
How about an organization not even touch the topics of sexuality and religion and just teach kids useful survival skills?
That's the way it used to be...
steyrman13
05-24-13, 11:07
How about an organization not even touch the topics of sexuality and religion and just teach kids useful survival skills? They should be thankful kids want to even do that stuff anymore.
My brother is an Eagle, but it seems the only thing he learned was about plants and how to tie knots.
Then start a new program called something else for ones that don't touch religion or sexuality???? Why is this so hard
How do you not see conflict? (Unless you view homosexuality as moral), however there is still conflict because they in their oath is to Serve their duty to God which conflicts homosexuality
As far as the private org not receiving federal funds because you don't believe in their beliefs......why should scientists who believe in global warming receive money from fed when I don't believe they are correct in their ideas? Sexual orientation is not a protected right so that decision to exclude has no bearing on funding sources.
This is similar to saying that certain liberal groups should receive tax exempt status(which might as well be federal funding because they no longer have to pay thousands or millions in taxes) while conservative group cannot receive the same status.
I don't think liberal groups should get federal funding either. Where on earth did you get that idea from my post?
As for morality, I don't think gay sex is any innately moral or immoral than straight sex. If it's between two consenting adults, I couldn't care less. If force our coercion is involved, then it's immoral either way. I'm not a Christian, so I don't particularly care what the Bible says on the matter. Leviticus also declares eating shellfish an abomination. Do you protest clam bakes too? Wearing blended fabrics is also an abomination. Are people going to hell for wearing a poly-cotton shirt? Should we force all menstruating women to go camp outside town?
I think it's up to the members to police themselves. Purge the fruitery from the heard. But then some sausage dabbler would probably sue for a hostile Scout environment. :rolleyes:
Leonidas24
05-24-13, 11:36
I don't think liberal groups should get federal funding either. Where on earth did you get that idea from my post?
As for morality, I don't think gay sex is any innately moral or immoral than straight sex. If it's between two consenting adults, I couldn't care less. If force our coercion is involved, then it's immoral either way. I'm not a Christian, so I don't particularly care what the Bible says on the matter. Leviticus also declares eating shellfish an abomination. Do you protest clam bakes too? Wearing blended fabrics is also an abomination. Are people going to hell for wearing a poly-cotton shirt? Should we force all menstruating women to go camp outside town?
The laws in Leviticus are Hebrew laws, not Christian. I don't know why people bring up the Old Testament only to use it as a "gotcha" example. The Mosaic laws of the Leviticus and Deuteronomy were nullified by Jesus' death and fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant.
NeoNeanderthal
05-24-13, 11:43
The laws in Leviticus are Hebrew laws, not Christian. I don't know why people bring up the Old Testament only to use it as a "gotcha" example. The Mosaic laws of the Leviticus and Deuteronomy were nullified by Jesus' death and fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant.
I dont know a god damn thing about the bible, but it sounds to me like you just won.
TriviaMonster
05-24-13, 12:17
I don't get why we have to know that someone is gay? I am concerned that the new generation of homosexuals think of it as being a defining characteristic. Its not.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
The laws in Leviticus are Hebrew laws, not Christian. I don't know why people bring up the Old Testament only to use it as a "gotcha" example. The Mosaic laws of the Leviticus and Deuteronomy were nullified by Jesus' death and fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant.
Because I frequently see anti-gay activists quoting Leviticus to justify their position. And did Jesus not say that he came not to overthrow the law, but to confirm it?
I just talked to my Brother Scoutmaster. He says 60% of the voting was in favor; he says it's all about money - the TN Scouting director's salary is over $200k....it's become about money and not about the eithics and vow they took as Scouts.
The TN delegation voted against it and has vowed not to uphold it so we'll see how that goes. Closer to home, his troop is not currently affected that he knows of, and if an openly gay scout shows up and makes an issue of it, then they are going to quit. He will not force any other Scout to tent with an openly gay scout.
He's hoping he can make it 3 more years until his son is finished with Scouting, then leave quietly.
GeorgiaBoy
05-24-13, 12:30
I know this will be difficult for you given your support of the LGBT community but you have to realize that there are individuals and organizations that view homosexuality as amoral, such as various religious institutions (Islam, Mormons, etc.) and or private entities such as the BSA in this case. Why can their views not be respected and tolerated? I don’t see the LGBT community lining up to join the Westboro Baptist Church or their local Mosque.
I could care less what private institutions believe and they can do what they wish. But the BSA CHOSE to change their policy because of increased outside social pressures. And as a "supporter" of the LGBT rights I'm glad they made that decision.
This logic is not only flawed but is inherently offensive to blacks. But I know as a white man that will fall on the deaf ears of the LGBT proponents. So here is E.W. Jackson, a black man on the matter:
http://www.popmodal.com/video/15095/Bishop-EW-Jackson-Message-to-Black-Christians
I'm not trying to rationalize the two groups as having the same struggle. But politics aside, I'm referring to the arguments made by anti-gay supporters as being very similar to those made by civil rights opponents.
It matters due to the fact that the BSA is traditionally a conservative faith based origination and being that homosexuality does not coincide with these traditions it takes a moral precedence as anyone who is black, Asian, and or has blue eyes can adhere to such traditions and notions.
What should matter is that sexual relations are kept forbidden. Innate sexual preferences that aren't acted upon should not affect what the scouts learn.
On the other hand, wouldn't you say intolerance because of a genetic trait is pretty morally crooked?
Could you please give me the citation where homosexuality is a genetic trait? A "genetic trait" means that some protein in the body is made, or not made, or made at different levels, or made in a different way. What is the genetic allele and what is the protein that infers homosexuality? I was un-aware that such a trait had been positively identified.
I picture a lot of Lt. Dangle Shorts in the Scouts uniform inventory soon. :rolleyes:
The laws in Leviticus are Hebrew laws, not Christian. I don't know why people bring up the Old Testament only to use it as a "gotcha" example. The Mosaic laws of the Leviticus and Deuteronomy were nullified by Jesus' death and fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant.
Very well stated and something that is never understood by people trying to use the Bible against the Bible.
I will say even though I do not agree with homosexuality I believe that the LGBT community should have equal rights. The problem has always been and always will be that there are some out there that don't want equal rights, they want more then equal rights.
For example, what is right about a lesbian womens basketball coach being allowed in the locker room while girls are changing? How quickly would a male coach be fired? What about the recent story of the 18 year old lesbian having sex with a 14 year old girl. The 18 year old girl's family has caused a stink over it and there is an online petition with over 150,000 votes to support this girls actions. The prosecutors have dropped the statutory rape charges for a lesser charge. Would an 18 year old boy get the same treatment if he was in this position?
You want to have the same rights as everyone else? Fine, no problem, but when you start going after special rights a line needs to be drawn. There will always be racists and bigots amongst us, but people need to be careful about who they call intolerant just because they don't agree with another's opinion. The intolerant person may very well be the person looking back at you in the mirror.
My take: The change passed by 60%. This was not even close. For the vote to have gone this way it would have to mean that A) 60% of the Adult leadership of the BSA is already gay. B) 60% of the Adult leadership of the BSA is straight and realized that there is no reason to exclude some boys from the program for what is most likely not a choice. C) 60% of the Adult leadership of the BSA realized that the organization needs money. It's well known that scouting was bleeding. Then again there could be "D)". I dunno what it could be but I think that it is safe to discount hoards of gay infiltrators using Jedi Mind tricks on the straight members.
Why the change in the rules. As others have said, it wasn't until the LDS took over scouting for all intents and purposes in the 80s that this even became an issue. They made the decision. Now does anyone need to know if someone is gay? Nope. In fact I could give two shits. But what the decision did was actually force the adult leadership to make note of this. With this decision the interest in a scouts sexuality is reset to the pre 80s
As to what will the effects be? On the positive side some boys won't have to hide who they are in order to participate in and contribute to the program and their community. I think this is important because Scouting's core values are seriously absent from so many. Kids don't have the opportunity at character development, citizenship training, and physical as well as mental fitness conditioning. Too many don't get to experience the benefits of the merit badge programs.
On the negative side I do know that within one hour of the announcement being made, one of our local troops was contacted by their charter organization and told they would no longer be welcome there and could not have any of their equipment. The point of this action was what? In the end it is the boys who suffer.
As for concerns about gay scouts acting on their impulses? This is not new territory. Look at Venture Scouting, which is co-ed for boys and girls, from 8th grade / 13 YO to 21 years old. They don't seem to have any problems.
My personal immediate concerns: As an adult scout leader I have to wonder if my scouts are gonna get harassed, out side of scouts, any more due to this decision? Keeping the boys in the program against the taunts they already get in school is an ever present problem. I don't have a problem with telling my scouts to lay off another scout with the cracks and cut downs should it become known if one of them is gay. After all, the Scout Master Handbook already explicitly states that we are to have zero tolerance for hazing, harassing, making fun of actions. This isn't any different.
I'm with you on this. The Scouts pussied themselves out decades ago, and it has nothing to do with gays.
But...er....um. Damn you and your logic. Look some of us are trying to un-pussy the program and give the boys something worthwhile to do. Scouting...I love working with the boys and hate dealing with their shit head, double latte drinking, tree hugging, soccer parents.
TriviaMonster
05-24-13, 14:48
I picture a lot of Lt. Dangle Shorts in the Scouts uniform inventory soon. :rolleyes:
/Thread
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
"It's just the beginning".....
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/24/18466425-boy-scouts-historic-vote-wont-end-the-debate?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1
My take: The change passed by 60%. This was not even close. For the vote to have gone this way it would have to mean that A) 60% of the Adult leadership of the BSA is already gay. B) 60% of the Adult leadership of the BSA is straight and realized that there is no reason to exclude some boys from the program for what is most likely not a choice. C) 60% of the Adult leadership of the BSA realized that the organization needs money. It's well known that scouting was bleeding. Then again there could be "D)". I dunno what it could be but I think that it is safe to discount hoards of gay infiltrators using Jedi Mind tricks on the straight members.
Why the change in the rules. As others have said, it wasn't until the LDS took over scouting for all intents and purposes in the 80s that this even became an issue. They made the decision. Now does anyone need to know if someone is gay? Nope. In fact I could give two shits. But what the decision did was actually force the adult leadership to make note of this. With this decision the interest in a scouts sexuality is reset to the pre 80s
As to what will the effects be? On the positive side some boys won't have to hide who they are in order to participate in and contribute to the program and their community. I think this is important because Scouting's core values are seriously absent from so many. Kids don't have the opportunity at character development, citizenship training, and physical as well as mental fitness conditioning. Too many don't get to experience the benefits of the merit badge programs.
On the negative side I do know that within one hour of the announcement being made, one of our local troops was contacted by their charter organization and told they would no longer be welcome there and could not have any of their equipment. The point of this action was what? In the end it is the boys who suffer.
As for concerns about gay scouts acting on their impulses? This is not new territory. Look at Venture Scouting, which is co-ed for boys and girls, from 8th grade / 13 YO to 21 years old. They don't seem to have any problems.
My personal immediate concerns: As an adult scout leader I have to wonder if my scouts are gonna get harassed, out side of scouts, any more due to this decision? Keeping the boys in the program against the taunts they already get in school is an ever present problem. I don't have a problem with telling my scouts to lay off another scout with the cracks and cut downs should it become known if one of them is gay. After all, the Scout Master Handbook already explicitly states that we are to have zero tolerance for hazing, harassing, making fun of actions. This isn't any different.
But...er....um. Damn you and your logic. Look some of us are trying to un-pussy the program and give the boys something worthwhile to do. Scouting...I love working with the boys and hate dealing with their shit head, double latte drinking, tree hugging, soccer parents.
Well said. And I wish you luck in bringing some fortitude back to Scouting.
Did Jesus's death nullify The Ten Commandments or the message of Proverbs and Psalms?
Moses wrote Leviticus. This book's strict laws on acceptable behavior most likely were drafted with the purpose of protecting the tribe from disease or instability. Menstruating women lacked fem care products and thus were considered unclean(nasty). Men's ejaculate--same idea.
The kosher concept of cleanliness and acceptable or unacceptable food enforced some healthy habits. Pigs were non kosher because the animal required more water than cattle and was destructive to crops. Homosexuality was viewed as a destabilizing force within the tribe and thus was prohibited. These laws were codified and presented as God's will.
Cultural evolution over the last 3000 years has nullified many of these ideas for some of us. Rapid societal change has liberalized views on gays, trans-genders, and other down-unders.
The gay thing is here to stay. You and I can choose to separate ourselves and make it a non issue.
Smuckatelli
05-24-13, 15:21
As for concerns about gay scouts acting on their impulses? This is not new territory. Look at Venture Scouting, which is co-ed for boys and girls, from 8th grade / 13 YO to 21 years old. They don't seem to have any problems.
While they are co-ed; do they sleep together?
I don't see how they can make this new change fair to all involved.
Do they let the boys that are homosexual sleep together in their own tents? That would be showing favoritism towards them.
Do they let them sleep with heterosexuals? ....again that would be showing favoritism towards the towards the homosexuals.
Do they allow the homosexuals to sleep alone? From some perspectives that would be favoritism but it would also ostracize him from the rest of the patrol/troop.
No matter what the camping arrangements are the homosexual would be bunking with his sexual preference.
While a cub scout, not such a big deal but after puberty is in full force the dynamics change.
If the Boy Scouts drop the camping and overnight requirements and limit functions to just one day meetings...no problems.
I picture a lot of Lt. Dangle Shorts in the Scouts uniform inventory soon. :rolleyes:
I have it from a reliable source that the scouts will be switching their headgear to the beret...
Very well stated and something that is never understood by people trying to use the Bible against the Bible.
I will say even though I do not agree with homosexuality I believe that the LGBT community should have equal rights. The problem has always been and always will be that there are some out there that don't want equal rights, they want more then equal rights.
It's also about not changing what words mean in order to gain so-called "equal" rights.
We already have marriage equality, because marriage is a term with a clear definition, as are the terms husband and wife: Every man, gay or straight, has an equal right to marry a woman. There is no inequality there.
This is also why once you start monkeying around with the basics like words and their meaning, everything becomes arbitrary and you really have no leg to stand on when it comes to denying other deviant lifestyles likewise further redefining "marriage" or demanding equal status and approval, whether it be bigamy, pedophilia, bestiality, or any other practice. This is why the standard exists to begin with, because all of those, including homosexuality, were categorized as abominable practices. Once you try to make one accepted and normalized, you're going to have to allow them all because once you twist things to where you can get enough people to support allowing one of them, the very same arguments work for all of rest.
Read the studies that are suppressed about homosexuality and you'll learn how it's a dangerous, unhealthy lifestyle, just like those other ones, and that's part of why they've all been historically near-universally forbidden whether the society was religious or secular. That's because everyone knows that society begins to fall apart when the concept of the family is broken down and sabotaged with propaganda insisting everyone call what is evil, good. Whether looking at it from the religious or the secular perspective, in neither case is it ever a good thing to allow such practices. And it's the same reason why they want to get at your children and raise them for you, so they can indoctrinate them into their warped ways of thinking before the parents have a chance to raise them properly. So that the future generation won't know the truth, won't know the history secular or religious reasons why it must be forbidden, and will instead go along with the leftist wet dream of a perverse society they are being told is actually good and equal and right, rather than wicked and filthy as it is behind the veneer.
The laws in Leviticus are Hebrew laws, not Christian. I don't know why people bring up the Old Testament only to use it as a "gotcha" example. The Mosaic laws of the Leviticus and Deuteronomy were nullified by Jesus' death and fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant.
So incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice, all prohibited in Leviticus along with homosexual sodomy, are also now ok? Really? To borrow from William Buckley, I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.
Very well stated and something that is never understood by people trying to use the Bible against the Bible.
It might have been well said, but it's still complete post-modern deconstructionist pseudo-theological puerile twaddle. Or do you also believe the prohibitions in Leviticus against incest, child sacrifice, adultery, and bestiality, are abrogated?
It might have been well said, but it's still complete post-modern deconstructionist pseudo-theological puerile twaddle. Or do you also believe the prohibitions in Leviticus against incest, child sacrifice, adultery, and bestiality, are abrogated?
Belloc, we disagree about almost everything under the sun (including, perhaps, the age of the sun). But I respect you in one major way -- you're an honest religionist and an honest Christian.
You are, of course, absolutely correct in your above statement. And I share your concern for and acknowledgement of objective reality. We are totally at odds about the fundamental nature of reality and the way to live within it, but at least agree that there are objective answers to these questions. It's shocking how quickly most religious people turn into cultural and moral relativists when things like this come up. Your honesty is refreshing.
It's also about not changing what words mean in order to gain so-called "equal" rights.
We already have marriage equality, because marriage is a term with a clear definition, as are the terms husband and wife: Every man, gay or straight, has an equal right to marry a woman. There is no inequality there.
This is also why once you start monkeying around with the basics like words and their meaning, everything becomes arbitrary and you really have no leg to stand on when it comes to denying other deviant lifestyles likewise further redefining "marriage" or demanding equal status and approval, whether it be bigamy, pedophilia, bestiality, or any other practice. This is why the standard exists to begin with, because all of those, including homosexuality, were categorized as abominable practices. Once you try to make one accepted and normalized, you're going to have to allow them all because once you twist things to where you can get enough people to support allowing one of them, the very same arguments work for all of rest.
Read the studies that are suppressed about homosexuality and you'll learn how it's a dangerous, unhealthy lifestyle, just like those other ones, and that's part of why they've all been historically near-universally forbidden whether the society was religious or secular. That's because everyone knows that society begins to fall apart when the concept of the family is broken down and sabotaged with propaganda insisting everyone call what is evil, good. Whether looking at it from the religious or the secular perspective, in neither case is it ever a good thing to allow such practices. And it's the same reason why they want to get at your children and raise them for you, so they can indoctrinate them into their warped ways of thinking before the parents have a chance to raise them properly. So that the future generation won't know the truth, won't know the history secular or religious reasons why it must be forbidden, and will instead go along with the leftist wet dream of a perverse society they are being told is actually good and equal and right, rather than wicked and filthy as it is behind the veneer.
I wish there was a 'like' button....
Look at Venture Scouting, which is co-ed for boys and girls, from 8th grade / 13 YO to 21 years old. They don't seem to have any problems.
This is a pic taken from the Venture Scouting website:
http://www.scouts.ie/uploads/images/Ventures/Trizone/Trizone5.jpg
Seems like the boys and girls don't sleep in the same tents together. So not a valid comparison. And if they did, would you really let your 13 year old daughter go off into the woods and sleep together in a tent with a teenage boy?
I see pink tent, but I don't see any girls....but I'm not letting any boy, or 17 year old lesbian girl sleep with my daughter, either...
Belloc, we disagree about almost everything under the sun (including, perhaps, the age of the sun).
http://s.mcstatic.com/thumb/4279662/13385601/4/flash_player/0/1/einstein_the_belgian_priest_georges_lama_tre_the_father_of_the_big_bang.jpg
The Catholic priest on the right was the chap that came up with the Big Bang Theory. The sun is some 4.57 billion years old, give or take. Is there some reason that you should be of the opinion that a Catholic would believe the sun substantially older or younger?
But I respect you in one major way -- you're an honest religionist and an honest Christian.
And I stand by my very first comment directed at you stating that no one packs as much articulate intelligent information in a prudential manner on this forum. But that comment was unfortunately a preamble to the observation that, sadly, more often than not it seems religious conviction topics nudge you more than a little towards a capricious acrimony.
You are, of course, absolutely correct in your above statement. And I share your concern for and acknowledgement of objective reality. We are totally at odds about the fundamental nature of reality
If you hold that reality is objective and only are relationship to that reality is subjective, then we are not at odds. Were we stand light years apart however is in the belief of the source of the fundamental nature of that objective reality.
and the way to live within it, but at least agree that there are objective answers to these questions. It's shocking how quickly most religious people turn into cultural and moral relativists when things like this come up. Your honesty is refreshing.
And here I thought the days of us agreeing on anything substantial had passed.
While they are co-ed; do they sleep together?
I don't see how they can make this new change fair to all involved.
Do they let the boys that are homosexual sleep together in their own tents? That would be showing favoritism towards them.
Do they let them sleep with heterosexuals? ....again that would be showing favoritism towards the towards the homosexuals.
Do they allow the homosexuals to sleep alone? From some perspectives that would be favoritism but it would also ostracize him from the rest of the patrol/troop.
No matter what the camping arrangements are the homosexual would be bunking with his sexual preference.
While a cub scout, not such a big deal but after puberty is in full force the dynamics change.
If the Boy Scouts drop the camping and overnight requirements and limit functions to just one day meetings...no problems.
fair enough. I do know that we already make all sorts of tenting concessions as it is to accommodation of some boys unique needs. We could easily switch to one man tube type tents or hennessey hammocks. Now if we were to have a hetero and homosexual boy in the same tent...I'm actually willing to bet that it wont be a problem for a variety of factors. #1 is the adult leadership clubbing them over the head with the idea that this is not a dating club. There are a lot more natural and artificial controls and preventative mechanisms, but honestly my brain is too fried to go into much more of a dissertation. Short of the long I don't see the idea of predatory boys assaulting and "converting" other boys as being a realistic thing.
This is a pic taken from the Venture Scouting website:
Seems like the boys and girls don't sleep in the same tents together. So not a valid comparison. And if they did, would you really let your 13 year old daughter go off into the woods and sleep together in a tent with a teenage boy?
Yeah cause I mean its not like they can't just sneak off into the wood line or get up in the middle of the night and play hide the salami. :rolleyes: Try again.
Moose-Knuckle
05-24-13, 17:28
I could care less what private institutions believe and they can do what they wish. But the BSA CHOSE to change their policy because of increased outside social pressures. And as a "supporter" of the LGBT rights I'm glad they made that decision.
Correct, the BSA themselves chose to change their policy after outside pressure. The outside pressure is the issue at hand, why must any group pressure another group that differs from themselves for acceptance? Then there is the issue of the almighty dollar which was brought up by another poster which I am sure has influenced the BSA officials.
I'm not trying to rationalize the two groups as having the same struggle. But politics aside, I'm referring to the arguments made by anti-gay supporters as being very similar to those made by civil rights opponents.
I'm not sure as to what arguments of "anti-gay supporters" you are referencing. To date I am not aware of any such laws that have been proposed or that is currently on the books that resemble the Jim Crow laws. There are no separate bathrooms or water fountains for members of the LGBT community and they don't have to sit at the back of the bus.
What should matter is that sexual relations are kept forbidden. Innate sexual preferences that aren't acted upon should not affect what the scouts learn.
The issue is not so much sexual preference itself as much as it is a private organization has to yield to and appease 3.5% of the population. Would you and the rest of the LGBT community supporters back the National Pork Producers Council if they wanted to gain acceptance by Jewish (Kosher) or Islamic (Halal) institutions?
Yeah cause I mean its not like they can't just sneak off into the wood line or get up in the middle of the night and play hide the salami. :rolleyes: Try again.
Does that mean you would in fact let your 13 year old daughter go off into the woods and sleep together in the same tent with a teenage boy or not?
The Catholic priest on the right was the chap that came up with the Big Bang Theory. The sun is some 4.57 billion years old, give or take. Is there some reason that you should be of the opinion that a Catholic would believe the sun substantially older or younger?
If you hold that reality is objective and only are relationship to that reality is subjective, then we are not at odds. Were we stand light years apart however is in the belief of the source of the fundamental nature of that objective reality.
Last I saw, PEW found that something like 60% of US Catholics believe in an old earth and universe despite the Church's rightful endorsement of that position. Whatever the actual number is, Catholics are definitely doing far better than most other religious denominations. This speaks well of them and the relative coherency of Catholic theology, because the strongest forms of modern Christian apologetics are based on the idea that Big Bang Cosmology supports the Catholic dogma of creation ex-nihilo. So it's no surprise that the Church's view is in line with our best science. Good on them for that. I don't in fact think the Cosmological Argument is valid, but good on the Church for at least accepting the science.
But there's an interesting caveat to the story of Georges Lemaître's discovery of the big bang. When he presented his still uncertain findings to Pope Pius XII, the Pope actually offered to make belief in the Big Bang a dogma. Lemaître protested, both because the findings were not yet validated, and because he was against drawing inferences about theology from science. So, in this story, one finds in the Church both a tradition of scientific and intellectual freedom, and a pernicious tendency toward doing "science by authority." I'm not criticizing the Church here, as Lemaître won over the Pope in the end, but I find the historical contingency of the whole thing pretty interesting.
As for the second part, yes, we agree and agree about where we disagree.
Apologies for the derail.
Last I saw, PEW found that something like 60% of US Catholics believe in an old earth and universe despite the Church's rightful endorsement of that position.
Sagaciously framed. Still, I can find nothing on the Pew Research website concerning an old earth poll.
Whatever the actual number is, Catholics are definitely doing far better than most other religious denominations. This speaks well of them and the relative coherency of Catholic theology, because the strongest forms of modern Christian apologetics are based on the idea that Big Bang Cosmology supports the Catholic dogma of creation ex-nihilo. So it's no surprise that the Church's view is in line with our best science. Good on them for that. I don't in fact think the Cosmological Argument is valid, but good on the Church for at least accepting the science. The Church has a history far more rich than simply "accepting science".
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0321.htm
and:
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/file_index.asp?SeriesID=7129&T1=
Give #2 a listen.
And what exactly is your difficulty with the Kalām Cosmological Argument?
But there's an interesting caveat to the story of Georges Lemaître's discovery of the big bang. When he presented his still uncertain findings to Pope Pius XII, the Pope actually offered to make belief in the Big Bang a dogma. Lemaître protested, both because the findings were not yet validated, and because he was against drawing inferences about theology from science. So, in this story, one finds in the Church both a tradition of scientific and intellectual freedom, and a pernicious tendency toward doing "science by authority." I'm not criticizing the Church here, as Lemaître won over the Pope in the end, but I find the historical contingency of the whole thing pretty interesting. I think there is more fiction to this than fact. No Pope would ever declare any scientific proclamations as Church Dogma, even if the scientific theory was from a priest. I think what you are referring to is Fr. Lemaître having to keep begging the Pope to stop using his theory as a justification for creationism.
Apologies for the derail.
If a thread be derailed, this is at least what a derail should look like.
If a thread be derailed, this is at least what a derail should look like.
What, two guys jerking each other off with a thesaurus? :sarcastic:
Magic_Salad0892
05-24-13, 19:28
BSA is a private entity. Therefor they're entitled to do whatever they want, and I'd support their decision. Even if I disagree with it. Which, I usually wouldn't, but in this case I do.
They have no business inserting sexual preference in places that it's not called for. But this if this is what they want, I'll support it. I guess.
That said, I don't think DADT should've been repealed either.
GeorgiaBoy
05-24-13, 19:31
if your mind is so warped that you can't see evil for what it is and willfully support it in the name of "equality" or so-called "tolerance" (neither of which are accurate or honest uses of those words which have been cleverly co-opted).
Your usage of "evil" in regards to homosexuality and the equal rights and treatment of homosexuals is also not an "honest use".
AFAIK even Christians don't consider homosexuality to be evil. In fact, being homosexual in and of itself isn't considered a sin. It is the actual carrying out of homosexual activities that is considered the sin.
So a bizarre aversion and a declaration of evil to an innate sexual orientation (even if that orientation is not carried out in action) just because it is different than yours is foolish, whether you are religious or secular.
Belmont31R
05-24-13, 19:41
BSA is a private entity. Therefor they're entitled to do whatever they want, and I'd support their decision. Even if I disagree with it. Which, I usually wouldn't, but in this case I do.
They have no business inserting sexual preference in places that it's not called for. But this if this is what they want, I'll support it. I guess.
That said, I don't think DADT should've been repealed either.
They had a ban on open homosexuals. You could still be a Scout but that wasn't good enough for them. One thing with a good amount of gays is they feel the need to flaunt and throw the fact they are gay in everyone's face. At their press conference one of them held up a gay pride flag inspired Scout leader's patch. That's exactly why a lot of straight people don't care for gays and why it would be bad for Scouting.
I also would not care for a straight Scout leader who flaunted their heterosexuality to people. That's not what the kids or leaders are there for. But it doesn't appear the gay adults who want to be leaders can do that seeing as they already have a patch made up ready to flaunt the fact that they are gay.
FWIW I was in line waiting to pick my kids up from school and a guy was handing out flyers for the local Scout troop. Sounds like they are a good Troop and are pretty active.
Smuckatelli
05-24-13, 20:44
The BSA sent out surveys earlier this year.
The results of the survey:
50.4%: no change to the current policy
38.7%: change the current policy
10.9%: neutral
The projected effects:
Change
Significant membership loss (200,000-400,000)
Significant Financial loss (upwards of $30 million)
Leadership loss (10-15%)
Chartered organization loss could be major
No Change
Continued membership loss across all regions
Financial position continues to erode and continued loss of corporate support.
Leadership losses (3-7%)
Much smaller chartered organization loss.
The above info can be seen between 12:30 - 14:30 on the link below:
http://www.youtube.com/v/mjE94pdTJgk?rel=0&autoplay=1
Clearly the majority does not want the current policy changed yet they changed it anyway......
Cagemonkey
05-24-13, 20:51
Its sad to see entities express a lack of conviction and succumb to PC pressure.
AFAIK even Christians don't consider homosexuality to be evil. In fact, being homosexual in and of itself isn't considered a sin. It is the actual carrying out of homosexual activities that is considered the sin.
In trying to be particular, you may actually be confusing things. Correct, merely being attracted to other men is not a sin, but lusting would be, just as it is for straight men, and sex outside of marriage would be, just as it is for straight men, just as giving in to any other temptation would be for anyone else with whatever sin they struggle.
However, you say "being homosexual". What is the state of being to which you refer? Typically, it is one's actions that define them. In the case of one practicing/living a homosexual lifestyle, then yes they would be living a lifestyle that is considered immoral, i.e., sinful, and an abomination.
But more to the point, and the reason why any of this is brought up or words like "evil" are mentioned, is because we're not talking about individual acts committed in private, we are talking about a specific agenda being forced upon us and our children by a group that has shed all semblance of shame or actual tolerance, even as they twist those words and attempt to use them to label those who would resist such behaviors and the advocation of them being brought into the public arena. The shame they should feel when they commit abominable acts they now project onto those who would like to prevent them from promoting their deviances among our children. The faux tolerance they clamor about is decidedly intolerant of any view but their own. People like that are evil. They would destroy society so that they could try to have their cake and eat it too, so that they can openly practice destructive lifestyles and demand that everyone approve of it. Either you are unaware of what is really going on or you may even support it. Either way, you do not seem to be sincere in your attempt to understand what I wrote.
Smuckatelli
05-24-13, 22:19
fair enough. I do know that we already make all sorts of tenting concessions as it is to accommodation of some boys unique needs.
Yes, we do make concessions, my son has food allergies; no food in the tents. He has to have an EpiPen injector handy just in case. These leads to all of his camping trips requiring my presences because even though we sign the Activity Consent form they still rightly don't want to be responsible if he goes into anaphylactic shock because some kid doesn't understand the concept of cross contamination.
The weekend camping trips aren't so bad but when you bring in summer camp at Goshen....for my son it is $315, for me it is $280 and to top it off I need to bring about $150-$200 in food for him.
We could easily switch to one man tube type tents or hennessey hammocks. Now if we were to have a hetero and homosexual boy in the same tent...I'm actually willing to bet that it wont be a problem for a variety of factors. #1 is the adult leadership clubbing them over the head with the idea that this is not a dating club. There are a lot more natural and artificial controls and preventative mechanisms, but honestly my brain is too fried to go into much more of a dissertation. Short of the long I don't see the idea of predatory boys assaulting and "converting" other boys as being a realistic thing.
You have parents clubbing them over the heads constantly yet the kids still do adult activities under the parent's noses.
Even though the majority of Scouts, Leadership, and Parents responded with a don't change on the survey.....the counsel changed it anyways.
How do you intend to handle it when the 13 year old refuses to sleep in the same tent with the homosexual? Tell him he must? Move him to a separate tent? Separate bathroom facilities? Eventually the homosexual will be by himself with no friends. At that point the Activity permission sheet won't protect you or anyone else in the troop.
The great thing about BSA is that it teaches leadership. the boys are still young, they a sponges for learning. Beating them over the head with I don't care what you say, you must do as I say does not instill leadership...it shows dictatorship.
BSA won't last through this which makes me sad, my 11 year old really wanted to become an Eagle Scout.
RogerinTPA
05-24-13, 22:45
I find it wholly ironic.
The same people who demand that private institutions such as the BSA adhere to the beckon call of something they do not agree with utilize the same tactics that they accuse said institutions of . . . . . intolerance.
Why is it that the LBGT community and their supporters cannot respect the rights of the BSA?
"Can't see the forrest through the trees . . . "
Because it is the progressive/communist movement's long time goal to dismantle our beliefs, faith, values, and historical institutions that we once held so dear, and using PC as a weapon. The gays co-opting the Civil Rights Movement to force being gay on everyone who is not. Which, coincidentally, the black community as a whole, does not condone homosexuality. One of Dr Martin Luther King's daughters once stated: "My father didn't take a bullet for same sex marriage."
I think that is ****ing bigoted to have homosexuality forced upon individuals and groups who do not agree with it.
It is bigoted to force degenerate behavior on others who are not. The real pisser is that they constitute less than 3% of the total population. At one point, they were considered mentally unstable for decades by the medical community until it became un-PC to do so. So why are we even catering to them? See the part about co-opting the Civil Rights Movement and how it's all tied to the progressive movement above.
Your usage of "evil" in regards to homosexuality and the equal rights and treatment of homosexuals is also not an "honest use".
AFAIK even Christians don't consider homosexuality to be evil. In fact, being homosexual in and of itself isn't considered a sin. It is the actual carrying out of homosexual activities that is considered the sin.
So a bizarre aversion and a declaration of evil to an innate sexual orientation (even if that orientation is not carried out in action) just because it is different than yours is foolish, whether you are religious or secular.
Some truly bad theology.
It is bigoted to force degenerate behavior on others who are not.
Is that really what's happening here?
At one point, they were considered mentally unstable for decades by the medical community until it became un-PC to do so.
There is so much truth in this it's not even funny.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/23/boy-scouts-gay-vote/2352077/
Should be interesting to see the demographic populations & cultural/ethnic et al etc. shifts transpire. I have a clue what will transpire but given the polemic nature & current vitriol here I'll refrain from my prognostications.
Brother, step away from the thesaurus. :D
Race is a protected issue, sexual orientation is not
It should be and will be. Do your f-ing job and go home. Expose anyone not a consenting adult to your sexual interests/preferences, be you you gay or hetero, or tri sexual, lose your job and or possible face jail time.
Do your thing on your own time and privacy of your own home with consenting adults, GTG.
Do it outside of that context, and we have problems.
The gay people I call friends wouldn't hurt a child if their life depended on it, period.
Join the scouts or any other group to bring your NAMBLA sick crap to involve non consenting adults, and let the full weight of the law land on you, and or, the parent who gets to you first. I will have zero empathy for you.
But gay teachers, soldiers, cops, etc, etc, exist in all facets of life, and in my experience, would kick the living crap out of someoene they saw harm a child. They do their job, and they go home.
Don't confuse gay with pedophile. One group I have have no problem calling a friend, the latter, I'll shed no tears regardless of what happens to you.
It should be and will be.
Why? How the hell is homosexual desire an ontology?
Don't confuse gay with pedophile.
Don't confuse pedophilia for pederasty.
"Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view -- adopted by the Boy Scouts -- is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.)
It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests -- more than 90 percent -- are accused of molesting teen-age boys [i.e. pederasty]. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic "Where's Waldo" reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the "teen-ager," the "former student," the "victim" and the "accuser."
Ann Coulter
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2002/03/21/should_gay_priests_adopt/page/full
It should be and will be. Do your f-ing job and go home. Expose anyone not a consenting adult to your sexual interests/preferences, be you you gay or hetero, or tri sexual, lose your job and or possible face jail time.
Do your thing on your own time and privacy of your own home with consenting adults, GTG.
But what you're missing is that that's where things were up to this point. And that wasn't good enough for homosexual activists and their leftist allies. The change is that now open homosexuals are to now be allowed in. People who define themselves by their sexual behavior. Those who have made sexuality a prime focus of their lives. We're now supposed to put them in close and unsupervised (as they are supposedly the supervisors) contact with our children. That can only lead to problems.
But gay teachers, soldiers, cops, etc, etc, exist in all facets of life, and in my experience, would kick the living crap out of someoene they saw harm a child. They do their job, and they go home.
And here arises the inconsistency in your thinking: Based on your earlier statement, you shouldn't even know they're gay. It shouldn't be an identifying mark or facet of their public persona. There should be no such thing as a "gay teacher" "gay soldier" or anything else. They should just be teachers, soldiers, etc.
Don't confuse gay with pedophile. One group I have have no problem calling a friend, the latter, I'll shed no tears regardless of what happens to you.
You seem to be missing that you can't have one without the other, because those who so identify themselves are people for whom sexuality is such a focus of their lives that they openly self-identify by their sexual preference and deviant behaviors. That should be concerning regardless of which sexual orientation it is and enough reason to never leave them in a position of authority or supervision over children. Gay, straight, bi, whatever, they have a mental problem and no reasonable person would leave them in a place of opportunity to fulfill their lusts with youth (or to prey on anyone else, for that matter).
We have enough trouble with pedophiles in society as a whole. To then allow such access to a deviant group where the data shows the propensity is much higher is sheer folly.
As such, it's one thing when one's sexuality is done in secret and not openly condoned. It is another thing when, not just those who practice a deviant lifestyle in secret but the subset of them that openly flaunt it by self-identifying by their sexual behavior, are told they can be put in a position to influence children and ought to be identified as gay [occupation] and be encouraged and lauded for it and have special protection from having to hear any contrary opinion about their lifestyle.
I agree with you that there shouldn't be gay [whatever], just like there aren't straight [whatever]. The whole problem is this is a direct attempt to make it gay [whatever] and to demand that we all accept that. It is also rooted in an abnormal focus on sexual preference, and that's precisely why it was always seen as a mental illness, because it's an abnormal fixation not just on sex or sexuality, but in particular an attraction to the same sex, which is inherently broken. It doesn't work. It's a non-functional (and dysfunctional) relationship by default.
There is no solid ground to stand on to defend the practice when one is being consistent, whether secular or religious. The only people who think they can are liberals who have taken to an inconsistent view of their core beliefs, whether secular or religious, in order to try to support the behavior. And this is where following such illogical self-refuting philosophies always leads, to chaos and a breakdown of society. To be honest, most of us are complicit by sitting idly by while they are allowed to break down society around us and then go so far as to try to prevent us from ever being able to raise it back up properly in the future (by outlawing the truth as "hate speech" and similar tactics).
Why? How the hell is homosexual desire an ontology?
Don't confuse pedophilia for pederasty.
"Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view -- adopted by the Boy Scouts -- is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.)
It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests -- more than 90 percent -- are accused of molesting teen-age boys [i.e. pederasty]. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic "Where's Waldo" reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the "teen-ager," the "former student," the "victim" and the "accuser."
Ann Coulter
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2002/03/21/should_gay_priests_adopt/page/full
Sorry, Coulter as a citation? No.
But what you're missing is that that's where things were up to this point. And that wasn't good enough for homosexual activists and their leftist allies. The change is that now open homosexuals are to now be allowed in. People who define themselves by their sexual behavior. Those who have made sexuality a prime focus of their lives. We're now supposed to put them in close and unsupervised (as they are supposedly the supervisors) contact with our children. That can only lead to problems.
And here arises the inconsistency in your thinking: Based on your earlier statement, you shouldn't even know they're gay.
And I don't generally and neither do you, and I assure you, you have worked or served next/with them.
It shouldn't be an identifying mark or facet of their public persona. There should be no such thing as a "gay teacher" "gay soldier" or anything else. They should just be teachers, soldiers, etc.
Agreed. Be who you are, move the fu*& on. But, society does not generally allow that, so polarized crap we are fed.
You seem to be missing that you can't have one without the other, because those who so identify themselves are people for whom sexuality is such a focus of their lives that they openly self-identify by their sexual preference and deviant behaviors.
Well your "deviant" comment means you have a personal bias well entrenched and homophobic to boot.
That should be concerning regardless of which sexual orientation it is and enough reason to never leave them in a position of authority or supervision over children. Gay, straight, bi, whatever, they have a mental problem and no reasonable person would leave them in a place of opportunity to fulfill their lusts with youth (or to prey on anyone else, for that matter).
Then I'd sure as hell include Catholic priests on that list, etc.
We have enough trouble with pedophiles in society as a whole. To then allow such access to a deviant group where the data shows the propensity is much higher is sheer folly.
As such, it's one thing when one's sexuality is done in secret and not openly condoned. It is another thing when, not just those who practice a deviant lifestyle in secret but the subset of them that openly flaunt it by self-identifying by their sexual behavior, are told they can be put in a position to influence children and ought to be identified as gay [occupation] and be encouraged and lauded for it and have special protection from having to hear any contrary opinion about their lifestyle.
Use the term "deviant' as many times as you wish in every sentence, it does not alter my position on the matter.
I agree with you that there shouldn't be gay [whatever], just like there aren't straight [whatever]. The whole problem is this is a direct attempt to make it gay [whatever] and to demand that we all accept that. It is also rooted in an abnormal focus on sexual preference, and that's precisely why it was always seen as a mental illness, because it's an abnormal fixation not just on sex or sexuality, but in particular an attraction to the same sex, which is inherently broken. It doesn't work. It's a non-functional (and dysfunctional) relationship by default.
Just amazed you didn't find a place to stuff the word "deviant" in there some place. One more time, what consenting adults do in their lives = none of my damn business.
If it includes non consenting adults then it's "my" business and that of the society at large.
There is no solid ground to stand on to defend the practice when one is being consistent, whether secular or religious. The only people who think they can are liberals who have taken to an inconsistent view of their core beliefs, whether secular or religious, in order to try to support the behavior. And this is where following such illogical self-refuting philosophies always leads, to chaos and a breakdown of society. To be honest, most of us are complicit by sitting idly by while they are allowed to break down society around us and then go so far as to try to prevent us from ever being able to raise it back up properly in the future (by outlawing the truth as "hate speech" and similar tactics).
Sorry, the above computes not at all for me. Either you support the right of consenting adults to do what they wish, as long as it does not include non consenting adults and or impact my "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or you don't. There's no picking and choosing.
PC nonsense, media BS, etc, another issue entirely.
Sorry, Coulter as a citation? No.
Swell. So your rebuttals are as vapid and bromidic as your presuppositions. :rolleyes:
Then I'd sure as hell include Catholic priests on that list, etc.
So even though the percentage of priests accused of abuse is the same as it is for every other profession save one, government school teachers, where it is 2-3x higher, and even though some 90% of all cases of sexual abuse of minors in the Church were homosexual pederasty, you attack priests while defending homosexuality?
steyrman13
05-25-13, 02:11
And I don't generally and neither do you, and I assure you, you have worked or served next/with them.
Agreed. Be who you are, move the fu*& on. But, society does not generally allow that, so polarized crap we are fed.
Well your "deviant" comment means you have a personal bias well entrenched and homophobic to boot.
Then I'd sure as hell include Catholic priests on that list, etc.
Use the term "deviant' as many times as you wish in every sentence, it does not alter my position on the matter.
Just amazed you didn't find a place to stuff the word "deviant" in there some place. One more time, what consenting adults do in their lives = none of my damn business.
If it includes non consenting adults then it's "my" business and that of the society at large.
Sorry, the above computes not at all for me. Either you support the right of consenting adults to do what they wish, as long as it does not include non consenting adults and or impact my "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or you don't. There's no picking and choosing.
PC nonsense, media BS, etc, another issue entirely.
So we should allow incestism to take place so long as it is consenting adults? Murder/ assisted suicides as long as it is consenting adults??? The argument here is for non adults anyhow!
Moose-Knuckle
05-25-13, 03:45
Because it is the progressive/communist movement's long time goal to dismantle our beliefs, faith, values, and historical institutions that we once held so dear, and using PC as a weapon. The gays co-opting the Civil Rights Movement to force being gay on everyone who is not. Which, coincidentally, the black community as a whole, does not condone homosexuality. One of Dr Martin Luther King's daughters once stated: "My father didn't take a bullet for same sex marriage."
It is bigoted to force degenerate behavior on others who are not. The real pisser is that they constitute less than 3% of the total population. At one point, they were considered mentally unstable for decades by the medical community until it became un-PC to do so. So why are we even catering to them? See the part about co-opting the Civil Rights Movement and how it's all tied to the progressive movement above.
Not sure if you read my other posts due to the multiple pages of this thread.
Page 4 Post #69
This logic is not only flawed but is inherently offensive to blacks. But I know as a white man that will fall on the deaf ears of the LGBT proponents. So here is E.W. Jackson, a black man on the matter:
http://www.popmodal.com/video/15095/Bishop-EW-Jackson-Message-to-Black-Christians
Page 4 Post #73
Just how many gay adolescents are vying for entrance into the BSA?
The LGBT community is being utilized as pawns; same with blacks, women, immigrants, labor unions, as well as other “victims of society” by you know who. Though some will dispute the notion of a "gay agenda" I believe that it is in full swing and evident in such cases as this. No, gay men do not have an agenda of any sorts unto themselves but they are being used none the less to bring about a paradigm shift if you will in the fundamental belief system in this country and bring about social change whether they want it or not.
Again, one must eat an elephant one bite at a time.
Page 7 Post #127
The issue is not so much sexual preference itself as much as it is a private organization has to yield to and appease 3.5% of the population. Would you and the rest of the LGBT community supporters back the National Pork Producers Council if they wanted to gain acceptance by Jewish (Kosher) or Islamic (Halal) institutions?
CarlosDJackal
05-25-13, 11:47
We had a chief of police running our chapter just a few years ago. Come to find out he molested 4-6 of the kids for years. It was a wake up call to a small community.
And this current decision is going to prevent this type of occurrences in the future, how?
If the BSA were to choose to only allow Caucasians into their ranks, they should have the right to do so. I would boycott them in disgust, but it should be legally protected for such private enterprises.
What's next? They will allow boys into the GSA?
If the BSA were to choose to only allow Caucasians into their ranks, they should have the right to do so. I would boycott them in disgust, but it should be legally protected for such private enterprises.
So if, say, all restaurants in decided to boycott African Americans, that'd be ok because they are private businesses? What if all banks, hotels, gas stations, super markets, car dealerships, and private schools did the same?
Also: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/10/girl-scouts-of-colorado-welcomes-boy-as-long-as-he-believes-hes-a-girl.html
So if, say, all restaurants in decided to boycott African Americans, that'd be ok because they are private businesses? What if all banks, hotels, gas stations, super markets, car dealerships, and private schools did the same?
Also: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/10/girl-scouts-of-colorado-welcomes-boy-as-long-as-he-believes-hes-a-girl.html
Good lord, civilization really is entering what is sure to be a deep and prolonged dark ages.
So let's say that your young daughter or son were set to go on a camping trip, and the Girl Scout "Den Mother" shows up to pick you your child, and is a 60 year old man in a sun dress and push-up bra, with about 4 days of beard growth. Are you actually saying that you would let your child spend a week in the woods with that? Or would you discriminate? Would you also hire that person at your place of business, or would you discriminate?
I've noticed that persons in academia, clergy, white collar professionals, and government become very uncomfortable if someone in their midst discusses the gay/lesbian issue in other than cheery bright, positive terms. When minority rioters burn down cities, they must be referred to as protestors. Looting is not done by looters. People entering the country in an illegal manner must be referred to as undocumented workers. In the African American community, black on black crime is a taboo subject, and the fact that aids is the no. 1 killer in this group is not discussed and is unknown by many.
My point is that interpretation of issues changes over time within groups and can vary from group to group or from region to region.
Twenty years ago how many folks on a gun forum would assume a moderate or liberal view on gay issues? Not many. Accepting gays and not excluding them has become the new world view and will not change. Not accepting and excluding gays and lesbians is a rapidly spreading taboo. Eventually, violating this taboo will be taboo on gun forums.
Has Pee Wee Herman or G. Gordon Liddy stated their position on the BSA controversy yet?
I've noticed that persons in academia, clergy, white collar professionals, and government become very uncomfortable if someone in their midst discusses the gay/lesbian issue in other than cheery bright, positive terms. When minority rioters burn down cities, they must be referred to as protestors. Looting is not done by looters. People entering the country in an illegal manner must be referred to as undocumented workers. In the African American community, black on black crime is a taboo subject, and the fact that aids is the no. 1 killer in this group is not discussed and is unknown by many.
My point is that interpretation of issues changes over time within groups and can vary from group to group or from region to region.
Twenty years ago how many folks on a gun forum would assume a moderate or liberal view on gay issues? Not many. Accepting gays and not excluding them has become the new world view and will not change. Not accepting and excluding gays and lesbians is a rapidly spreading taboo. Eventually, violating this taboo will be taboo on gun forums.
Has Pee Wee Herman or G. Gordon Liddy stated their position on the BSA controversy yet?
And this is why a detachment from an objective standard results in ANYTHING being sanctioned, tolerated, approved, and promoted. In the end we establish our own righteousness, not submitting to that righteousness from above. We are dust, but very proud dust.
Swell. So your rebuttals are as vapid and bromidic as your presuppositions. :rolleyes:
Not real impressed with your arguments on the matter either, so I'll just step away from this one and leave you and your thesaurus be.
Regards.
morbidbattlecry
05-25-13, 19:55
I'm glad i come to this site for firearms information. But you guys are not so knowledgeable on anything else.
I'm glad i come to this site for firearms information. But you guys are not so knowledgeable on anything else.
Nice drive-by.
M4c has one of the most diverse sets of knowledge I've seen anywhere.
So what exactly are you referring to?
morbidbattlecry
05-25-13, 21:01
Nice drive-by.
M4c has one of the most diverse sets of knowledge I've seen anywhere.
So what exactly are you referring to?
I should have said Firearms and anything firearms related. And ( i can't think of the right way to word this so sorry if its not right) how the military works and functions. So anyways referring to things like this- I can come here and find out what the size of a gas port should be on a 10.3 inched barrel AR. But i wouldn't come here and ask for information on current trends in social equality or up to date climate change information. I'm not saying people on this site are bag guys. But that's just how it is.
I should have said Firearms and anything firearms related. And ( i can't think of the right way to word this so sorry if its not right) how the military works and functions. So anyways referring to things like this- I can come here and find out what the size of a gas port should be on a 10.3 inched barrel AR. But i wouldn't come here and ask for information on current trends in social equality or up to date climate change information. I'm not saying people on this site are bag guys. But that's just how it is.
LOL, social equality and climate change?? Where would one go to find the "correct" info on these subjects??
I know this might be shocking to you, but by not wanting your child to be around someone that may either find them "attractive" OR want to "educate" them about a deviant lifestyle is a GOOD THING!
C
I should have said Firearms and anything firearms related. And ( i can't think of the right way to word this so sorry if its not right) how the military works and functions. So anyways referring to things like this- I can come here and find out what the size of a gas port should be on a 10.3 inched barrel AR. But i wouldn't come here and ask for information on current trends in social equality or up to date climate change information. I'm not saying people on this site are bag guys. But that's just how it is.
The qualifications of frequent posters on this board on non firearms and mil topics could fill an alphabet soup. But hardly anyone boasts about it because we are here for the M4 platform.
However, you just have to know who to listen to and who to take with a scoop of salt.
Moose-Knuckle
05-25-13, 21:21
But i wouldn't come here and ask for information on current trends in social equality or up to date climate change information. I'm not saying people on this site are bag guys. But that's just how it is.
Maybe you would find the Democratic Underground forum more to your liking?
So if, say, all restaurants in decided to boycott African Americans, that'd be ok because they are private businesses? What if all banks, hotels, gas stations, super markets, car dealerships, and private schools did the same?
Private property rights.
'reserve the right to refuse service'
Private property rights.
'reserve the right to refuse service'
So segregation should be legal as long as the government isn't doing it?
Smuckatelli
05-25-13, 22:08
So segregation should be legal as long as the government isn't doing it?
Is that any different than a gun free zone?
So segregation should be legal as long as the government isn't doing it?
Sure.
Is that any different than a gun free zone?
You can leave your gun somewhere else. You can't change your race or ethnicity. (inb4 michael jackson)
But I get where you are coming from.
I suppose the right of private entities to refuse service, or entrance, based on either.
Now, I would boycott both, but that doesn't mean I think it's the government's right to force my opinion on them.
morbidbattlecry
05-25-13, 22:17
LOL, social equality and climate change?? Where would one go to find the "correct" info on these subjects??
I know this might be shocking to you, but by not wanting your child to be around someone that may either find them "attractive" OR want to "educate" them about a deviant lifestyle is a GOOD THING!
C
Then don't send you children to BSA like you said. But i think your making a generalization about a group of people that simply isn't true. Plenty of pedophiles have been found in schools or any other place children can be.
morbidbattlecry
05-25-13, 22:20
Maybe you would find the Democratic Underground forum more to your liking?
Probably not. I hate people that are way far left as much as way far right.
So segregation should be legal as long as the government isn't doing it?
Freedom of association would seem to be a natural right.
Do you assume a right to abrogate that and tell people with whom they must associate?
Where does THAT right come from?
Belmont31R
05-25-13, 22:29
So segregation should be legal as long as the government isn't doing it?
Yes...
Sure.
You can leave your gun somewhere else. You can't change your race or ethnicity. (inb4 michael jackson)
But I get where you are coming from.
I suppose the right of private entities to refuse service, or entrance, based on either.
Now, I would boycott both, but that doesn't mean I think it's the government's right to force my opinion on them.
Thanks for the honest answer.
I'm actually very torn on the issue. On one hand I agree with you, but on the other, I think there needs to be a very good reason to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, etc. I think that because unless forced to, people will generally be dicks to each other and favor their own kind.
Look at wage discrimination for example. That should be legal too right? You have the right to hire whoever you want for whatever reason, shouldn't you also have the right to pay people more or less for any reason too? That leads to the very real problem of women earning less than men for the same exact work.
So I do think mandating fairness might be a good thing. But I also think that less regulation is good, so I don't actually know where I stand. I don't think market pressure will cause those that discriminate to change their ways. And if that's the goal anyway, why not force it now and save everyone years of pain?
But the government isn't forcing the issue in this case and the BSA actually is giving in to market pressure.
Anyway, just thinking out loud. I don't have a point to make.
So segregation should be legal as long as the government isn't doing it?
Businesses and other private institutions should certainly be able to do what they want, if that means they want to keep out people for any reason then more power to them. If it doesn't fit their business model then that too would go away.
You think the government has the authority to tell you who you should do business with?
Also, you did not respond to my request for citation after you stated that homosexuality was genetic. Did you miss it?
Belmont31R
05-25-13, 22:39
Thanks for the honest answer.
I'm actually very torn on the issue. On one hand I agree with you, but on the other, I think there needs to be a very good reason to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, etc. I think that because unless forced to, people will generally be dicks to each other and favor their own kind.
Look at wage discrimination for example. That should be legal too right? You have the right to hire whoever you want for whatever reason, shouldn't you also have the right to pay people more or less for any reason too? That leads to the very real problem of women earning less than men for the same exact work.
So I do think mandating fairness might be a good thing. But I also think that less regulation is good, so I don't actually know where I stand. I don't think market pressure will cause those that discriminate to change their ways. And if that's the goal anyway, why not force it now and save everyone years of pain?
But the government isn't forcing the issue in this case and the BSA actually is giving in to market pressure.
Anyway, just thinking out loud. I don't have a point to make.
The govs own study was unable to distinguish between pay for equal experience, education, and title. Women make less because they gravitate to liberal arts, have kids, and have less time in the workforce. They are also less likely to travel and take more time off.
All else being equal the pay difference is less than 4%.
Thanks for the honest answer.
I'm actually very torn on the issue. On one hand I agree with you, but on the other, I think there needs to be a very good reason to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, etc. I think that because unless forced to, people will generally be dicks to each other and favor their own kind.
Look at wage discrimination for example. That should be legal too right? You have the right to hire whoever you want for whatever reason, shouldn't you also have the right to pay people more or less for any reason too? That leads to the very real problem of women earning less than men for the same exact work.
So I do think mandating fairness might be a good thing. But I also think that less regulation is good, so I don't actually know where I stand. I don't think market pressure will cause those that discriminate to change their ways. And if that's the goal anyway, why not force it now and save everyone years of pain?
But the government isn't forcing the issue in this case and the BSA actually is giving in to market pressure.
Anyway, just thinking out loud. I don't have a point to make.
I don't think it is the government's job to decide what is a very good reason, then forcing their decision on people/entities.
Yes, private entities should be able to pay people more or less based on whatever reason they want to. If some businesses choose to be inefficient and pay men more even if they do not return more, then let them waste their money.
And you probably figured it out, but when I said I suppose the right of private entities to refuse service/entrance for either, I obviously meant to say "support". I'm not going to play that game where I only "support" the rights of people or entities to do things if I happen to also agree with those things. The government just doesn't have the right to run our lives like this.
Example: I support the laws that make no guns signs (within certain requirements to make sure people see them, RE: size, location, specific language perhaps, etc) carry the weight of law. I fully support private entities' right to say that if I am armed, I cannot enter their building.
Belmont31R
05-25-13, 22:50
I don't think it is the government's job to decide what is a very good reason, then forcing their decision on people/entities.
Yes, private entities should be able to pay people more or less based on whatever reason they want to. If some businesses choose to be inefficient and pay men more even if they do not return more, then let them waste their money.
And you probably figured it out, but when I said I suppose the right of private entities to refuse service/entrance for either, I obviously meant to say "support". I'm not going to play that game where I only "support" the rights of people or entities to do things if I happen to also agree with those things. The government just doesn't have the right to run our lives like this.
I believe in blind justice but there are all kinds of factors when it comes to private employment. What if a business who has been open for 50 years has found women take twice as many absent days as men, and they assemble widgets. The men assemble 25% more widgets per shift. The men don't take pregnancy leave of absences.
My last deployment 75% of the females we deployed with got sent home early due to pregnancy. Imagine if we had that attrition rate with the males. Our unit would be combat ineffective.
Not everyone is equal and forcing special considerations is wrong.
Smuckatelli
05-26-13, 11:25
You can leave your gun somewhere else. You can't change your race or ethnicity. (inb4 michael jackson)
Openly homosexual boys and adults can join other organizations also.
There should be no need from them to pressure organizations to accept them.
There should be no need from them to pressure organizations to accept them.
I completely disagree. People have the right to their opinion and the right to voice it. That includes pressuring others to change.
But maybe I misunderstood. There should be no need to pressure because they should have been accepted in the first place. But if you're saying that there's no need because there are separate but equal alternatives and they have to just accept that, I disagree.
I still don't know if government should force the issue though.
I completely disagree. People have the right to their opinion and the right to voice it. That includes pressuring others to change.
Well then that's where your libertarianism breaks down, since a true libertarian would never force another person or group to do something against their will, particularly when everyone is free to start their own competing group or organization.
I still don't know if government should force the issue though.
It's inescapably linked in the current system given our government's penchant for involving themselves in social matters/issues, and the way that organizations can be pressured via funding or tax status.
Well then that's where your libertarianism breaks down, since a true libertarian would never force another person or group to do something against their will, particularly when everyone is free to start their own competing group or organization.
It's inescapably linked in the current system given our government's penchant for involving themselves in social matters/issues, and the way that organizations can be pressured via funding or tax status.
Forcing someone to change and asking/influencing/pressuring someone to change are two completely different things. A boycott is pressure, but it is not forcing. I will not support institutions I disagree with, but that doesn't mean I'm forcing them to change.
Forcing someone to change and asking/influencing/pressuring someone to change are two completely different things. A boycott is pressure, but it is not forcing. I will not support institutions I disagree with, but that doesn't mean I'm forcing them to change.
Pressure is force. You said earlier "pressuring", as in supporting one group pressuring, i.e., forcing, another group to change. Again, the libertarian position (which if i recall correctly you espoused) would be to allow and encourage alternative groups to be formed by those who feel the existing group did not meet their needs, rather than force the existing group to change. This has a pretty strong correlary to the concept of free markets vs regulated (i..e, artificially constrained) markets. If one takes the libertarian view on markets, then if one is being consistent, they would apply the same principles in other similar circumstances as well.
Pressure is force. You said earlier "pressuring", as in supporting one group pressuring, i.e., forcing, another group to change. Again, the libertarian position (which if i recall correctly you espoused) would be to allow and encourage alternative groups to be formed by those who feel the existing group did not meet their needs, rather than force the existing group to change. This has a pretty strong correlary to the concept of free markets vs regulated (i..e, artificially constrained) markets. If one takes the libertarian view on markets, then if one is being consistent, they would apply the same principles in other similar circumstances as well.
I think you might be confusing me with someone else.
Openly homosexual boys and adults can join other organizations also.
There should be no need from them to pressure organizations to accept them.
It is not your position to tell them what they may or may not do.
And they do not have to justify their actions to you, me, or anybody else, in the form of a "need", in order to do it.
Kind of like when people who don't 'get it' see my AR and ask "why do you need that?" I start by saying, well, it isn't a matter of "need", you should be asking why I choose to have that.
It's their choice. If they choose to pressure the organization, that's fine. It's THEIR CHOICE. If the organization decides to say piss off, that (should be) just fine. If they decide to alter their methods or procedures or whatever, that's fine to. It's THEIR CHOICE.
steyrman13
05-26-13, 12:22
I completely disagree. People have the right to their opinion and the right to voice it. That includes pressuring others to change.
But maybe I misunderstood. There should be no need to pressure because they should have been accepted in the first place. But if you're saying that there's no need because there are separate but equal alternatives and they have to just accept that, I disagree.
I still don't know if government should force the issue though.
Why is it ok for this but not ok for Christian groups to pressure others???!! Double standard I guess
Why is it ok for this but not ok for Christian groups to pressure others???!! Double standard I guess
Where did I say Christian groups cannot influence people?
They can even influence government, just Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and atheists can.
Smuckatelli
05-26-13, 13:11
I completely disagree. People have the right to their opinion and the right to voice it. That includes pressuring others to change.
My reply was in response to Warp's answer to gun free zones. He responded with: "You can leave your gun somewhere else."
If you are good to go with gun free zones then yes, you do disagree with what I am saying. If you disagree with gun free zones yet agree with forcing openly homosexuals into the Boy Scouts.....
Smuckatelli
05-26-13, 13:15
It is not your position to tell them what they may or may not do.
Actually, I am in the position and so is everyone else that answered the survey that the Boy Scouts sent us. The organization would have been better off not requesting us to fill out the surveys and just voting the way they did.
As it is now, the Leadership, Parents and older Scouts clearly stated to leave the policy as is, yet the council voted against what the majority recommended.
If you did take the survey, you have every right to question the outcome of the councils vote. To do otherwise would be accepting that the parent has no say in their child's education/social interaction.
Did you take the survey?
steyrman13
05-26-13, 14:18
Bigots are on both sides but one side uses the term all the time like it is a onesided action. The intolerance means they do not compromise their beliefs which is sometimes a good thing meaning you stand your ground and truly believe that your beliefs are the truth. Sometimes we have to agree to disagree
Army Chief
05-27-13, 16:31
Gents,
As you know, this thread went very seriously off-course yesterday, and the personal attacks and name-calling that ensued have resulted in a few temporary vacations, as well as a renewed (and somewhat iron-fisted) call for civility.
Although this remains a lightning-rod issue, and most would be well-advised to steer clear of it (as I choose to do), the fact remains that, for several pages at least, the discourse here was polite enough and fairly-focused. It ended poorly, and in all-too-predictable lock, but there was cause for hope -- at least, for a time.
I have removed the offending portions of the thread, as well as any sidebar discussion that dealt specifically with the thread going awry. Those involved with the most serious and divisive acts have been removed from the debate. We have renewed our call for respectful, reasonable discourse, and to that end, I am re-opening this thread.
Make no mistake: the potential for failure here is very, very high, and any member engaging in personal attacks will be dealt with severely; that said, let us see if perhaps we cannot move forward in a spirit of cooperation and mutual acceptance, if not some actual semblance of agreement.
This, then, is a test, and one that I trust you will take seriously. Please do not let me -- and your fellow members -- down.
Back open for business.
AC
Actually, I am in the position and so is everyone else that answered the survey that the Boy Scouts sent us. The organization would have been better off not requesting us to fill out the surveys and just voting the way they did.
As it is now, the Leadership, Parents and older Scouts clearly stated to leave the policy as is, yet the council voted against what the majority recommended.
If you did take the survey, you have every right to question the outcome of the councils vote. To do otherwise would be accepting that the parent has no say in their child's education/social interaction.
Did you take the survey?
You have more of an 'in' than a lot of the others do, in that case.
Keep in mind that the majority was less literally only 50.x%.
But it is silly to say that, because they made a decision that was opposite what 50.x% of respondents voted for, the parent "has no say in their child's education/social interaction". For those parents to whom this is a major, serious, irreconcilable issue, they can remove their child from the organization. Nobody is forcing any parent to have their child exposed to homosexuals if the parent doesn't want them to be.
When the survey went out, was there any kind of promise or implication that the final decision would be in accordance with the responses?
Grand58742
05-27-13, 16:42
My Dad's troop just lost their charter yesterday (he was going to be out anyway) after they talked over the matter. The sponsoring Baptist Church said in no uncertain terms they would not continue to support the troop nor the BSA as a whole over this.
I figure there will be a lot of churches that will pause before continuing support for the BSA.
Alaskapopo
05-27-13, 16:47
It should be and will be. Do your f-ing job and go home. Expose anyone not a consenting adult to your sexual interests/preferences, be you you gay or hetero, or tri sexual, lose your job and or possible face jail time.
Do your thing on your own time and privacy of your own home with consenting adults, GTG.
Do it outside of that context, and we have problems.
The gay people I call friends wouldn't hurt a child if their life depended on it, period.
Join the scouts or any other group to bring your NAMBLA sick crap to involve non consenting adults, and let the full weight of the law land on you, and or, the parent who gets to you first. I will have zero empathy for you.
But gay teachers, soldiers, cops, etc, etc, exist in all facets of life, and in my experience, would kick the living crap out of someoene they saw harm a child. They do their job, and they go home.
Don't confuse gay with pedophile. One group I have have no problem calling a friend, the latter, I'll shed no tears regardless of what happens to you.
Excellent post. People need to learn to live and let live.
Pat
Alpha Sierra
05-27-13, 17:22
I wish the Boy Scouts of America, as an organization, a slow and painful death.
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 17:28
You have more of an 'in' than a lot of the others do, in that case.
Keep in mind that the majority was less literally only 50.x%.
The actual breakdown was:
50.4%: no change to the current policy
38.7%: change the current policy
10.9%: neutral
The majority clearly was more than the change minority.
But it is silly to say that, because they made a decision that was opposite what 50.x% of respondents voted for, the parent "has no say in their child's education/social interaction". For those parents to whom this is a major, serious, irreconcilable issue, they can remove their child from the organization. Nobody is forcing any parent to have their child exposed to homosexuals if the parent doesn't want them to be.
Before this new policy (effective 01 Jan 14) came out there was a don't ask don't tell unofficial policy. This was working fine, no issues between homo or hetero sexuals. No one was being forced to do anything, included the organizations that chartered the different troops.
Now the boys are openly allowed to proclaim that they are homosexuals and if the heterosexuals don't like it they can leave.
Why should the heterosexuals be the outcasts now?
Before the council dictated to the organization there were no outcasts.
They are still trying to figure out how to make this work, in the long run the organization is going to go away. The quick work around right now is for individual tents, no more sleeping with patrol members. This seems like a logical adult answer but it also destroys the team building which is so essential to building leadership for these boys. No more after lights out talking with your tent mate about the day's events or tomorrow's planned events.
I'm pretty sure that we will lose our charter on 01 Jan. My son has six years in this troop.
When the survey went out, was there any kind of promise or implication that the final decision would be in accordance with the responses?
They recognized how difficult a decision would be, they wanted our input so that they could make a fair & just decision as to what the majority wanted. That was the sales pitch for taking the survey.
Gents,
As you know, this thread went very seriously off-course yesterday, and the personal attacks and name-calling that ensued have resulted in a few temporary vacations, as well as a renewed (and somewhat iron-fisted) call for civility.
Although this remains a lightning-rod issue, and most would be well-advised to steer clear of it (as I choose to do), the fact remains that, for several pages at least, the discourse here was polite enough and fairly-focused. It ended poorly, and in all-too-predictable lock, but there was cause for hope -- at least, for a time.
I have removed the offending portions of the thread, as well as any sidebar discussion that dealt specifically with the thread going awry. Those involved with the most serious and divisive acts have been removed from the debate. We have renewed our call for respectful, reasonable discourse, and to that end, I am re-opening this thread.
Make no mistake: the potential for failure here is very, very high, and any member engaging in personal attacks will be dealt with severely; that said, let us see if perhaps we cannot move forward in a spirit of cooperation and mutual acceptance, if not some actual semblance of agreement.
This, then, is a test, and one that I trust you will take seriously. Please do not let me -- and your fellow members -- down.
Back open for business.
AC
Rgr Sir. Personal apologies for having to waste your time cleaning it all up. I will aim higher, and or un subscribe from the thread id need be to avoid friction.
Before this new policy (effective 01 Jan 14) came out there was a don't ask don't tell unofficial policy. This was working fine, no issues between homo or hetero sexuals. No one was being forced to do anything, included the organizations that chartered the different troops.
I disagree.
Homosexuals were being forced to hide the orientation completely, or be kicked out.
Now the boys are openly allowed to proclaim that they are homosexuals and if the heterosexuals don't like it they can leave.
Why should the heterosexuals be the outcasts now?
What??
They aren't.
I think that if you want to label them as something, intolerant is a much more fitting term.
Before the council dictated to the organization there were no outcasts.
I disagree. See above.
Regarding troop numbers, are they numbered by state?
Grand58742
05-27-13, 17:55
Excellent post. People need to learn to live and let live.
Pat
You know, there's a huge difference in live and let live and this major change to an organization based on Christian principles. Live and let live means they would have continued the same policies they have had for 100 years before now.
Change and crumbling to outside financial influence (UPS namely) is not change. That's "we need the money" talking and letting people not directly involved in Scouting or have no idea of the issues make decisions for an organization. That's a forced change and no longer "live and let live."
I have moral issues with homosexuality as a whole. But what people do inside their own homes and behind closed doors is none of my business. As long as I'm not forced to partake in their choices frankly. But this decision says "accept it or else. We don't give two damns about your moral or spiritual beliefs and you will accept it."
This decision put a screeching halt to 100 plus years of honorable service and instilling moral fiber and leadership into the youth of America and forced a change. No live and let live there...
I disagree.
Homosexuals were being forced to hide the orientation completely, or be kicked out.
Known as "head in sand, ignore them and they don't exist" policy, which has been so successful through history.
They are not going away, ever, There will be no "cure" ever. They should simply be able to work under a policy that states the employer does not discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation.
The fact is, some people don't want them to have equal rights under the law, equal rights in all facets of society, etc, because no matter how you present it, to those people, it's "deviant" behavior to which they they feel they have some right or authority (usually being the loudest supposed defenders of "Liberty and freedom under the Const." no less...) while doing exactly what they fear most:
Organized suppression and oppression of one group by another usually cloaked in religion and morality, etc.
As usual, during times of social change, it's polarized between extremes, and yes, the gay faction also has an extreme side and agenda and they are a PITA.
That does not change the facts gay people should have the same Rights (with a capital R) under the US Const. and Bill of Rights as everyone else.
You don't have to like, nor do you have to approve, but as long they don't infringe on your or my ability to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" then you do have to tolerate it.
Tolerance does not just mean with those you happen to agree with.
If your resistance is on religious grounds, not my problem nor their problem.
Moral grounds, see above.
Const. grounds, that matters, and if there's a Const. reason one can use and defend for this "the gays are coming the gays are coming" hysteria and phobia, I have yet to see it.
Sooner we stop allowing the extremes on both sides of this spectrum to delay it, and waste or time on their petty BS, the more we prevent attention to being focused on FAR larger issues we face.
I'm sorry your 1950's version of life is going bye bye, but going it is.
One more time: you have served, worked with, and called friend, a gay person at one time or another who did their damn job, wouldn't harm a child if their life depended on it, and may have saved your ass at some point.
They shouldn't have to live in hiding nor shame nor fear of losing their job (or worse if history is a guide) because some people can't fathom their "deviant" life style.
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 18:23
In order to get a 'zero' as to where you are coming from; do you have a boy of yours in the Boy Scouts?
I disagree.
Homosexuals were being forced to hide the orientation completely, or be kicked out.
Everyone was being forced to hide their sexual preferences, it wasn't limited to homosexuals.
What??
They aren't.
I think that if you want to label them as something, intolerant is a much more fitting term.
They aren't intolerant, it appears that you are applying adult social norms to children between the ages of 5-16. This has nothing to do with intolerance. The only thing that this policy shift did was bring sexuality into an organization that didn't have issues with sexual preferences originally.
I disagree. See above.
It seems pretty clear, the council asked our opinions, the majority gave those opinions and the council didn't listen.
What is there to disagree on?
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 18:26
And what would you and the rest of the homo loving world would do if the Boy Scouts had decided to not cave in?
That was out of order. This discussion isn't about homo or hetero loving.
I think this discussion is more about applying adult social norms to a bunch of children. In my opinion that is wrong, the boys are too young to form an opinion either way.
Army Chief
05-27-13, 18:31
Why is it that you cannot wrap your head around the simple concept that a private organization has no obligation to admit people it finds contrary to its aims and every right to exclude them.
Tell me. What gives anyone the right to demand admission to a private group when they are not wanted?
Like I said, I pray the BSA pays a dear price for following the whims of secular society and blows away to nothing. I pray churches all across the land shun the BSA and deny them the resources that they were so graciously extended until the BSA saw it fit to disrespect those congregations.
And what would you and the rest of the homo loving world would do if the Boy Scouts had decided to not cave in?
Smuckatelli beat me to the draw, but take care here, brother. You are treading very close to danger with comments like these.
AC
citizensoldier16
05-27-13, 18:34
I am contemplating sending my Eagle Scout certificate back to the national office in disgust
I already did...with quite a fuming letter of utter disgust. I sent them back every badge I ever earned, and every uniform item I had kept over the years. If enough of us do the same, maybe they'll get the message. Who knows. But until then....F them. My kids will play baseball.
Why is it that you cannot wrap your head around the simple concept that a private organization has no obligation to admit people it finds contrary to its aims and every right to exclude them.
Tell me. What gives anyone the right to demand admission to a private group when they are not wanted?
Like I said, I pray the BSA pays a dear price for following the whims of secular society and blows away to nothing. I pray churches all across the land shun the BSA and deny them the resources that they were so graciously extended until the BSA saw it fit to disrespect those congregations.
And what would you and the rest of the homo loving world would do if the Boy Scouts had decided to not cave in?
And there you have it. Insults and demeaning terminology to make your case that much less effective and expose what you really are, and another call for your personal religious beliefs (and your tolerance shown so very impressive...) to which matter less to me than you could possibly imagine.
If it's Const. to prevent employment and inclusion of a group due to race, religion, sex, or sexual preference then lets look at that minus your version of morality and religious beliefs. Are you and other capable of that? I'd love to be proven wrong there...
Can they legally exclude blacks or Jews? I'm open to hearing that position on the issue.
Grand58742
05-27-13, 18:50
The fact is, some people don't want them to have equal rights under the law, equal rights in all facets of society, etc, because no matter how you present it, to those people, it's "deviant" behavior to which they they feel they have some right or authority (usually being the loudest supposed defenders of "Liberty and freedom under the Const." no less...) while doing exactly what they fear most:
Organized suppression and oppression of one group by another usually cloaked in religion and morality, etc.
As usual, during times of social change, it's polarized between extremes, and yes, the gay faction also has an extreme side and agenda and they are a PITA.
So Will, by your definition, the Boy Scouts of America for the past 100 years is in effect no different than the New Black Panther Party. I mean, the NBPP are a group that preaches intolerance, focuses suppression and oppression of a particular class of people and cloaks that in a morality and/or spiritual guidance and are polarized into one side of the debate.
So exactly how are the Boy Scouts and the Black Panthers any different according to your definitions?
Tolerance does not just mean with those you happen to agree with.
And concurrently, I would fully expect tolerance for being able to disagree from an opposing viewpoint based on my morality and/or spiritual beliefs. Sadly, when was the last time this happened without being labeled as a polarizing and certainly having a "wrong" viewpoint from the opposing side of the equation? I either agree with the decision or else I'm organizing suppression and oppression cloaked in religion or morality and living in the 1950s.
So tolerance does work both ways. Unfortunately, it often preached and rarely practiced.
Known as "head in sand, ignore them and they don't exist" policy, which has been so successful through history.
They are not going away, ever, There will be no "cure" ever. They should simply be able to work under a policy that states the employer does not discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation.
The fact is, some people don't want them to have equal rights under the law, equal rights in all facets of society, etc, because no matter how you present it, to those people, it's "deviant" behavior to which they they feel they have some right or authority (usually being the loudest supposed defenders of "Liberty and freedom under the Const." no less...) while doing exactly what they fear most:
Organized suppression and oppression of one group by another usually cloaked in religion and morality, etc.
As usual, during times of social change, it's polarized between extremes, and yes, the gay faction also has an extreme side and agenda and they are a PITA.
That does not change the facts gay people should have the same Rights (with a capital R) under the US Const. and Bill of Rights as everyone else.
You don't have to like, nor do you have to approve, but as long they don't infringe on your or my ability to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" then you do have to tolerate it.
Tolerance does not just mean with those you happen to agree with.
If your resistance is on religious grounds, not my problem nor their problem.
Moral grounds, see above.
Const. grounds, that matters, and if there's a Const. reason one can use and defend for this "the gays are coming the gays are coming" hysteria and phobia, I have yet to see it.
Sooner we stop allowing the extremes on both sides of this spectrum to delay it, and waste or time on their petty BS, the more we prevent attention to being focused on FAR larger issues we face.
I'm sorry your 1950's version of life is going bye bye, but going it is.
One more time: you have served, worked with, and called friend, a gay person at one time or another who did their damn job, wouldn't harm a child if their life depended on it, and may have saved your ass at some point.
They shouldn't have to live in hiding nor shame nor fear of losing their job (or worse if history is a guide) because some people can't fathom their "deviant" life style.
Well said.
Everyone was being forced to hide their sexual preferences, it wasn't limited to homosexuals.
Really?
So anybody who was openly heterosexual was kicked out?
You are not viewing this objectively, and you are making statements that simply are not true.
Army Chief
05-27-13, 18:57
And there you have it. Insults and demeaning terminology to make your case that much less effective. To be clear, from the vitriol you spew above, I'd wrap myself in a F ing rainbow flag and march down Gay Street before all to see proclaiming my love for the "homo world" before I'd share a beer with a bigot of such proportions as you have shown to be.
Put me in your ignore box as I will do for you, we we don't have to cross paths on this forum again.
Will, c'mon -- help me out, man. Don't respond in-kind to this kind of crap. It's how we ended up where we were last time.
AC
It seems pretty clear, the council asked our opinions, the majority gave those opinions and the council didn't listen.
What is there to disagree on?
This:
Before the council dictated to the organization there were no outcasts.
Like I said:
I disagree.
Homosexuals were being forced to hide the orientation completely, or be kicked out.
Before the council decided on an official change of policy, homosexuals were outcasts.
Being forced to hide your orientation completely, or being kicked out...that sure sounds like being an outcast to me.
And it sure as heck is more of an outcast than what you were claiming.
If you remove yourself and your children from the organization because they are not kicking out anybody who is known to be homosexual, you are not an outcast. Or you are an outcast by choice. By choice. Not because it was forced on you. You absolutely cannot compare you choosing to quit because you don't like the life choices made by other members with being forced to hide who/what you are in order to keep from being kicked out.
Let's think of it this way...if you had to hide your religion from an organization or be kicked out, would you feel outcast? Or would the people who quit once they found out your religion be outcasts?
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 19:00
Really?
Yes, really.
So anybody who was openly heterosexual was kicked out?
Sexual preferences never came up.
You are not viewing this objectively, and you are making statements that simply are not true.
Actually I am viewing this objectively through experience in the program. The statements that I am making here are true. Is there a specific statement that you are questioning?
I asked this already but you may have missed it:
In order to get a 'zero' as to where you are coming from; do you have a boy of yours in the Boy Scouts?
This really boils down to adult social norms being forced on a bunch of boys aged 5 to 16.
NeoNeanderthal
05-27-13, 19:02
Everyone was being forced to hide their sexual preferences, it wasn't limited to homosexuals.
That is 100% untrue.
If a boyscout said he couldnt go to a camp out because he was going to prom with his girlfriend, nothing would happen. If the same scout said he could not go to a camp out because he was going to prom with his boyfriend, he could have been kicked out of scouting.
Obviously, ether sexual preference would get in trouble for over sharing personal details. But straight scouts are certainly allowed to talk about their girlfriends (and scout masters, their wifes) whilst obviously that is not the case with homosexuals.
Everyone was being forced to hide their sexual preferences, it wasn't limited to homosexuals.
That is 100% untrue.
If a boyscout said he couldnt go to a camp out because he was going to prom with his girlfriend, nothing would happen. If the same scout said he could not go to a camp out because he was going to prom with his boyfriend, he could have been kicked out of scouting.
Obviously, ether sexual preference would get in trouble for over sharing personal details. But straight scouts are certainly allowed to talk about their girlfriends (and scout masters, their wifes) whilst obviously that is not the case with homosexuals.
Exactly.
The same people who demand that private institutions such as the BSA adhere to the beckon call of something they do not agree with utilize the same tactics that they accuse said institutions of . . . . . intolerance.
Why is it that the LBGT community and their supporters cannot respect the rights of the BSA?
The boy scouts leached off the public for years getting special treatment when it comes to getting rooms to use and areas to camp. I've read multiple articles over the years about them being kicked out of areas for their religious ties(at least to the extent that they will not get the ride they had been). I don't know if areas still do give them special treatment but if they do I'd say the LGBT community has a reason to be made when their tax dollars go to supporting the BSA.
Most young boys that age wouldn't even know what gay was, except the LBGT community seems hell bent on telling them exactly what it is, so they can tell them it's "ok".
That is one of the problems the scouts have. A friend of the family that works for the scouts was talking about it. You have kids that go into the scouts young that have no idea of their sexuality. After working hard in it a few years they start to learn about their down sexuality and the gay ones get pushed out. Ends up causing issues and helps get people angry with the scouts, both internally and externally.
I'm an Eagle and I wouldn't put my kids in the BSA these days.
And no, not because of this (I support homosexuals in Scouting and while we're at it *gasp* Atheists too).
The BSA didn't even address sexuality whatsoever until the Mormons hijacked them in the late 80's.
ETA: Yes, I agree XYZ group can pick and choose who they want. However, that group should not receive -any- support (whether monetary or via personnel/equipment) from the US Gov (you know, our tax money.)
I agree with the above. The scouts were getting support though, not sure if they still are.
My problem is that I think overall the Boy Scouts can be a very positive influence on young boys' lives. Maybe even more so for under privileged boys. I don't think that ones religious views or sexual orientation should come in the way. I want to support the scouts, but not when they preach what I consider hate. I say this is a step in the right direction.
So Will, by your definition, the Boy Scouts of America for the past 100 years is in effect no different than the New Black Panther Party. I mean, the NBPP are a group that preaches intolerance, focuses suppression and oppression of a particular class of people and cloaks that in a morality and/or spiritual guidance and are polarized into one side of the debate.
So exactly how are the Boy Scouts and the Black Panthers any different according to your definitions?
Is that supposed make some sort of sense? No idea what you're talking about, sorry. If you can re phrase so I can make some sense of that, I'll do my best.
And concurrently, I would fully expect tolerance for being able to disagree from an opposing viewpoint based on my morality and/or spiritual beliefs. Sadly, when was the last time this happened without being labeled as a polarizing and certainly having a "wrong" viewpoint from the opposing side of the equation? I either agree with the decision or else I'm organizing suppression and oppression cloaked in religion or morality and living in the 1950s.
So tolerance does work both ways. Unfortunately, it often preached and rarely practiced.
On that I can 100% agree with you.
Will, c'mon -- help me out, man. Don't respond in-kind to this kind of crap. It's how we ended up where we were last time.
AC
Chief, you were commenting while i was removing that part! It's not in my post now as I decided it was not appropriate and removed it, while it appears you were responding to it.
Apologies.
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 19:18
That is 100% untrue.
If a boyscout said he couldnt go to a camp out because he was going to prom with his girlfriend, nothing would happen. If the same scout said he could not go to a camp out because he was going to prom with his boyfriend, he could have been kicked out of scouting.
Obviously, ether sexual preference would get in trouble for over sharing personal details. But straight scouts are certainly allowed to talk about their girlfriends (and scout masters, their wifes) whilst obviously that is not the case with homosexuals.
You are going to tell me that my experiences are 100% untrue?
That is a pretty bold statement.
There aren't many 5-16 year olds going to the prom in our Troop, was that an experience that you had with one of your Scouts?
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 19:19
Exactly.
Could you please answer this:
In order to get a 'zero' as to where you are coming from; do you have a boy of yours in the Boy Scouts?
I'm not trying to get you in an ambush, if you would answer the question I would have a better understanding of where you are coming from.
Alpha Sierra
05-27-13, 19:23
And there you have it. Insults and demeaning terminology to make your case that much less effective and expose what you really are, and another call for your personal religious beliefs (and your tolerance shown so very impressive...) to which matter less to me than you could possibly imagine.
If it's Const. to prevent employment and inclusion of a group due to race, religion, sex, or sexual preference then lets look at that minus your version of morality and religious beliefs. Are you and other capable of that? I'd love to be proven wrong there...
Can they legally exclude blacks or Jews? I'm open to hearing that position on the issue.
Answer my questions:
1) Do you understand that private groups can and will refuse admission and membership to whoever they want for whatever reason they want? A simple yes or no will suffice, please.
2) What would you personally do, or advocate others who think like you do, if the BSA had not sold its soul to the prevailing winds of opinion.
My ten year old and are are involved in scouting. We have been for the past four years. He just crossed over into the troop a few months ago. I'm not concerned. This is our world and we need to learn how to deal with it and make good choices that keep our kids safe. Your choices may not be mine. That is cool. We can still both be doing the right thing.
My take: The change passed by 60%. This was not even close. For the vote to have gone this way it would have to mean that A) 60% of the Adult leadership of the BSA is already gay. B) 60% of the Adult leadership of the BSA is straight and realized that there is no reason to exclude some boys from the program for what is most likely not a choice. C) 60% of the Adult leadership of the BSA realized that the organization needs money. It's well known that scouting was bleeding. Then again there could be "D)". I dunno what it could be but I think that it is safe to discount hoards of gay infiltrators using Jedi Mind tricks on the straight members.
Why the change in the rules. As others have said, it wasn't until the LDS took over scouting for all intents and purposes in the 80s that this even became an issue. They made the decision. Now does anyone need to know if someone is gay? Nope. In fact I could give two shits. But what the decision did was actually force the adult leadership to make note of this. With this decision the interest in a scouts sexuality is reset to the pre 80s
As to what will the effects be? On the positive side some boys won't have to hide who they are in order to participate in and contribute to the program and their community. I think this is important because Scouting's core values are seriously absent from so many. Kids don't have the opportunity at character development, citizenship training, and physical as well as mental fitness conditioning. Too many don't get to experience the benefits of the merit badge programs.
On the negative side I do know that within one hour of the announcement being made, one of our local troops was contacted by their charter organization and told they would no longer be welcome there and could not have any of their equipment. The point of this action was what? In the end it is the boys who suffer.
As for concerns about gay scouts acting on their impulses? This is not new territory. Look at Venture Scouting, which is co-ed for boys and girls, from 8th grade / 13 YO to 21 years old. They don't seem to have any problems.
My personal immediate concerns: As an adult scout leader I have to wonder if my scouts are gonna get harassed, out side of scouts, any more due to this decision? Keeping the boys in the program against the taunts they already get in school is an ever present problem. I don't have a problem with telling my scouts to lay off another scout with the cracks and cut downs should it become known if one of them is gay. After all, the Scout Master Handbook already explicitly states that we are to have zero tolerance for hazing, harassing, making fun of actions. This isn't any different.
But...er....um. Damn you and your logic. Look some of us are trying to un-pussy the program and give the boys something worthwhile to do. Scouting...I love working with the boys and hate dealing with their shit head, double latte drinking, tree hugging, soccer parents.
You just got my wheels spinning. Who owns the equipment. I would say the troop but my google foo shows it is as clear as mud!
It should be and will be. Do your f-ing job and go home. Expose anyone not a consenting adult to your sexual interests/preferences, be you you gay or hetero, or tri sexual, lose your job and or possible face jail time.
Do your thing on your own time and privacy of your own home with consenting adults, GTG.
Do it outside of that context, and we have problems.
The gay people I call friends wouldn't hurt a child if their life depended on it, period.
Join the scouts or any other group to bring your NAMBLA sick crap to involve non consenting adults, and let the full weight of the law land on you, and or, the parent who gets to you first. I will have zero empathy for you.
But gay teachers, soldiers, cops, etc, etc, exist in all facets of life, and in my experience, would kick the living crap out of someoene they saw harm a child. They do their job, and they go home.
Don't confuse gay with pedophile. One group I have have no problem calling a friend, the latter, I'll shed no tears regardless of what happens to you.
Some very good points Will. I'm not any more concerned about a gay scoutmaster than a straight male or female scout master. I don't completely trust anyone with my kids and neither should you. Two deep leadership is the answer. We need to teach our kids about the world and its dangers. Scouting is about scouting. I don't want to hear about anyone's sexual anything. It has no place in scouting.
Answer my questions:
1) Do you understand that private groups can and will refuse admission and membership to whoever they want for whatever reason they want? A simple yes or no will suffice, please.
Groups that take federal or local money and or tax breaks? No. The Supreme Court forced the Boys Clubs to admit girls, now they’re known as the Boys & Girls Clubs. They ruled that since the Boys Club accepted all boys, it was essentially public, except for girls. Hence, the SC has had to look at what really constitutes private vs actually public before. BSA would fail at that too.
2) What would you personally do, or advocate others who think like you do, if the BSA had not sold its soul to the prevailing winds of opinion.
I'd advocate they take the legal route to change their policies or force them to accept no federal/local tax breaks, federal or local funds.
They are not a private org and want it both ways. They can't have it.
Could you please answer this:
In order to get a 'zero' as to where you are coming from; do you have a boy of yours in the Boy Scouts?
I'm not trying to get you in an ambush, if you would answer the question I would have a better understanding of where you are coming from.
No, I do not.
But as we stated, homosexuals absolutely were outcasts. (or whatever term you think applies best, but outcasts is what was used earlier, so we are going with that)
Heterosexuals did not have to hide their sexual orientation. Homosexuals did, lest they be kicked out.
Quite different.
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 19:53
Scouting is about scouting. I don't want to hear about anyone's sexual anything. It has no place in scouting.
That is how it was until this change, now one's sexual preferences are a central issue.
NeoNeanderthal
05-27-13, 20:03
You are going to tell me that my experiences are 100% untrue?
That is a pretty bold statement.
There aren't many 5-16 year olds going to the prom in our Troop, was that an experience that you had with one of your Scouts?
Yep, are telling me that if a scout mentioned an appropriate relationship with a girl he would be removed? That was your experience?
When I was in Boyscouts (not cubscouts) plenty of boys/young men went to dances (including eagle scouts going to prom) not a single one of them had to keep descriptions gender neutral. (because they were all straight). It not even that simple. Scouts could never utter a word about their relationships but if someone saw them at a dance/movies/whatever with someone of the same sex then they could get kicked out of scouts. Even if they weren't "openly gay" but they got "caught."
I get your point, in an ideal world it shouldnt matter what you do in the bedroom because it should be kept private (gay or straight). However, that doesn't translate to reality, as scouts having a wife/girlfriend is excepted and having a boyfriend/husband is not. Straight scouts/leaders are not required to keep these things secret.
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 20:19
No, I do not.
But as we stated, homosexuals absolutely were outcasts. (or whatever term you think applies best, but outcasts is what was used earlier, so we are going with that)
Heterosexuals did not have to hide their sexual orientation. Homosexuals did, lest they be kicked out.
Quite different.
No my friend, sexual preferences was never an issue, it was never part of being a Boy Scout until this came out.
GeorgiaBoy
05-27-13, 20:21
No my friend, sexual preferences was never an issue, it was never part of being a Boy Scout until this came out.
How so?
Is not making it a rule that you can't be openly homosexual an issue?
The fact is:
If a heterosexual scout was to somehow let it be known he was heterosexual, nothing would come of it.
But if a homosexual scout was to somehow let it be known that he is homosexual, then he would be kicked out.
If a heterosexual scout was to somehow let it be known he was heterosexual, nothing would come of it.
"Guess what, kids? I'm a heretosexual!" Has that ever happened in the history of the BSA? Nope. Because there'd be no need to make such a statement. It's the default, the norm, the expected. There's pretty much no scenario where such a statement would be necessary, although possibly now going forward such a statement might potentially be made since we are introducing alternatives that shouldn't even be acknowledged and teaching or exposing kids to all sorts of strange and ridiculous things.
But if a homosexual scout was to somehow let it be known that he is homosexual, then he would be kicked out.
Yep, because it's abnormal, deviant, and unnecessary thing to ever bring up in such a context.
But, you know, continue to encourage such practices and watch how well that goes for the nation and our society as a whole.
So far, pushing that stuff has had precisely the sort of effect one would expect if they are well-versed in history and observe what happens to nations and societies that go down that road. But since it will be increasingly politically and socially unacceptable to tie the results to the cause, you will naturally hear less and less of the truth about it and the impact it has on society. Nothing new under the sun. The same cycles repeat themselves and most never learn from the past.
feedramp, you are missing the point entirely, and letting your personal bias and prejudice overtake your ability to reason on this subject.
There's a lot of that going around.
This feels kind of like trying to argue for the RKBA in the democratic underground.
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 20:40
Yep, are telling me that if a scout mentioned an appropriate relationship with a girl he would be removed? That was your experience?
Seriously, how can you sit there behind your keyboard and proclaim that my experience is 100% untrue? You do realize how that makes you sound don't you?
When I was in Boyscouts (not cubscouts) plenty of boys/young men went to dances (including eagle scouts going to prom) not a single one of them had to keep descriptions gender neutral. (because they were all straight). It not even that simple. Scouts could never utter a word about their relationships but if someone saw them at a dance/movies/whatever with someone of the same sex then they could get kicked out of scouts. Even if they weren't "openly gay" but they got "caught."
My son is in the Boy Scouts, I told of my experiences and to show that my experience were 100% untrue, you made up a hypothetical situation. Now you are saying that when you were a Boy Scout if someone saw them at a dance with someone of the same sex....they "could get kicked out."
Is it accurate for me to say that you never experienced someone getting kicked out for your hypothetical situation?
I get your point, in an ideal world it shouldnt matter what you do in the bedroom because it should be kept private (gay or straight). However, that doesn't translate to reality, as scouts having a wife/girlfriend is excepted and having a boyfriend/husband is not. Straight scouts/leaders are not required to keep these things secret.
I think you may be confusing the categories that I am discussing.
I am only looking at this from the current perspective of the boys from 5-16 announcing their sexual preferences. I wasn't discussing the adult leaders, I'm not concerned about the adults. they have a clear understanding of what the boundaries are. The 11 year old and the 15 year old generally do not.
Seriously, how can you sit there behind your keyboard and proclaim that my experience is 100% untrue? You do realize how that makes you sound don't you?
My son is in the Boy Scouts, I told of my experiences and to show that my experience were 100% untrue, you made up a hypothetical situation. Now you are saying that when you were a Boy Scout if someone saw them at a dance with someone of the same sex....they "could get kicked out."
Is it accurate for me to say that you never experienced someone getting kicked out for your hypothetical situation?
I think you may be confusing the categories that I am discussing.
I am only looking at this from the current perspective of the boys from 5-16 announcing their sexual preferences. I wasn't discussing the adult leaders, I'm not concerned about the adults. they have a clear understanding of what the boundaries are. The 11 year old and the 15 year old generally do not.
Can you give specifics about a heterosexual being kicked out for letting it be known that he was heterosexual?
That sounds like a pretty big deal, I'm surprised nobody else has heard of it.
GeorgiaBoy
05-27-13, 20:43
"Guess what, kids? I'm a heretosexual!" Has that ever happened in the history of the BSA? Nope. Because there'd be no need to make such a statement.
Yep, because it's abnormal, deviant, and unnecessary thing to ever bring up in such a context.
That doesn't make any sense. It is a double standard. Whether or not a kid would ever say "I'm heterosexual" is irrelevant. The fact is, the heterosexual would not be targeted and the homosexual would be, in whatever possible way that their actual orientations were exposed. I was simply questing the statement that sexual "preferences" were never an issue, when they very much were.
But, you know, continue to encourage such practices and watch how well that goes for the nation and our society as a whole.
You can't "encourage" or "suppress" the prevalence of homosexuality. It just "is". What you can do, as a society, is deem them to either be social deviants and treat them as such, or treat them like decent human beings and not have special rules that either make them less or more equal. The former is not what a free society should have. Revamping the social perception of about 1-2% of Americans is not going to send us down the path of destruction.
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 20:45
How so?
Sexual preferences was never a merit badge, sexual preferences were never discussed, it had no place in the Boy Scouts.
Sexual preferences was never a merit badge, sexual preferences were never discussed, it had no place in the Boy Scouts.
Yet they cared about the sexual preferences of members, to the point of kicking them out if their preference differed from the majority.
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 20:53
Can you give specifics about a heterosexual being kicked out for letting it be known that he was heterosexual?
That sounds like a pretty big deal, I'm surprised nobody else has heard of it.
You need to check you windage or your aim. You're drifting off target.
I made the following statement:
"Everyone was being forced to hide their sexual preferences, it wasn't limited to homosexuals."
You claimed it was 100% untrue.
You made your above claim by making up a hypothetical story, not based on facts...yet you insist on claiming that I am a liar. I recommend that you pull back and think about that for a couple minutes.
I think most of the people here that have experience with Scouting will say the same thing; sexual preferences was not a part of Scouting until now.
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 20:55
Yet they cared about the sexual preferences of members, to the point of kicking them out if their preference differed from the majority.
Is your above statement an emotional response?
Who was kicked out?
If someone was kicked out, why were they kicked out?
That doesn't make any sense. It is a double standard.
Only in the same way in which it is acceptable for some people to be allowed near children and not others. We set different standards for different groups all the time, because that is what is best for society. Originally, these standards came from scripture, which guided the moral codes and justice system established for this nation, and in a broader context most of Western civilization. The purpose of this moral code is to perpetuate society. Certain practices are forbidden because they destroy society.
On this topic we're once again back to a matter of consistency. The societal shift at work today is an attempt to change the status for homosexuality, which is one of the explicitly forbidden sexual acts listed right alongside bestiality, incest, pedophilia, etc, in the Old Testament, and reiterated in the list of lifestyles in the New Testament that will not enter the kingdom of heaven (read: sends you to hell if you don't repent and turn away from it and submit your desires and your will to God).
The argument for homosexual "rights" or "equality" therefore is inconsistent to begin with, because it desires to make an exception for homosexuality that, if allowed (and it is being allowed in some places already), sets the ground work for the other forbidden sexual practices to use the very same arguments to argue for their right to be legally practiced, because they are all rightly forbidden under the same line of reasoning. If you reject that reasoning, you lose the ability to argue against the others as well.
The thing that's being ignored in all of this is the presuppositions being brought to the table by those who support or advocate such things including not only demanding equality but essentially setting up a protected class for them, which is where the BSA decision comes into play. In order to think it's a good idea to do that, you first have to deny that homosexuality is wrong, but in so doing, you either have to do the same with the other sexual sins, or you're simply being inconsistent and therefore biased. See you lose the ability to deny any other sexual practice when you give approval to homosexuality, though you might not yet realize it, because the restrictions on it come from the same reasoning or place as those on certain other sexual practices. It then becomes a matter of appeal to emotion (e.g., we all know some very nice homosexuals (and soon you can replace that one with the other sexual practices), and why shouldn't they be able to be happy (as if what an individual deems to make them happy is the highest authority on whether they should be allowed to do something), and because of that we should argue for their sexual deviance to be normalized and legalized, and even taught to children as being acceptable, right, and good, and perhaps we will even set up laws that forbid talking ill of it as that might make someone feel bad about their sin.)
When viewed from a biblical, moral perspective, the arguments are absurd, false, and to be wholly rejected. But when viewed from the wisdom-so-called of the "enlightened" Western secular mindset, we will ignore the forest for the trees and mistake the approval of sinful practices with "equality" and "rights".
From your perspective it might appear to be a good and even moral thing to support "equality" and "rights" for those who wish to go against God's decrees and fornicate with the same sex, just as we've promoted such fornication among heterosexuals, but viewed from the perspective of scripture, it is no different. Whether those who want to fornicate with the opposite sex, the same sex, animals or children, none ought to be given the "equality" and "rights" comparable to proper behavior. You don't see this line of reasoning because you reject the pre-existing standard that sets the context for the entire topic of sexuality, let alone homosexuality.
Some see homosexuality as the first major step down a path of sexual misconduct that leads to utter societal degradation and destruction, but the truth is the first step was made decades ago in the heterosexual community when free love and promiscuity was promoted as good and natural. It might be natural but it is anything but good or healthy, as we've since found out with billions of dollars spent every year on the consequences of that movement. And it all stems from a rejection of the standard that deems them all equally wrong and sinful, in favor of the lie to "do what thou wilt". As always, we pay the consequences when we attempt to throw off the reins of God's standard and go our own way. Yes, you can go your own way, but you'll pay for it and you were warned of that. And there are consequences here and now, just as there are for eternity.
feedramp, you are missing the point entirely, and letting your personal bias and prejudice overtake your ability to reason on this subject.
Nah, man, it's just another perspective on things. Some want to go on about how wonderful they think the BSA decision was and how great an idea it is to allow and even promote those things in society, so one might as well take a moment to provide another perspective.
You need to check you windage or your aim. You're drifting off target.
I made the following statement:
"Everyone was being forced to hide their sexual preferences, it wasn't limited to homosexuals."
You claimed it was 100% untrue.
You made your above claim by making up a hypothetical story, not based on facts...yet you insist on claiming that I am a liar. I recommend that you pull back and think about that for a couple minutes.
I think most of the people here that have experience with Scouting will say the same thing; sexual preferences was not a part of Scouting until now.
Heterosexuals were forced to hide their sexual orientation?
Is your above statement an emotional response?
Who was kicked out?
If someone was kicked out, why were they kicked out?
Is that where this is going?
A list of names of those who were kicked out of BSA for being homosexual?
What purpose would this serve?
Are you implying that no homosexual was kicked out of BSA for being homosexual?
Or that they didn't need to hide their sexual orientation to avoid being kicked out?
Nah, man, it's just another perspective on things. Some want to go on about how wonderful they think the BSA decision was and how great an idea it is to allow and even promote those things in society, so one might as well take a moment to provide another perspective.
Yes, a lot of people think it is a good thing to allow people to be a part of society even if they are homosexual.
NeoNeanderthal
05-27-13, 21:41
I made the following statement:
"Everyone was being forced to hide their sexual preferences, it wasn't limited to homosexuals."
You claimed it was 100% untrue.
You made your above claim by making up a hypothetical story, not based on facts...yet you insist on claiming that I am a liar.
Woah woah woah. I am not calling you a liar. I'm not attacking you, i'm sorry if you felt that way. Your statement was an absolute ("everyone") so it makes it easy to say that it is untrue thats the fact. I have seen dozens of straight scouts NOT forced to hide their sexual preferences so obviously you are mistaken, sorry. Now, if you have seen instances where straight scouts were forced to hide their sexual preferences (i'm sure it occurs) than please do share. I would be interested (because thats how I feel it should have been run). Just because occasionally the system worked like it should have, doesn't mean it always did.
steyrman13
05-27-13, 21:45
Woah woah woah. I am not calling you a liar. I'm not attacking you, i'm sorry if you felt that way. Your statement was an absolute ("everyone") so it makes it easy to say that it is untrue thats the fact. I have seen dozens of straight scouts NOT forced to hide their sexual preferences so obviously you are mistaken, sorry. Now, if you have seen instances where straight scouts were forced to hide their sexual preferences (i'm sure it occurs) than please do share. I would be interested (because thats how I feel it should have been run). Just because occasionally the system worked like it should have, doesn't mean it always did.
I have never seen or heard of a homosexual scout or seen or heard of one kicked out, but that doesn't mean it has or hasn't happened.
However, I have seen scouts been told to quit talking about their heterosexual "adventures" and focus on scouting or the task or activity at hand
Heterosexuals were forced to hide their sexual orientation?
"Heterosexuals" by and large are normal people for whom sexuality is not their primary identifier nor (for the vast majority of them) the obsession they build their life around. The same cannot be said for those who self-identify by their sexuality or make it a focus of their life to demand others accept them because of their sexual orientation and approve of their sexual lifestyle.
Yes, a lot of people think it is a good thing to allow people to be a part of society even if they are homosexual.
The notion that a lot of people approve of homosexuality today is correct, however the tyranny of the majority does not determine what is truly right and truly wrong. Not only will we all collectively suffer for such decisions as a nation/society in the present, but each of us will also face our Creator one day to be judged without excuse.
"Heterosexuals" are better known as "normal people" for whom sexuality is not their primary identifier nor (for the vast majority of them) the obsession they build their life around.
Painting with a bit of a broad brush here, it would seem.
The notion that a lot of people approve of homosexuality today is correct, however the tyranny of the majority does not determine what is truly right and truly wrong. Not only will we all collectively suffer for such decisions as a nation/society in the present, but each of us will also face our Creator one day to be judged without excuse.
When logic fails, quote religion as a justification.
When logic fails, quote religion as a justification.
I have and can articulate a basis for my beliefs. What's the basis for yours?
I have and can articulate a basis for my beliefs. What's yours?
Equality.
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 21:54
Woah woah woah. I am not calling you a liar. I'm not attacking you, i'm sorry if you felt that way
You are shooting at the wrong target...;)
That response was to Warp, he is the one calling me a liar.
You are shooting at the wrong target...;)
That response was to Warp, he is the one calling me a liar.
His response is as goof of an example as I could ever point to showing how your statement was not correct.
Equality.
No, what's the basis for your beliefs. (Had edited the previous post to clarify the question but you must have already hit Quote.)
Your sig quote mentions "evil" and "good" but how can you make sense of those concepts in a world of "equality"? Are good and evil equal in your mind? If not, why not? What's the basis for your beliefs, if you have one, or are they arbitrary?
No, what's the basis for your beliefs. (Had edited the previous post to clarify the question but you must have already hit Quote.)
I do not feel the need to point to any particular religion, religious document, or similar entity or organization as the basis for my beliefs.
My beliefs are my own.
And they include Equality. They do not include denigrating groups of people who are different then I am.
NeoNeanderthal
05-27-13, 21:59
You are shooting at the wrong target...;)
That response was to Warp, he is the one calling me a liar.
I could let him take the blame. but i am the one that said "That is 100% untrue" not Warp.
I could let him take the blame. but i am the one that said "That is 100% untrue" not Warp.
Correct.
I seconded it, though.
Smuckatelli
05-27-13, 22:04
Heterosexuals were forced to hide their sexual orientation?
Again...sexual orientation was never a part of Scouting until last week.
It really isn't that hard to understand, I think that you might be allowing your emotions to interfere with your posting.
Is that where this is going?
Generally speaking, when you present something as a fact, you should be able to back it up with something besides hypothetical scenarios.
A list of names of those who were kicked out of BSA for being homosexual?
What purpose would this serve?
Is it safe to say that you were making that up?
Are you implying that no homosexual was kicked out of BSA for being homosexual?
Or that they didn't need to hide their sexual orientation to avoid being kicked out?
Again...here's your statement:
"Yet they cared about the sexual preferences of members, to the point of kicking them out if their preference differed from the majority."
You are the one doing the "implying." Do you know of anyone getting kicked out or are you guessing?
Again...sexual orientation was never a part of Scouting until last week.
Why was there a policy about it?
Generally speaking, when you present something as a fact, you should be able to back it up with something besides hypothetical scenarios.
Again, are you implying that nobody was ever kicked out of BSA for being homosexual?
What can you tell us about Eric Jones of Missouri?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/missouri-eagle-scout-eric-jones-loses-boy-scouts-job-article-1.1115649
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/eric-jones-boy-scouts-missouri-_n_3326158.html
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.