E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
/
A statue in front of the National Scouting Museum in Irving, Texas, on Monday.
“BATTLESTATIONS!” “The phones are ringing off the wall.” “Good turn for the day. (takes less than one minute).”
These are the battle cries made by advocates on both sides of the debate over allowing gays into the Boy Scouts. They are urging their supporters to call or email the private youth organization as it weighs lifting its longstanding, controversial ban, with a decision expected next week.
The new policy, now under discussion, would revise the national organization’s rules to allow local sponsoring organizations to decide for themselves whether to admit gay scouts and leaders. If approved, the change could be announced as early as next week, after the Boy Scouts of America's national board holds a regularly scheduled meeting.
On the Facebook page for George Takei, known for his role as Mr. Sulu in Star Trek, he urged those wanting to end the ban to hit their “BATTLESTATIONS!” and to “Takei Stand.” He gave supporters a step-by-step guide, telling them to call, say they were for the change, and then to like and share the message. As of Thursday afternoon, more than 56,000 people had liked his status and 41,000 had shared it, while another 6,000 left comments.
“Let's FLOOD their lines with thousands of calls. (Believe me, the other side's busy, too...),” he wrote.
And indeed, they were. The Family Research Council, which supports maintaining the ban, noted in an appeal to its supporters on its website: “The phones are ringing off the wall.”
“If you've tried to get through to the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), you know it's been tough. If you've wanted to express your concern about the BSA abandoning their longstanding policy of safeguarding Scouts by restricting openly homosexual Scout leaders from holding leadership positions, you may have been greeted by an endlessly ringing phone. This may be one instance in which the Boy Scouts were not prepared,” for what the council said was the response of thousands of Americans opposed to the change.
It then listed the numbers for each of the BSA’s board members and provided a sample phone script for supporters to read. On the council’s Facebook page, a similar post had received nearly 3,900 likes and more than 2,800 shares plus 800 comments.
After years of heartache, gay Scouts and supporters react warily over proposal to lift ban
When a reporter called the BSA Wednesday night, a woman who answered the phone asked, “Are you for or against the proposed policy change?” When the reporter identified her news organization, the woman said the Scouts had been taking calls since about 3 p.m. Monday and it had been very busy.
“When we receive calls we are indeed allowing people to provide feedback, but it’s not a poll (and we won’t be releasing data about the feedback),” BSA spokesman Deron Smith said in an email, responding to an inquiry about the calls and when they began.
On the organization's Facebook page, people were asked to provide feedback by email or to a phone number provided. Some who posted there asked about getting a running tally.
But by Thursday afternoon, opponents of the ban reported that the BSA was no longer taking the phone feedback (Smith did not respond to an inquiry on whether the BSA had stopped). So the secondary tactic was deployed.
“so inundated! recorded msg states system can no longer take calls! revolution by email it is,” wrote one poster, identified as Seattle Punk Rock Aerobics.
Related stories:
- Gay teen denied Eagle Scout: 'Change is happening' over Boy Scouts anti-gay policy
- Eagle Scouts return badges to protest policy banning gays
- Boy Scouts: We're keeping policy banning gays
If you are a current or former member of the Boy Scouts and would like to share your thoughts on how your troop, pack or council is handling the possibility of a change in the membership policy, you can email the reporter at miranda.leitsinger@msnbc.com. We may use some comments for a follow-up story, so please specify if your remarks can be used and provide your name, hometown, age and Boy Scout affiliation.
Leave a Comment:
Friendly reminder: Lord Baden-Powell who founded the Boy Scouts was himself gay.
Baden-Powell's alleged homosexuality is pure speculation and, even if affirmed, would be wholly irrelevant.
Every Pedofile in America is praying for the ban to be lifted. Such a virgin hunting ground for them and good luck sending your kids out in the woods with them. I am thankful I was kicked out of the BSA for throwing burning marshmallows at others Cubs in an all out "napalm" night fight.......
Ah, yes. Conflating homosexuality with pedophilia. Sounds like they threw you out of the BSA for being stupid.
Ah, can't wait for the "sharing" in the sleeping bag can you stupid?? LOL.
Apparently already shared and covered up. And these are pedofiles, not gays.
The vast majority of pedophiles are straight, so there will be no appreciable change in molestation in the scouts. A man who is a pedophile is more likely to be attracted to women or nobody who is mature, and thus is already allowed in the Boy Scouts.
Wow. Just wow.
every pedophile is terrified, because gays can often spot child abuse and will report them, and are the least likely to molest a child, if parents looked at facts, they would insist on having openly gay scout leaders and priests..
it's the heterosexual that is most likely to abuse a child..
It’s amazing that there are any men left that feel that their masculinity is so fragile that it would be endangered by being around a gay man.
Early discussion of Baden-Powell's sexuality focused on his relationship with his close friend Kenneth McLaren.[47]:217–218[48]:48 Tim Jeal's later biography discusses the relationship and finds that there is no conclusive evidence that this friendship was physical.[7]:82 Jeal then examines Baden-Powell's views on women, his appreciation of the male form, his military relationships, and his marriage, concluding that Baden-Powell might have been a repressed homosexual.[7]:103 Jeal's conclusion is shared by some biographers and disputed by others, but is not yet examined in any detail by other scholars.[49]:6
"I'm a homophobic bigot, and I didn't get my way cause society and tolerance towards others are marching on without me. First women gets equal rights, then black, and now GAYS!! What is this world coming to. I'm pissed off damn it, and I'm going to spend my time yelling at the wind!!!
RAWR!!"
{spoken in my best homophobic hater voice...}
Oh wow. I didn't know that. I am going to google that right now. Hmmmmmmmm
@stupified; I think that @XLR8 already admitted that he was kicked out of Scouting for his stupidity and his casual disregard to the pain and suffering he is willing to inflict on others. The question is, what is it about gay that scares him?
Haven't you heard? Pedophiles were born that way and can't help their sexual preference to minors.
If the Boy Scouts relent and allow gays in will that put an end to this?Maybe the scouts will make a new rule about no sex during scout functions.That would be reasonable.If anyone breaks that rule they could be tossed out.(regardless of gay or straight.)
I used to work with the Boy Scouts and I can tell you from personal experience that they are a dying organization - and it is largely because of their anti-gay policy. No one wants to give money to bigots. The country is moving forward and the BSA needs to move forward - or get left behind. Bigots just aren't cool anymore.
To all of you gay folks:
Go do whatever you want to in the privacy of your bedroom....I really don't care. But don't try to shove your agenda down my throat; I am free to believe whatever I believe....period!
Why are homophobes always so fond of the rather ironic metaphor of "shoving things down our throats"?
wolfhound, I'm pretty sure the Boy scouts already have a rule against sex at meetings. Everybody will be expected to conduct themselves with the same decorum they always have.
There are BOY scouts and GIRL scouts. Let the homosexuals start their own Gay scouts or LGBT scouts!!
This is not a 'homophobic' idea as I do not have a 'FEAR of homosexuals', which is what I believe the word actually means. I just differ from them and do not approve of that lifestyle.
Give it a year or 2 jock.We haven't seen or heard the last of this i am sure.
Time to disband the Boy Scouts. Let the gays start their own club. Maybe Man/Boy Scouts. The straights can go fishing and camping with their fathers. The radical gay agenda has brought down a wonderful organization. They must be proud.
Um no genius.....Homosexuals are born with their sexual orientation just like u were born with yours.....while Pedophiles have a mental defect that was created over time during their childhood and cannot be cured....see the difference you BIGOT!!!
Griffer,Everybody has a right to there opinions wether other people like it or not.It does seem however that things are changing in America.Name calling and other insults have become the order of the day if you disagree.Disagreeing with Gay makes you a bigot.Even being neutral makes you a bigot.If you just don't care about gay rights,makes you a bigot.If you are not gay it makes you a bigot.Did i miss anything?queenie proves my point.Because gay/lesbians can be BIGOTS TOO!!!
IXLR8
"Every Pedofile in America is praying for the ban to be lifted. Such a virgin hunting ground for them and good luck sending your kids out in the woods with them". How in the heck do you know this? You don't. This is a LIE!!!! Sorry
The rad gay agenda has made a bigoted organization better. As a married straight man with kids, I am proud: less bigotry makes for a better world for my kids to grow up in.
We are changing the Boy Scouts for the better. Let the homophobes start their own club. Maybe Bigot/Douche Scouts.
Bullsh*t. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim other than a bunch of biased "studies" done by people trying to promote an agenda.
So you are claiming that one abnormal behavior is genetic while the other is a defect? Effing hypocrite.
disagree all you want BUT when u want to discriminate based on sexual orientation you are a BIGOT and when peeps pull BS out of their AZZ to deny a group of peeps RIGHTS then that indeed makes them a BIGOT.....got it....GOOD....I'm a straight woman and I am sick and tired of the dayum witch hunt on the gay community.....
I don't think there would be enough money (participants) to support LGBT Scouts of America. The LGBT community knows that. The only way they could survive with an organization is to take the old guard down, & become the "new" normal. Pulling enough money (participants) along with them to become a viable, sustainable group. Then they vilify the former leadership & their evil practices - removing the final barriers to talking over.
Scouting will go the way of this nation - down the rainbow road. Straight people will just have to pull their kids (and their money) out and start another private organization. Let the LGBT community have the Scout organizations...
Mr.Steady
the only BS i see here is you GENIUS....homosexuality is NOT abnormal behavior just because you don't like it no matter how much YOU want it to be....now please show me ONE study that says homosexuality is CHOSEN.....please tell me when YOU decided to be sexually attracted to women if indeed that is the case......Otherwise shut up about it!!!
Spider
You can say whatever you want, whenever you want. That's what makes America... America. No matter how wrong one may be. It is your right to say whatever you want. God bless America
The only thing that lifting the ban on gays in the Boy Scouts threatens, is bigotry.
Here's the deal ... if you want to continue to not approve of homoseuxality, you have the right to do that. You have the right to NOT be in a gay relationship or a gay marriage. You even have the right to not have friends that are gay. You have the right to not belong to a church that allows gay members. In other words, you have the right to think what you like and associate with whom you please.
Here's what you DON'T have the right to do ... discriminate against those who do NOT agree with you. I realize that my attitude will upset people on BOTH sides of the issue. But I've been around for a while, and I've realized that while you can change the RULES/LAWS, you can't always change attitudes. Sometimes you have to change the RULES first when warranted (as in civil rights) and then once people realize the world hasn't come to an end, attitudes will begin to change. You can force the needed RULE changes, but if you try to force an ATTITUDE change, it will most likely backfire.
Now, what the Boy Scouts has come up with seems like a reasonable solution to me. The LOCAL troop gets to decide. So, if the sponsoring organization is a church that does not condone homosexuality, chances are that troop won't allow gays. However, if the sponsoring organization is affiliated with a group that doesn't care (or is even partially tax payer funded), then they probably WILL.
I am not going to say whether I approve of the BSA policy or not, because that is not relevant. What I will way is that I hope they do not cave in to this pressure. They are a private organization and have every right to set their membership policies however they wish. I am tired of the LGBT community trying to force everyone to accept them and their lifestyle. I personally do not care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, that is their choice. That does not mean that I have to endorse or accept their choice. People have a right to differ on things like this and the BSA organization has every right to restrict their membership if they choose to do so. If the LGBT community has a problem with this, let them start their own scouting organization that is open to everyone. Then people can choose for themselves which organization they want to be part of. If the LGBT community is so sure of their position then they should welcome this challenge and expect that they will take a large chunk of BSAs membership away. The reality is that they know this will not happen because even those who are not anti-LGBT do not necessarily approve of them or their lifestyle. They are fine with allowing them to live their lives the way they want, but do not endorse their lifestyle or want to be associated with it. This ability for people to make an open choice like this would reveal how people, even those who claim to be open minded, really feel and the LGBT community does not want that to happen. They would rather force other to accept them by forcing their way in where they are not really wanted.
Alot of posts here make it sound like,If you are not gay you are a bigot.Many open debates and negotiations have been killed by the word,BIGOT.From what i read here alot of LGBT's are bigots too in their own way.
Good post JS in SD.I agree whole heartedly..Pretty darn cold in SD today isn't it?LOL
IXLR8....I got thrown out of the BSA for eating a Brownie.....
If the BSA wants to remain a discriminatory organization, that's fine with me. However, they are IMMEDIATELY cut off from anything my local, state, and federal taxes support.
http://secular.org/news/government-funding-boys-scouts-discriminatory-policies-unacceptable
Sorry, but my tax dollars ARE NOT to be used to pay for the BOA or any organization that does not live up to "We the People"
in yesterdays news about the "gay dog" it was stated by many posters that homosexuality is natural & found throughout the animal kingdom , they are correct , so is incest , a cat & dog & many animals will have sex with siblings , if this is an arguement for accepting gays , it is seriously lacking intellect. i would hope that we have higher standards than a dog.
If gays are allowed to join this organization, it will have a major impact on the very principles for which the organization was founded.
Will parents want their child to become a member IF the scout master is gay? I don't think so, unless the parents are gay.
The agenda here is to destroy the BSA by a group of people that either don't care OR they are gay and want to force their immoral and ungodly lifestyle on others.
We as Americans must take a stand on the very survival of this organization we've come to appreciate and the impact it has made on so many of our children.
Svenolafson
Can the Man/Boy scouts use the same bathrooms as the Boy scouts? Can the Man/Boy scouts sit wherever they want on the bus? How about the drinking fountains?
Svenolafson, do you ever get so mad at the fags that you just want to pin one of them down and force your throbbing red hot convictions down their throats and scream " Uncle Jimbo, thats not how the last Scout Master handed out the hotdogs. I don't want to grab it with my lips."
if the boy scouts don't want to allow gays, so what. the gays can go start their own club.
ItsAboutTime,
Uhmm, I don't think there is any current local, state, or federal tax support of the boy scouts. In 2005 in response to a suit filed by the ACLU for violating the religious liberty of a scout who would not swear a religious oath all direct government sponsorship of scouts was ended. Either you're trying to set up a straw man argument or you're another one of them low information voters. Either way it is plain for all to see that the boy scouts have been a target of the Radical Left Wing Liberal/Progressive Democrats for years. One more underpinning of the US being targeted and attacked by the anti-US Left.
it is a private organization, its members pay dues and raise money; if they do not want red-headed step children to join, so what; no one is forced to join the Scouts being tolerant is one thing ,forcing ones belief on another is another thing. if gays are forced to join, camping out in the woods will be a lot more interesting.
Sven Olafson, did you read it, did you see what I did there? I insinuated that you were mouth raped by your uncle at a Boy Scouts camp retreat. It sets the story of your hatred towards "certain" groups of people.
Every single argument I've read, heard or otherwise encountered, both before and in this thread, against equality for gays has been used against equality for blacks and one point or another. It boggles me that so many Americans can still be so uneducated, so unenlightened and, dare I say it, downright stupid that they don't see the parallels...that they don't believe history will view them with the same contempt it does racists who pushed so hard to keep racial segregation in practice.
Enjoy your place in history, you foolish, foolish bigots.
Svenolafson
Umm yes there is. Did you read the link I posted? Please go and read that or do your own google search. My local, state, and federal tax dollars are USED by the BOA.
Umm no. What is plain to see, is that the BOA can remain a discriminatory organization all it wants. However, if it wants my support (via tax dollars), then they cannot treat gays like second class citizens.
Its the right that feels their special rights to discriminate are being taken away. Guess what, they are. I suggest your study the American Constitution and tell me where it says "We the People" unless you are gay.
queenie, you have got to be one of the most biased people I have ever seen. You say Homosexuality is a something from birth while Pedophilia is a mental disorder. When we point this out you say that we are just bigots but you give no good answer. Tell me, aren't you being Bigoted towards the needs of those poor oppressed pedophiles? I mean there is just as much evidence that their pedophilia orientation is from birth just the same as homosexuals. So unless you want to stop being a hypocrite decide which is it. Are both mentally ill, or are both born that way?
BT,
Sure, why wouldn't they? It's not a civil rights issue like the discrimination of blacks in the years up to the 1960s. I don't know anybody that has a problem any of the questions you pose.
L.J. Rhodes. Right on the money. I will cook you dinner.
Ok, how about no Nordic races in the Boy Scouts. Its a private organization they can exclude who they want to exclude.
ItsAboutTime,
Reread my post jr. There is no direct funding of the boy scouts. It's seems strange and I'm kinda embarrassed for all you homos that seem to have a hard-on for the boy scouts. Why don't you just go and start a scouting group of your own sponsored by NAMBLA?
As long as there is ANY funding -- direct or indirect -- of ANY organization using local, state or federal taxes, it should not be allowed to discriminate.
That's why the BSA had a good solution to the issue. Let the LOCAL troops decide, based on the sponsoring agency.
Most children of scouting age don't have a sexual identity yet, they just want to learn civic duty and personal responsibility. You would deny an entire group of young men these valuable life lessons just because you don't like gay people? No wonder our country is so screwed up.
Sincerely - Eagle Scout ('02) with a gay brother who is also an Eagle ('04).
conservativelybiased14
Are you nuts or what. For one thing Pedophilia is classified as a mental disorder by the DSMR, and Homosexuality is not.
Quite the contrary. Most sexual abusers where at one time sexually abused themselves. Therefore it is a learned behavior not one that someone is born with.
You might want to check out some scientific fact before making statements like this.
What ever happened to "freedom of association"?
Freedoms of association is a human right let alone a Constitutional right.
How can gays call people who disagree with them 'bigots' and 'intolerant' when gays are being intolerant of others values and social positions by trying to force their way into other peoples private groups? BSA is a perfect example of a private group under siege.
I was taught when growing up to go where your accepted and celebrated. Is this a bigoted statement? NO!
Gays are free to start their own private scouting groups and celebrate each other. Is that a bigoted statement? NO!
It matters not if a private group discriminates. As a Christian, I'm sure that I could be shot and dying outside an atheist front door and he/she still does not have to let me in.
See, no one here has to accept me or agree with me. See, no bigotry here.
However, everyone here has to accept gays, their sexual behaviors, and must let them into their private organizations, clubs, circles, etc. because if you don't you are a hater, bigot, homophobic, neanderthal, mean spirited poor excuse for a human being!
Now, who is the bigot and who is trying to force themselves on others here?
Hi Steve,
Love the hat man!
From the sounds of the bigots what they want resembles Hitlers youth, and not anything that even remotely resembles the BSA and it's efforts to become more inclusive.
Welcome to the 21st century....We like to look at everyone equally, & with respect as well as tolerance.
Hi Dave, im a poor black transgender man down on his luck. Can I have dinner with your family? Now I do believe that tolerance is one of the pillars of your cherished religion. Can I golf at your country club too?
Now now Steve,
*****You said, "From the sounds of the bigots what they want resembles Hitlers youth"
Steve, that is not a very tolerant, respectful statement.
Tolerance and respect goes both ways sir.
Start at the point of mutual respect and tolerance in civility in the words you use and you may just win over some.
Till then, you are just as intolerant and bigoted as the people you claim are intolerant and bigoted.
Hi david thank you ;-)
BT, maybe you are poor and down on your luck because you seem to talk with forked tongue?
Our condition will always change for the better the moment we decide in our hearts to speak honestly with our neighbor.
That is what God tells me. So, please go and settle the matter with Lord Jesus Christ.
Then friend, come see me and we can have dinner.
Silly question time. If Pedophiles were designated like that at birth, wouldn't they technically not be considered be pedophiles until they reached 18? Otherwise you're just dating someone within your age range.
I've seen more instances of pedophilia on organizations that completely ban homosexuality; like certain religions (Not just Catholic, but Baptist, Protestant, Islamic, Mormons and various other faiths.)
Maybe it's time to do something different.
How do people consider a Pedophile as straight if any thing he/ she is Bisexual and thus part of the Gay community, there is nothing natural or normal about either one. and for the gays to bring their war of acceptance to the youth organizations is disgusting, all they really want is to influence our children, they should stay away from anything 18 and below, its a form of mental pedophilia perverts at work on their agenda, bunch of perverts forcing their twisted ways on our youth, if they get their nose in the tent the rest of the body will follow, they are not up to anything good, they don't care about scouting its the gay agenda they want to work on and to get into youth groups to spread their message is part of the program, why was the lesbian troop leader wearing a big rainbow Gay patch on her scout leader uniform? and bring all this trouble and embarrassment down on her child and these children that were entrusted to her to begin with, she doesn't care about the children its her gay agenda that drives her, this fight does not belong in our children's lives, in fact children are killing themselves over this s#it, its true teen age suicide is rising over gay pressure. keep these Queers away from our children. did these people that put their kids in scouts do it so their kids could become a part of this Lesbians war on gay acceptance to me this is child abuse. and the gay community is behind it. ande the Boy scouts have a responsibility to stand their ground, and people of all standing have a responsibility to back them.
BTW David-3994413 I'm gay...Just so you know.
Look we are not asking for special rights...Just equal rights. If you could put yourself in the place of a black American or us and walk a mile in our shoes you would be able to see that. People from the LGBT community have died, been beaten, arrested, harassed, lost jobs, denied access, and more because of who we are.
Do you realize that in the Nazi concentration camps gay men & lesbian women where considered half the worth of the Jewish people. We know what the Nazi's did to the Jewish people...they did the same and worse to those that where Gay & Lesbian.....None of them made it out alive....Not one.
we in the LBGT community know this and we will not ever return to the days of that hate, fear, bigotry & intolerance.
Are you starting to get the picture here?
Svenolafson
Read my post again. It doesn't matter if there is 'direct' or 'indirect' funding for the BOA. They still are benefits of my local, state, and federal tax dollars. If you had READ the article, you would see that they received 3.5 MILLION alone of the sale of a coin struck off on their behalf by the federal government.
Do your homework, comments like yours are bringing down the educate curve for the entire country.
P.S. Childish insults would actually mean something, if I respected your opinion.
Steve-3564331
Outstanding Posts btw.
Tolerance is accepting people for who they are, regardless of preconceived notions.
Tolerance DOES NOT require people to accept hateful opinions, which serve to oppress other people.
I can tolerate people for who they are, and what they believe... however, when their belief crosses the line, and begins to oppress or harm others, I do not have to tolerate the actions which were caused by their belief.
VincentBlackShadow banned, re-reg of Rod_Father. Multiples Rynar the Rynarian and bigdogg464, also banned.
The LGBT Community has suffered enough.
Why we can Hate no more.
Upon the rise of Adolf Hitler, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians, were two of the numerous groups targeted by the Nazi Party and were ultimately among Holocaust victims. Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, who were compelled to sexually conform to the "German norm."
Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced.[1] Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps.[1] It is unclear how many of the 5,000 to 15,000 eventually perished in the camps, but leading scholar Ruediger Lautman believes that the death rate of homosexuals in concentration camps may have been as high as 60%. Homosexuals in the camps were treated in an unusually cruel manner by their captors.
After the war, the treatment of homosexuals in concentration camps went unacknowledged by most countries, and some men were even re-arrested and imprisoned based on evidence found during the Nazi years. It was not until the 1980s that governments began to acknowledge this episode, and not until 2002 that the German government apologized to the gay community.[2] This period still provokes controversy, however. In 2005, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Holocaust which included the persecution of homosexuals.
Gay men suffered unusually cruel treatment in the concentration camps. They faced persecution not only from German soldiers but also from other prisoners, and many gay men were beaten to death. Additionally, gay men in forced labor camps routinely received more grueling and dangerous work assignments than other non-Jewish inmates, under the policy of "Extermination Through Work". SS soldiers also were known to use gay men for target practice, aiming their weapons at the pink triangles their human targets were forced to wear[citation needed].
The harsh treatment can be attributed to the view of the SS guards toward gay men, as well as to the homophobic attitudes present in German society at large. The marginalization of gay men in Germany was reflected in the camps. Many died from beatings, some of them inflicted by other prisoners. Nazi doctors often used gay men for scientific experiments in an attempt to locate a "gay gene" to "cure" any future Aryan children who were gay.
Experiences such as these can account for the high death rate of gay men in the camps as compared to the other "anti-social groups." A study by Rüdiger Lautmann found that 60% of gay men in concentration camps died, as compared to 41% for political prisoners and 35% for Jehovah's Witnesses. The study also shows that survival rates for gay men were slightly higher for internees from the middle and upper classes and for married bisexual men and those with children.
Is what we (LGBT) are asking for in equal rights due to our community now?
Have we not suffered enough?
Have we not been beaten and killed enough?
Have those that died in the death camps given their life in vain?
We wear the Pink Triangle in Honor & Remembrance of our brothers that passed before us.
We wear the Black Triangle in Honor & Remembrance of our sisters that passed before us.
We wear them also as a symbol of pride, and to never forget.
mguy-478---Tolerance is a word used by people who think they have an enlightened view of the world because they read about it in a book. Knock off the bullcrap, your assuming that tolerance is a line to cross who the heck put you in charge of the line and if there is a line it would be a limit, not tolerance. Such as that is it I have reached my limit I am no longer tolerant. So that makes you equally intolerant, nice work.
Um seriously....u are a scary person and advise u to get help ASAP from a mental health provider...show them your post and then get back to me also please remove the tin foil hat from your head BEFORE seeking treatment.....thank you!!!
ItsAboutTime-3704531
Thank You
the queenie (((Hugs)))
Steve-3564331 I love your posts!!!
Just so we know what we are taking about:
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.[1][2][3][4]
Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.[1][2] According to the 2010 Hate Crimes Statistics released by the FBI National Press Office, 19.3 percent of hate crimes across the United States "were motivated by a sexual orientation bias."[5] Moreover, in a Southern Poverty Law Center 2010 Intelligence Report extrapolating data from fourteen years (1995–2008), which had complete data available at the time, of the FBI's national hate crime statistics found that LGBT people were "far more likely than any other minority group in the United States to be victimized by violent hate crime."[6]
Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia,[7] and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify. Forms of homophobia toward identifiable LGBT social groups have similar yet specific names: lesbophobia[8] – the intersection of homophobia and sexism directed against lesbians, biphobia – towards bisexuality and bisexual people, and transphobia, which targets transsexualism, transsexual and transgender people, and gender variance or gender role nonconformity.
As opposed to people who believe they hold a moral superiority in the world... because they read about it in a book.
LMAO....the only thing wrong with this rant is that it's missing logic and reason and it makes NO sense!!!
Steve,
To be fair, I'm not going denigrate the gay experience in America. There has been a lot of mean stuff said about gays, be it true or untrue, and stuff done to them.
However, if you are to be fair also, consider the historic treatment of Christians 2,000 years ago till today. Christians have been persecuted, slandered, raped, maimed, pillaged, murdered over the centuries. In the Roman Empire before Constantine's reign, Christians were routinely persecuted and killed while homosexuality was celebrated and accepted.
Today, Christians are being cruelly persecuted and murdered in large numbers in the Middle East and in Africa but the Liberal national media reports little or next to nothing about it. Why?
If you don't think so Steve that I'm stating the truth then please go and search the web for proof of what I'm stating. You will find the truth about what I'm saying if your serious about taking a little time to research the matter.
BTW, I used to hang out with gays in my teens and early 20s. I am very aware of how gays can be treated by intolerant people.
I was molested as a seven year old boy by a man in the neighborhood I lived in at the time. Understand that I have been on both sides of the issue and can see with more insight then the average Joe.
I want gays to be treated with respect and acknowledge for their humanity. However, I do believe people can disagree about personal conduct without being disagreeable and hateful.
Love accepts but it also sets good boundaries.
JS in SD---You hit the nail on the head, not everyone or every group is inclusive. I think that it should be that way. I do not care what someone does with their personal life, I could not give two nickel as long as it is legal, but I want people to quit telling me I have to do something or support something I do not want to. For example a girl comes up to me at my house, asks me to support gay marriage and when I said I would not she wrote down the address said I was denying her rights, said she hoped I would have to face some inequality some day and left. Either way it was and is a bully tactic I do not feel the need to respond too. But I can imagine my address and maybe my name will end up on some list proclaiming I hate gays when what I really hate is people telling me what to like or not like.
Not disagreeing with you on those statements. However, what you just described is also true of homosexuals. Most of them were also at one time either sexually, physically, or mentally abused. Therefore it is also a learned behavior, not one that someone is born with.
You might want to check out some scientific facts.
Now, I can just about predict what you are going to respond. You are going to say that as a gay man you were not abused in any way, shape or form. I say, how do you know? It could have happened when you were too young to remember, yet subconsciously it damaged you to the point that at some point you chose the gay lifestyle. I know, you will deny it and accuse me of all kinds of things, but that still doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is a learned behavior. It can be learned either consciously or subconsciously.
mguy-478---Morals are determined by society not a book, but if you read a book you would know that. The BSA attack is about changing societies morals nothing more. It is an outward act of bully until the BSA gives in, Nothing more
i dont have a dog in this hunt but why dont you gays just start a new club called gay scouts. yall just want everyone to accept your beliefs, buddy it aint happening, me personally, when i see two guys kissing or what not it makes me sick to my stomach. i dont want to be around yall so just make your own clubs and play by your own rules. dangit yall are not normal in my world.
Irvmani
I doubt this happened, unless it was a "get the vote out" type of tactic for an election. In which case, how is that different than the people coming to me and asking to oppose same sex marriage? It works both ways.
And if you are bothered by people coming to your house and trying to get you to support something you do not want to... I would like to introduce you to Christian Americans. You probably have some choice words for them, seeing as how they have spent hundreds of years going to homes and trying to convince them to support a lifestyle.
Over 60% of the population supports gay rights, that support increases to over 70% among 18 - 29 year olds. Seems society has spoke.
Societies morals have already changed, as per the above numbers. BSA no longer represents the morals of society, but instead the morals of a select few.
Irvmani,
"mguy-478---Morals are determined by society not a book, but if you read a book you would know that. The BSA attack is about changing societies morals nothing more. It is an outward act of bully until the BSA gives in, Nothing more
#1.79 - Fri Feb 1, 2013 4:13 PM EST"
Acceptance can never be forced. You talk of the "bully" while demanding BSA gives in. If we bully the "bully" then are we not as guilty of bullying as the bully?
God decides morals and we would do well to practice His morals. He will have the final say.
Which God?
I feel this comment needs to be addressed right now.
Gay boys are still boys. Gay girls are still girls. To deny them the things in life that boys and girls do based on sexual orientation is called PERSECUTION. So you have no reason to be offended that I am outting you as a NAZI.
Hey Dave, OK so I talked to Jesus. He told me that we are all gods children and that his dad made gays because they are fun to watch. They’re kind of like his Bravo network. Apparently Gods got a little thing for the gays. It’s weird that you Christians hate them so much being his followers and all. So can I have dinner with you guys now?
L.J. Rhodes said: "Every single argument I've read, heard or otherwise encountered, both before and in this thread, against equality for gays has been used against equality for blacks and one point or another."
This isn't rocket science, L.J.; being black isn't a choice it's an ethnicity, and therefore blacks deserve the same rights as anyone else.
Being gay is a choice, it isn't worthy of any special recognition or categorization, and is therefore NOT entitled to anything based solely on the fact that someone calls themselves gay.
The sooner you liberals accept this the sooner you'll be able to go back to focusing on the more important tenets of your platform, such as selling out America for your own personal gain and noble pursuits such as that.
Stand your ground, BSA. The gay community is completely irrelevant to anything that's actually important to this country, so just ignore them and eventually they will go away. It's when you give them a tiny shred of hope that they start flitting around flapping their arms and jumping up and down on their tip toes while clapping effusively with glee.
Mr.Steady
APA 2002 article in part:
I hope that clears that up for you.
I agree with Carryingconcealed. Its just like how his parents choose to @!$%# even though they were brother and sister.
Wrong. Attraction, whether to the opposite sex or the same sex, is the resulting feeling from the chemicals dopamine and serotonin being released in the brain. This release is the physiological response your body undergoes, due to an external stimuli (ex: seeing a woman or man).
The physiological release of chemicals in your brain is not a conscious "choice" you make. It is impossible to make the "choice" to release these chemicals. Thus, the resulting attraction is NOT a choice.
The sooner you conservatives educate yourself in what has been proven, scientifically, the sooner you'll be able to go back to focusing on the more important tenets of your platform, such as selling out America to oil tycoons and the military industrial complex.
Carryingconcealed
Question: If sexuality is a choice then when did you decide to be heterosexual?
Have you always known your straight?
How did you know that you where straight?
Wow, some scary ignorance going on in this thread. No, I'm not gay, but I am an Eagle Scout.
First - there is no war, nobody is pushing an agenda, nobody is forcing you or anyone else to do anything. The BSA is acting because its members have asked it to....members like myself, my brothers, my troop members. Those of you who are against lifting the ban, go out and join, make your voice heard, until then you are just an internet troll.
Second - allowing homosexuals will not cause the demise of BSA. International Scouting, including in the UK where Scouting was founded, allow young men of all orientations, and have for decades. They are still going strong. Furthermore, take the case of Jennifer Tyree, the lesbian den mother who was kicked out of her son's Pack. She, being a lesbian, has no sexual interest in men regardless of their age. Yet this ban would not allow her to participate in her son's events.
Third - homosexuality is an inborn trait. Anyone who grew up with a gay family member understands this. Anyone who has had freshman biology understands this. Those who don't, it seems, disregard fact and observation and replace it with fantasy.
Fourth - homosexuality is quite normal and natural - it has been a documented part of the human condition for millenia and it has been observed in many higher order mammals like dolphin, pigs, and other great apes (which we are 98% genetically related to). However, if you really want to talk about "natural" the vast majority of life on this planet reproduces asexually...so homo/heterosexuals are actually abnormal compared to most of the life on Earth.
Fifth - there are no definitive references to homosexuality in the old testament, and the new testament is wrought with contradictions on the subject. The new testament also lays out other punishable acts which today we recognize as dated, if not barbaric (i.e., stoning a woman to death for adultery).
Now, I hate to bring this up, because it may ruin any progress I've made with the religious fanatics, but I always find it humorous that Christians believe that "Eve" was cloned from Adam's rib, which we all know would make "her" an XY male. This is basic genetics. Adam and Steve were actually the first gay couple. Furthermore, if Jesus loves all men, and all men should love Jesus and accept him into their mind, soul, and body - that sounds very homoerotic to me :)
<<< High fives MmmMmmBeer
right back atcha!
Carryingconcealed
If it is a choice the go back and read my post 1.68 and tell me why these people didn't change their choice & died instead.
The problem is you assume that every person has to be one or the other. Who says? I could ask the same ridiculous question: "When did you choose to not be a murderer?" By your logic, a murderer is born that way and they have no power to choose not to act on their "natural" instincts. So Dennis Rader was born a murderer and he had no choice but to kill people because he was born that way? In other words, by your logic you are either born a murderer or not. The simple answer to your snide question is that everyone chooses to do that which is natural or not. Everyone is born a Heterosexual. Homosexuals and murderers simply choose to divert from that which is natural. The ironic fact is that you accuse those of us who oppose homosexuality to be narrow-minded, but in reality you are viewing the issue from your own narrow-minded viewpoint that sexual orientation must be either-or. How about bi-sexuals? Now we have a 3rd way to be born? Don't bi-sexuals have to choose which gender they are going to have sex with? See the problem with your question?
Ah, yes. The victim mentality. Why did all the Christians who have been persecuted and killed for their faith not change their choice and died instead? It all comes down to what you believe in. Unfortunately for you, you believe the lie that you don't choose your sexual orientation. No one is born homosexual. You have no proof that they are. All the so-called "studies" are just that. No proof has been found.
The Boy Scouts of America have every right to limit who they allow into their club. If you are gay and you want to be in an organization like the Boy Scouts, then start your own organization.
CoRavens - you and those like you have GOT to understand this policy change is coming from within. Members of the BSA want this and have been vocal to get it. BSA has every right to listen to its members and make the appropriate changes they all deem necessary!
The only ones it seems who do NOT want this are outsiders like yourself.
CoRavensFan, Mr.Steady,Carryingconcealed
Narrow minds think alike.
Mr.Steady You are totally ignoring the post from MmmMmmBeer. This just goes to show how far you try and reach for mud. Also, I might add that Christians are not the issue here...They have a boat load of equal rights in the present day. We are still being beat and killed....remember Sheppard...beaten and hung on a fence like a scare crow & left to die. There are many more like him you do not hear about daily.
My guess is all of you could be presented with evidence in person by the people that did the studies and you still would stick by your narrow view of the world.
God help any of your family that may be LGBT. We will be here for them when you stop loving them for who they are.
Here's what I find humorous about all of this:
When the BSA originally confirmed they were going to stand by their ban, many of the anti-gay crowd posted things like "It's a private organization! They should get to do what they like! Stop pushing your agenda on them!" and "Private organizations have the right to make their own choices!"
However, the tune has suddenly changed now that the organization is considering getting rid of the ban. Now, suddenly, the anti-gay crowd is not so big on choices. After all, what the BSA is considering doing is letting each individual troop make the decision whether or not to allow gay/lesbian individuals into the troop. Shouldn't people who were so big on choice and individual decision be applauding this? Applauding the fact that the organization is giving each troop a choice in the matter? Oh wait... these individuals clearly only applaud "having a choice" if the choice made is the one they agree with.
The hypocrisy is so thick in the air, I can hardly understand how some of these individuals breathe.
What should become clear is that individuals who think like that have no interest in facts, logic, fairness, etc. All they care about is that their agenda be pushed on others. (Side note: Another amusing bit of hypocrisy is the common claim that the "gay agenda is being pushed on all of us" when gays/lesbians ask for equal rights. However, it's apparently not an agenda when those people making that claim are asking that their beliefs be upheld over others and in turn prevent gays/lesbians from doing such things as marrying or joining a group.)
There is no arguing with people who set out to specifically uphold a belief. They are ignoring mounds of evidence that argue against their claims. Evidence that is readily available. Evidence that spans many scientific fields and discplines. Evidence that comes from all over the world. Anyone who can ignore such overwhelming evidence has no desire to understand or learn. They only desire to force everything to fit their preconceived notions and force everyone else to live by their beliefs.
Maybe they just don't like the idea of a man checking them out. But hey...we all know a gay man would never be turned on by a straight male right?
We all know a gay man would never consider hitting on a straight man. Or would never consider checking out a straight man. We also know a gay man would never get turned on by a straight man while they were both say sleeping in a tent together on a camping trip. Right?
Why don't they just start their own scouts? Why force their way in to something that really doesn't want them? To make a point? Just start the gay scouts and be done with it. I bet you wouldn't see starights trying to get in to that organization!
I had a gay guy ask me to dance at a club. I told him no politely but he just had to come back and ask again. When I told him I wasn't gay and didn't want to dance he decided to just go a head and grab my ass as I was walking out to leave the building. When I turned back to see what the hell was going on he was standing there smilling like what he had just did was cute or something. Fortunately security saw it and put his ass out before I had the chance to put my hands in his mouth and rip his lower jaw off. So is this what us straight men are in for? Being accosted by gay men who won't take no for an answer because they think they'll be covered by the hate crime laws and think that we won't step up and defend our pride?
Mr. Steady
Wrong.
Murder is an action. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality is NOT an action, it is the internal attraction to a specific attribute of another individual.
For instance: If you desire to kill someone, but you do not act on it, does that make you a murderer? No. If you desire to be with a woman, but you are still a virgin, does that make you a heterosexual? Yes. Unless... of course, you considered yourself asexual until you lost your virginity (the action of sex). I don't know about you, but I was a straight male even before I had sex.
For crying out loud nothing's changed, Siobhan. The BSA is a private organization and can do whatever they like - that hasn't changed. That doesn't mean we want them to change this policy, though. We're just trying to be the voice of reason.
I swear you liberals will take every little thought that happens to find itself meandering aimlessly in your murky heads, and twist and contort it until it vaguely resembles in some minute way, form or fashion the point you're trying to make.
Also, I would recommend ignoring anyone who talks about homosexuality as being "unnatural." That claim, of all the anti-gay crowd claims, is the most ridiculous.
Not only do we know that other species engage in homosexual behavior. Not only do we know that there are species in which large portions of the species don't reproduce (thus, undermining the claim that "homos can't be natural because they don't reproduce"). But, lastly -- the claim itself is a fallacy. It's called the "naturalistic fallacy". Believing that something being "natural" makes it inherently good (or bad). "Natural" has nothing to do with good and bad. All natural food -- we generally see that as good. Letting children die due to natural diseases -- we see that as bad.
Point being -- there is literally no merit to the "unnatural" argument. None. No shades of grey, no maybe. It is, quite literally, not even an argument. It's nothing more than a nonsensical statement. Thus, as I said above -- I recommend just ignoring anyone who uses that argument. All arguing with them does is legitimize their nonsensical point in their own eyes.
The real hatred and discrimination is coming from the gay community by attempting fo force thier lifestyle choice onto others though these tactics.
I don't hate gays . I have worked with and around gays for years. I don't approve of the lifestyle and firmly believe it to be an un natural choice. No where in nature is there homosexuality like that practiced in humans. No gay gene exists and the search for one has ended. The only stance gays can take any more is that of religious hatred and bigotry and they are pounding that very hard. They use diversion when ever valid opposition is presented. The real problem is that the majority is not being vocal enough. We sould be sending e-mails and letters to our congress men and to television networks that protray the gay lifestyle as "the new normal" and any advertiser of the many programs that promote the gay lifestyle . The Staight community needs to be heard.
Carryingconcealed,
Please feel free to go back and look at posts on previous articles. Please note how many of the posts from the anti-LGBT crowd claimed that those who wanted the ban to be changed were "trying to force their agenda on all of us" and they should leave the BSA alone because it's a "private organization" and "you gays go make your own scouts."
So, would it not be hypocritical of the same people to now call up the BSA and pressure them to keep the ban? Wouldn't that also be "forcing an agenda on a private organization"? Couldn't I, based on that logic, claim that anyone now complaining about the ban being overturned is just trying to force an anti-gay agenda on everyone and they should shut up and go make their own scouts?
If you can't see the obvious hypocrisy there, I can only imagine you are using the same selective information processing I was pointing out earlier.
Re: My original post
I just realized how many people have so little personal insight they are still making those same hypocritical arguments in this very comment section. I can't decide if I should laugh or cry.
the queenie,
You're actually dead wrong. A study was recently put out that showed that contrary to popular belief, being abused had little to no affect on whether or not someone was a pedophile. They found that pedophiles are actually born that way and it was not caused by some other event. In fact they found there is a huge difference between pedophiles and child molesters. Over half the child molesters studied were found to not be pedophiles, and the amount of men born as pedophiles is around 5%.
Steve, Queenie, this is in no way saying I disagree with you. I am for gay rights, marriage, etc. Im libertarian and want freedom for everyone. But you cant call someone an ignorant bigot, and then prove yourself to be ignorant as well.
Leaving the decision to local units only pushes the issue down the road. What happens when a small local church sponsored scout troop denies membership to a gay boy/leader? Will the debate really be over? I say no. The contest will then be between a small local church and national LGBT organizations. The local church will not have the resources to defend itself and rather than violate its religious convictions, the local church will likely drop its BSA sponsorship. One by one the BSA will lose sponsors of non-gay troops to the LGBT bullies.
If the LGBT community is truly concerned about freedoms and rights of all as they claim, they should also support the freedom of the BSA to make its own rules. If the public moral compass truly supports the view of LGBT, I say let the public decide the fate of the BSA and the LGBT in a fair open market choice between youth programs offered by both the BSA and LGBT.
A from Arizona
The public is already deciding, hence the reason so many big-name donors have stopped sponsoring BSA.
Why do you really think they are changing their mind? Are you honestly so naive as to believe it is because of pressure from LGBT groups? That's hilarious. It's all about money. The BSA was all about their morals until the dollars started disappearing. Then their convictions suddenly become a little more flexible. Apparently money is more important than their supposed "morals", in true conservative fashion.
The free market public HAS decided. They have decided to take their money elsewhere. Now BSA is re-thinking their position, in response to the free market decision. That is how it works.
I think my sons troop decided not to allow it and not to attend any bsa sponsored events if passed. The thought is they can control who is in the troop but not who is in the other troops at those events so will just avoid them.
We can only say that the anti-gay people are on the other side of the equal rights issue on here.
The majority of Americans support equal rights. So what the few in here have to say about the issue really means nothing, as they don't represent the vast majority. Because we are lucky to live in a country that the majority rules, they will just have to get over it. Society is changing and there is really nothing they can do about it.
If your a straight man.....No Not every gay man is out for your dick nor is every woman...in-spite of what you might think. Chances are if women find you unappealing so would we. Even if you had a body to die for (which I might add most of you don't, hence no face photo's with your tag names), The minute you started spouting off your BS it would be a complete turn off. I don't know any gay man (or any straight women for that matter) that wants to work that hard...just to get laid unless they are just as bad.
Now you know why women find guys like you utterly disgusting. For those of you lucky enough to BS some woman to be with you, they have my deepest condolences....There are support groups to help deal with the aftermath of an abusive relationship and help you clear your mind.
I might add by responding to this, your proving my point. Your aggressive, immature, lack personal responsibility, and have an over blown ego.
If this is not passed how do you tell if a young boy is gay or not... Do you have a test or something that can tell? Are you going to want to ask? If so how sick is that. Sexuality has no business being discussed in front of children in the first place.
Most of you act like because we are gay we just can't control ourselves.....BS....Just because you can't doesn't me we can't.
Because we gays have been labeled perverts, we know full well we are the very first that would be suspect, so our morality and behavior is on the up & up. Many of us have children of our own....Teaching tolerance to these boys is not going to hurt them. So if josh shows up with his mom's or dad's, no one should be freaking out.
Acceptance & tolerance of someone different than themselves makes a better world for all.
The fact of the matter is that choosing to be gay is not normal...from a faith or biological point of view...to compare it to animals is wrong as well - the act is not natural for them either. The sad thing is that gays so want to be normal that they try to manifest then\mselves in evey facet of society that does not tolerate that behavior and for that they are labeled "bigots"...I ask you - what is wrong with being against a behavior that is abnormal? anyone? That makes me or anyone else a bigot? I also do not condone pedophilia or beastiality...does that make me a bigot? Those of you who think you have to stop some sort of "wrongdoing" by society should maybe take a step back first and really consider what you are protesting...if being gay is so normal and nice would you wish it upon your children? Would you strive to make sure your son or daughter turns out gay? Of course not - because it is not right...but that does not mean you hurt or attack them (as they do the rest of society)...if you look at the way gays are portrayed on TV you would think that every 10th person is gay but they make up a very small part of the population. And to Steve - I am sorry you are gay - I know you would do about anything to be straight so do not try to equate every person who thinks being gay is some sort of idiot or hateful
happy42xxx
YAWN :-0
Thanks for playing....Next contestant please....BTW you can find your parting gifts next to the exit over there>>>>
Hmmm . . . something strange here when we think sexuality has any place in a boy scout or girl scout group. I really don't give a rat's a** whether you're gay or not. Sex stuff really doesn't enter in to the scout program does it? So what's with this issue? Could someone please explain this? Scout leaders have a code of ethics which is way above whatever their sexuality may be. I mean, sheesh, do we screen for S&M bias, do we screen for Oedipus complex issues, do we screen for effeminate tendencies? Do we screen for bad eating habits? Get over it folks. The only group I would NOT want working with children are convicted child molesters. Otherwise who cares about what one does in the privacy of their home with another consenting adult??
Hope-295312
Thank You....That point has been made and yet some how these anti-gay people don't get it. They insist that we are out to recruit. No one recruited me or anyone else I know that is LGBT.
mike-1956442
The nice part is you can ignore me...like I'm going to do to you....Wait I all ready did that...lololol
don't send me e-mails as your blocked....that is unless you want me to post your e-mail addy here....Mmmkay ;-) Have a nice day
Steve,
pho·bi·a
/ˈfoʊbiə/
Show
Spelled [foh-bee-uh] Show IPA
noun
a
persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to
a compelling desire to avoid it.
I do not fear gay men, but I
would be uncomfortable taking shower or changing in front of gay men (I know gay
men are at the gym and in most cases I would not know) Just the same as I as I
would feel uncomfortable in front of women that are not my wife. Why do I not
have a right to be in an a private organization of like minded people If that
organization was not about bashing gays? How can a Country be based on freedom
and individual right exist if everyone must be included in every thing? I have a
gay daughter and I love her and respect the person she is I have never condemned
or degraded her but I also don't have to agree with it!! that is my RIGHT just
as it is your RIGHT to feel any way you would like! Its when anyone tries to
force me to abandon my beliefs that I have a problem! I would never tell you you
must be straight so stop telling everyone how wrong, bigoted or homophobic if
they don't share you view! Yes if someone physically attacks you because your
gay then that's a problem, but when I was a kid I was very small 5ft. 90lbs and
could not in high school was picked on and could not make the football, or
basketball team I could not change who I was just as you say you can not change
who you are! I did not try to bend others to accept me I found other things
where I could thrive! How is that any different then the gay situation? everyone
is discriminated against be white and go into watts, be short, be fat, be
skinny, be any thing other then Perfect and see what you get! its not right its
just the way it is! So if people spent as much time finding where they are
accepted and excel instead of so much time and energy trying to force everyone
to bend to their will people would be much happier and the hate on both sides
would die. Also I'm sure the Jews don't thing gays got it worse then they did
and to belittle them makes your augment very, very sad!
@ steve,
If you know science at all which you don't seem to. Fact is never used only in laws of science. All you have are theories. Homosexually is in the same ball park as Pedophilia. Some scientists may have correllate some studies, but what was their sample pool. What was the time frame. There are so many questions that nothing can be proven fact and therefore a law. You suggest that those that were abused sexually as children WILL become Pedophiles in adulthood. That would be a law and a fact, of which it clearly isn't. There just are too many factors and variables. Sorry but your argument holds about as much soup as a slotted spoon.
Isa'dna!
Bull@!$%#. (paper by Dr. Herek UC Davis)
The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation
is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual
orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual
relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual
attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various systems for
categorizing child molesters. For example, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed
that perpetrators' sexual attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along
a continuum – from exclusive interest in children at one extreme, to exclusive
interest in adult partners at the other end.
Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction
between those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual
partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but become
sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress.
Perpetrators in the first category – those with a more or less exclusive
interest in children – have been labeled fixated. Fixation means "a
temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from
unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of
subsequent phases of development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many
clinicians view fixated offenders as being "stuck" at an early stage of
psychological development.
By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is
"a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature
forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature
behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development" (Groth
& Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult
sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they
return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual
contact with children.
Some typologies of child molesters divide the fixation-regression distinction
into multiple categories, and some include additional categories as well (e.g.,
Knight, 1989).
For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters
cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in
the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a
relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual
attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often
characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.
Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied
175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a
child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation.
83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as
regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as
regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that
"in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well
as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed
their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually
attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).
Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to
find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny
and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually
abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver
children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30,
1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an
adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al.,
1994).
In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some
Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men
responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and
mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that
they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to
subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were
accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models
described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The
recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model
engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal,
changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the
slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual
males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to
female children (Freund et al., 1989).
Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that
homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to
molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative
hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest
children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.
Tired in Tx-533625
Do a quick search on Homosexuals in death camps and see for yourself. It's fact not fiction. What I posted was the first site...It was cut and paste here.
I might also suggest that a church group ( you have to be careful there as thewy have a lot of child abuse issues of their own right now), or better yet raise your children to be KKK or some other hate group....For sure you won't have any LGBT wanting to join.
First off i believe that all members of the "Gay Movement" are heterophobes, and hate all straight people. Outright sexual orientation based pure HATE.
Secondly, what gay man can POSSIBLY know how to deal with Straight Children without trying to "show them Options"? How can any Gay man who has never been a father POSSIBLY know how to deal with young children? I assure i do NOT want some Gay, "let me give you a hug" Scoutmaster trying to teach my grandson how to deal with life.
Do i know the scouts? yes i do, My brother is an Eagle Scout and went on to the Explorers, I was in scouting from Cub Scouts, Weblows, then Boy Scouts, My father was a Scout master then, The Explorer commander. We were taught outdoor skills, and all the confidence building that goes with it, we were taught to respect others, and not to talk bad about people, it was solid wholesome learning and teaching. There is NO place for a controversial leader, there is NO WAY a Gay Scout member or leader could KEEP HIS SEXUAL PREFERENCES TO HIMSELF, and thats how i feel KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, the more you throw it in my face the more i resist your hatred of me, a Straight , white, Male.
Emery Evans
Please try and do a little research before making a blind statement Google LGBT paenting and see what comes up...Here is a portion...Please read.
Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, the Third District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida was satisfied in 2010 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise, and concluded that the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.[10]
The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.
More on LGBT paretning:
A number of studies have examined whether the children of lesbian and gay parents are themselves more likely to identify as lesbian and gay. While reviews of the available studies agree that the vast majority of children of lesbian and gay parents are heterosexual, they differ in regards to whether there is evidence to suggest a comparatively higher rate of homosexuality when compared to the children of heterosexual parents. In a 2001 review of 21 studies, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz found that researchers frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender, sexual preferences and behavior, suggesting that an environment of heterosexism has hampered scientific inquiry in the area. Their findings indicate that the children with lesbian or gay parents appear less traditionally gender-typed and are more likely to be open to homoerotic relationships.[35] A 2005 review by Charlotte J. Patterson for the American Psychological Association found that the available data did not suggest higher rates of homosexuality among the children of lesbian or gay parents.[36] Herek's 2006 review describes the available data on the point as limited.[7] Stacey and Biblarz and Herek stress that the sexual orientation of children is of limited relevance to discussions of parental fitness or policies based on the same. In a 2010 review comparing single-father families with other family types, Stacey and Biblarz state, "We know very little yet about how parents influence the development of their children's sexual identities or how these intersect with gender
All you people who think gays represent a threat to BSA because they are pedophiles are just nuts. I was a state parole officer in the sex offender unit. I know what every PO knows - a gay child molester is extremely rare. These people are almost all self-identified straight, and married with kids. Sandusky is a paradigm of the classic molester.
Leave the Boy Scouts alone. If those who are "Gay" want a "Club" for themselves - All they have to do is start their own club - "The Gay Scouts". We are not asking them to change, we just do not want them in our club and if it is not just about "Fueling the fire", they would gladly start their own club and try not to cross paths that could lead to problems.
I find it stunning that you don't recognize the incompatibility of those two sentences. In the first sentence, you correctly note that people have the right to an opinion AND the right to associate with whom they please. But then you turn around and say that they cannot prevent people who do NOT share their views and beliefs from joining their organization--which completely violates the rights which you noted in the first sentence.
Either you believe that people have the right to their opinion and the right to freedom of association, or you don't. Which is it?
The BSA has set policies for membership and a published set of principles and values, and is free to exclude from membership anyone who does not meet the criteria and adhere to those principles and values. The people bullying the BSA and violating its constitutional rights (and those of its members) do not share the BSA's principles and values, nor do they meet the criteria for membership. The BSA is not hounding persons who do not share its principles and values because it respects the rights of those people. Apparently respect and tolerance are too much to ask from those people who do not share the BSA's views--although they commit their bullying in the name of "tolerance."
What don't people read? Or do they just read the things that support the hate. I have posted a boat load of information Concerned-999 , Jim5769 for you to read. None of the people that did the research or published the papers had anything to gain other than the facts. That is what led then and guided them. None of these studies where paid for by the LGBT community in full to get the results they wanted. These are independent people looking for answers based in fact.
Excellent post. But for the bullies attacking the BSA, this isn't about rights or fairness--it's about continuing their assault on traditional values so that they can force people to accept their agenda.
Wow! Is this discussion really happening? Is this still the United States of America? Why does the "preference" of 1 to maybe 5 percent of the people DICTATE POLICY FOR THE OTHER 95% OF US???
Does "Freedom of Association" include defining who can associate with you in a private organization?
Is there ANY protection for our children, or will the PEDOPHILES and "friendlier friends" among us use the force of government to force us to surrender our children for their "inspection" on demand? Does the presence of openly LGBT staffers in the office of nearly EVERY congressman influence how this unfolds in our nation's capitol? Does said capitol even COME CLOSE to reflecting the values and priorities of the other 95% of us??? Have We the People become We the Vassals of those who insist right is wrong, good is evil, community standards have no place in society, and the MSM community is the "truest" form of sexuality??
Haters? I've NEVER seen more vitriolic HATERS than those running around screaming that anyone who disagrees with them is a HATER. Perfect Liberal FASCISM.
Why invade the Boy Scouts? Start your own "Boys Club." Maybe call it the Lincoln Log Brigade...
I have no idea why you put my name in the above post, but none of what you said has any bearing on what I wrote in reply to Beth-440386 (#1.128), which is the post to which I have to assume that you're replying as it is the only post I had on this thread when you made your reply. If you'd like to dispute or discuss something that I said, then I suggest that you try identifying and addressing the points directly.
For a man that seems so secure in his gayness Steve sure feels the need to defend his choice! :) And as far as all his professed "scientific studies" that have been done over the last 20 years maybe? Hmmm...actual heterosexual parenting has been around for thousands of years...let's see how the kids turn out in a few hundred years and then you can talk...you are the same type that argue that there is global warming based on a few decades of data versus 100 million years...so I say to you *yawn*
Perhaps because the United States of America is not now, nor has it ever been, a country of majority rule.
Since approximately 90% of all pedophiles/child molesters are heterosexual, married men (probably a lot like you), it seems that our children are better-protected with homosexuals than with other fathers.
happy42xxx
Again more fiction...You nor I will be around "in a few hundred years"...really is that all you've got?
DaveyJonesDetroit
Yet another one that doesn't read much....Am I right.
Jim5769
This is why you where replied to.
Had you done any homework (Read) you would have known that this issue (BSA accepting Gays)came about because of the eagle scouts that have come out over the last few years, ( and even this past month), not getting badges that they have earned....Why...Because they are gay. And the second is the BSA not allowing a lesbian mother to continue to lead her son's den of Boy Scouts. In both cases these people adhered to the principles & bi-laws of the BSA and did nothing wrong.
This issue did not just drop out of the sky and become a target of the LBGT community. The issue did not become an issue until the BSA started denying the rights within it's own membership.
Was it something I said?
What no reply?
Larry, Moe & Curly must have went trolling for an easier target. Someone that they thought they could bully with BS.
Happy,
Would that "100 million years of data" include the same data that shows that homosexuality has existed in some form in all of human history? Or the fact that homosexual behavior is seen in our primate cousins (e.g. Bonobos) and thus suggests that homosexual behavior has existed not only in homo sapiens but our predecessors? Or are you only worried about using "100 millions of years of data" when it fits whatever preconceived notion you started with?
The data on homosexuality is vast, comes from many different disciplines, from many different countries, from many different research labs.
1.) Homosexuality does not fit the definition of a clinical disorder.
2.) Homosexuality occurs naturally. (Not that this is really all that relevant to the argument, since natural or not that doesn't tell us anything about it being "good" or "bad" -- and to suggest it does is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.)
3.) A great deal of data points to sexual orientation as being caused by an interaction of biological and environmental factors.
These three points address pretty much every half-baked argument that the anti-LGBT crowd tries to throw at homosexuality. Any more questions?
(Side note: Research also shows that hatred and prejudice toward homosexuality is a rooted in culture and learning. So, if you want to talk about anything that people make a "choice" about, it's to hate and discriminate against a group of people for no good reason.)
Also, I'd like to address one more thing that I see on practically every comments section dealing with homosexuality:
Homophobia is in fact actually an accurate word being that a large body of work in psychology shows that prejudice, discrimination and hate toward groups of people is actually rooted in an underlying fear of that group.
Why should our impressionable and undeveloped young men be subjected to a volatile situation? Gay leaders with same sex attractions, having the oppurtunity to be alone with out of control hormonally driven young men, just spells problems. If there is a chance that something can go wrong, with propensity for same sex attraction, the probabilty skyrockets that it will. Why initiate the oppurtunity for even just one of our kids to suffer a horrific experience that will affect the rest of their lives. I am already weary of reports of men like Mr. Sandusky bieng put in positions where they are given significant oppurtunity to have absorbent amount of alone time to mold impressionable young men. For they can convince a youthful inexperienced kid, with their eloquent speech and vastly practiced influence. How is a hormonally driven young man able to defend himself against an older influential man with a same sex attraction? Because once you have committed adultery in your heart and mind you have transgressed the commandment of GOD.
RobGC
Again all your statement is conjecture. Had you bothered to read any of the posts up til now you would have some very firm scientific evidence to shows the homosexual community is less likely to commit sexual acts against children and young adults.
Your statements also suggest that you yourself may find it hard to control yourself around the opposite sex, as this is the first thing you thought of as an affirmative defense as to why Gays should not be allowed.
Who appointed your version "God" over everyone else? Do we not have a constitutional right of freedom of religion?
Be wise...Be informed...read
You know what, you guys are right...
All gays are pedophiles just like all men are rapists.
Men should not be teachers (they won't be able to control themselves around their female students). In fact, they should not be allowed to be in any position where they could have power over women, such as a boss, police officer, etc. (as they'll obviously use that power to coerce and/or force women into having sex with them). Also, I think we should encourage parents to put their male children into therapy -- therapy intended to convert them into non-rapists.
Oh, you know what else? Men are also way more likely to shoot up schools. I think we should make it so they must go through much more extensive background checks before they can receive a gun, must be thoroughly scanned and checked if they want to enter a school... actually, no. You know what would be so much easier? How about we just make it illegal for men to own a gun?
Also, all priests and pastors are child molestors. So, priests and pastors should not be allowed to be anywhere near children in any capacity. Also, we probably just skip right to it and register all priests and pastors on the sex offenders list -- you know, so everyone knows where the local priests and pastors live so they can keep their children away from them.
Gee, guys! This is super easy! Making blanket statements about groups of people based in nothing but a selective understanding of data and then demanding that policy and/or law should be based on that ridiculous reasoning is kinda fun! And I'm sure my purposeful ignorance of facts and my refusal to recognize the rights of other human beings will really help to create a strong and safe America.
Steve, if YOU had done any reading on the subject, then you'd know that nobody was denied anything that was "earned." You are apparently simply taking Miranda Leitsinger's word for that, because she has been deliberately leaving out facts from her stories on this issue in order to spin up the LBGT community (congratulations, you've been duped by a biased media hack!).
ALL criteria for being awarded the rank of Eagle must be successfully met before consideration, and then everything is reviewed and has to be APPROVED for the award to go forward--it isn't a matter of "do X activity, check the box, and you're done" issue. The people who have recently been highlighted as being denied the rank have failed to successfully meet all the criteria, not to mention eligibility to be a member. I've noted the factual problems with Ms. Leitsinger's stories on this topic numerous times, so go do some research.
As to your two concerns:
As to the content of your last sentence above, it is factually incorrect. If they had been in compliance with membership eligibility standards and their behavior in keeping with the Scout Oath and the Scout Law, then they would not have been expelled.
Anything else?
Jim,
I'm curious -- if people complaining to the BSA about the ban being place are "bullying the BSA" -- let's say the BSA does decide to overturn the ban and the anti-LGBT crowd continues demanding the BSA keep the ban. Will you call that bullying? Or is it only bullying when people who you disagree with do it?
Let's see...numerous court cases brought by the "anti-traditional values bully brigade" against the BSA have already established that the BSA and its members are within their rights to have the policies the organization does. Yet the bully brigade persists in trying to force ITS agenda onto the BSA.
If the BSA does change, then it will be abandoning its principles in a misguided effort to appease the bully brigade--and it would lose the support of any members interested in upholding those principles.
I like your attempt to turn it around. Defending oneself against outside aggression is not bullying, to give you an answer. Those seeking to change and subvert the BSA from its principles are the aggressors, regardless of what happens. This isn't really about the BSA, it is about the traditional American values the BSA has represented for 103 years, and a concerted effort by people who hate those values to undermine and destroy them along with anyone and any organization that defends and upholds them.
Actually, according to the BSA, they are considering changing the policy because their own troops and troop leaders are asking for it. And you're right, a court case against the BSA and the BSA won. Thus, the BSA should have no reason to feel "forced" to change.
Of course, you have decided what is really going on (and in fact, contradicted what the BSA itself has said). Clearly, you know the truth better than the BSA or those involved. (After all, everyone's an expert on the internet).
But again if the BSA does change the ban and allows GLBT individual to apart of the scouts, then anyone complaining about that would become the "outside aggressors" and hence bullies right? Or is someone a bully only if they want to change tradition? I don't think that's anywhere in any definition of bully. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you are just making up things as you go along.
Look, all I'm saying is that if the BSA does decide to change their position and get rid of the ban, it's in their rights to do so as a private organization and you can go make your own scout group if you don't like it. Stop trying to force a private organization to do what YOU want. Don't you believe in the rights of private organizations?
@Siobhan27
I had a basketball coach in my early years of High School, he would stand there and watched us boys take showers, he later came out exclaiming he was gay. My friends and I were traumatized(I was !4). When I was 15, a family friend who was gay, asked if I had ever thought about having gay relations. I exclaimed that I was not interested in that, and he rebutted how do I know that I wouldn't like it, if I hadn't tried it first. I was never forced, but I was continuely propositioned. He was a family friend so I didn't tell anyone or harshly judge him, but i have to admit he was convincing. I am happily married and have kids of my own, he is dating someone new, he dates a lot. I see him and talk to him, and i got to tell you, he seems unfulfilled in his demeanor. I was propositioned by another man who i had become friends with, but I told him I was married with kids, and he told me that he had an affair with a married man before. I have other stories, but I think you get the point.
Boy Scouts represents heterosexual teachings and lifestyle, and has for along time, and people join the privately owned organization under that premise. If you want an organization to represent your lifestyle, use your resources and influence to embark on forming your private organization.
Your argument has everything to to with public services, and not private organizations that base their ideals on moral heterosexual teachings. Just like whatever private oorganization you can form that teaches moral homosexual teachings. Apparently, you do not realize that Boy Scouts teaching understanding of other peoples choices, but its premise has been established and unchangeable for over a century.
@steve
My version of GOD was taught to me in the Boy Scouts. My morality was also taught to me, and with that teaching, I practiced chastity until marriage. I only will and want to share that gift with my amazing partner. I have no desire to explore that with anyone else, because I refrain from inviting those visuals or ideas into my life, or my loving relationship with my beautiful wife and wonderful children. So be careful how you judge someone expressing their opinion, for that is all it is. You seem like a person that disenfranchises people that do not share your way of life. That is true discrimination and hypocritical bigotry. I don't know you very well, so i came going to refrain from placing you in that category.
Steve,
when you and your partner can produce your own children and raise them from birth then come back and post!!!!!!!!!!
Tired, what does procreation have to do with anything?
The fact that bigots like you CAN and DO procreate is truly frightening.
stupified-1351097, IXLR8, the queenie, wolfhound27, Mr.Steady, stop namecalling. BT-3379031, lose the sexual fantasizing about other users, completely inappropriate. You're each suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
...
Svenolafson, 'all you [slurs]' is particularly bad grenade trolling. Banned, out of chances.
ErinNJ, second suspension this month. You're suspended for a month for violating #1 of the Code of Honor. You know the rules.
One of the problems here, it seems to me, is the all-too-common conflation of "homosexual male" and "pedophile." If gay men were more likely to molest boys than straight men were, the opposition would make sense. But they are not.
@ Molly, REALLY????? So what does attraction to ones own sex for molestation or any other reason make you???? If I was attracted to men for any reason I believe that would make me gay would it not???
@Roscoe
Does that mean because I'm straight I'm more likely to molest young girls. Gay or straight the chances of molestation are the same regardless of the sex of the child.
No. It would make you attracted to men for some reason. Being gay isn't just about same-sex physicality. Pedophiles can be attracted to either and both sexes simultaneously.
Approximately 90% of all pedophiles/child molesters are heterosexual, married men. Pedophiles/child molesters are attracted to the age, not the gender, and they will prey on whatever gender happens to be available (which is why Jerry Sandusky, a heterosexual, married man, preyed on young men -- they were available to him).
Many pedophiles/child molesters are not able to maintain adult sexual relationships for a lasting period of time.
I have no fear that more molestation will happen. I am more concerned that an impressionable teenage boy who might be having identity issues becuase he's awkward and isn't getting many looks from the girls, and is lonely and confused, will get advise from his gay ScoutMaster that "Being gay is Ok" and that "You're just born that way", and then he'll act on it, and his sexual orientation will be forever changed even though its contrary to his faith and family's values.
Sexual orientation is NOT something that you can change (at least in the long run). Whichever orientation you are born with is the orientation you will ultimately maintain. You might EXPERIMENT with the opposite orientation, but you will always return to your birth orientation in the end. And the issue is not just gay scoutmasters, but gay youth as members of the scouts.
Wrong anti-trust - Even the APA (No religous organization by any stretch of the imagination) says:
This argument makes sense... if you ignore biology, psychology and reality.
BTW - anti-trust - I might actually be for allowing gay scouts. Just not gay ScoutMasters. Could we compromise?
No, because that is no better than not allowing gay scouts. Just because a person is gay does NOT make him/her unworthy of any position where they have contact with "minors." What about your gay minister, or doctor, or babysitter, etc.? Are you going to have them banned or fired?
Further research into the issue of sexuality being fluid has resulted in me finding out that for a subset of people it can indeed be fluid.
David,
No we can't compromise. Unless you also want to ban straight men from being in any mentoring, coaching teaching... position for young girls, and straight women from being in any mentoring, coaching, teaching... position for young men.
As straight people are much more likely to engage in pedophilia. Specifically, straight men where the victim is a female.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
http://www.livescience.com/13409-myths-gay-people-debunked-sexual-orientation.html
That stated, who cares. If there is fluidity to some people's sexual orientation, why would having a gay scoutmaster be a bad thing? He won't turn a kid gay if the kid does not wish to be gay and has the propensity toward a bisexual orientation.
BTW, I ran out of time to edit my comment to include the following:
If your reference to APA is to the American Psychiatric Association, they also many decades ago removed homosexuality from their mental disease classification. "Scientists" will never fully agree on anything they are researching. A lot of their reasoning is based on the school they attended, their religious orientation, etc. even though their research is supposed to be "unbiased." I for one truly believe that I was BORN a homosexual and fully realized that after sixteen years of painfully trying to live up to family and societal demands to live a heterosexual lifestyle. If "nurture/environment" was such an influence on a person's lifestyle, then why are the offspring of so many families often mixed in their orientation? Shouldn't all of the offspring be either heterosexual or homosexual? And remember that most of us homosexuals are BORN to heterosexual parents...and homosexual couples' offspring are usually born heterosexual and remain that way throughout their life.
anti-trust - I certainly would not go to a church where the minister was openly gay (contrary to the Bible and Church Tradition, (and for that matter natural revelation, but...)). Nor would I hire an openly gay babysitter, especially if my kid was a tween or teen. As far as the doctor goes - I sincerely doubt that my kid's doctor is going to influence my kids sexual orientation much in the 5 mins that he sees them for their broken arm, after waiting for 30-40 mins to see him. However, a ScoutMaster is a role model, and someone who is going to spend ALOT of time with my kid, and I am going to be pretty selective on who that is.
Then you should be more wary of heterosexual, married men -- like the fathers of the other scouts -- because it has been proven that approximately 90% of all pedophiles/child molesters are heterosexual, married men (a lot like you, in fact).
Yes ErinNJ - I should be concerned these days about physical abuse. Most definitely. And I hope the Boy Scouts will continue to improve on their processes for weeding out these perverts as much as possible. But someone can badly influence my kid without physically abusing them. If I found out that a teacher at my kids school was telling kids that it was Ok to experiment with drugs or telling them that people who believed in God were stupid; I would be marching right down to the school board to have that teacher canned immediately - regardless of whether they were straight or homosexual.
Ahh, so you are worried that your kids will find out that gay people exist. You know, I don't expect my kid's scoutmaster to be discussing sexuality with the kids regardless of the circumstance. Simply being gay isn't influencing the child. The only time a scoutmaster should be discussing sexuality with a scout is when the kid approaches the scoutmaster with concerns (which almost never happens unless they are already conflicted). The BSA could put out easy guidelines on how to handle these situations.
That 90% number is false and as already been proven. At issue is that anyone who deviates from that natural biological structure for intercourse is by definition a deviant. That includes all those that would with children or those of the same gender. The over lap does not matter. Attraction is a mental issue and is the soul construct of the human mind. It is the proper act of a civilized human to resist urges that are unnatural or destructive or that deviates from our biological reality. To cap this idea I propose a challenge: provide proof humans are homosexual. It is just like being a skydiver. A person is a skydiver because they choose to go skydiving. They are attracted to the event. Just because a person is predisposed with a weak will does not mean they are born homosexual. Humans change attractions and likes all the time. None of them are born traits. Oh and yes it is unnatural even if wild animals have exhibited this behavior. Wild animals do not always act naturally either.
Citation? (Note: the encyclopedia of your ass is not a valid source.)
ROFLMAO! I can't wait to see your proof of this one!
@ David-2637217: Exactly what are you afraid of? If you could separate your emotions from the issue it would help. You have brought so many issues into your thought process that you seem thoroughly confused. "Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is already made up."
Source? Because here is research becking it up:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
While there is evidence of some fluidity of sexual orientation, most people have static orientations that arise as a combination of genetics, intrauterine factors, and early developmental factors. By puberty people are pretty much attracted to what they are attracted to, and forcing someone to "resist" this is wrong.
Lol. I like how you just make up a new meaning for what 'natural' is.
LeVal has performed some really odd mental gymnastics with that "natural" bit.
How is it possible for an animal to "not always act naturally"???? I'm confused...are you saying animals CHOOSE to also engage in homosexual behavior (which has been extensively documented IN THE WILD)?????
And here I thought that animals always acted on their "natural" instincts and that the "free will" was given only to humans with their conscience thoughts and ability to rationalize (limited as that seems to be these days)....
Firstly, all you who say that homosexuality is "unnatural," I ask you, what do you mean by that?
You apparently by into the naturalistic fallacy "a penis is only supposed to go into a vagina" because that's where the babies come from. I just want to clarify on that before I rip into you, with gusto.
I'm sorry, did you mean to imply that only the weak-willed people are gay? Meaning that men hold an attraction to all other men, and only the weak-willed men give in to this attraction and become gay?
Whoa. So those gay pengiuns are weak-willed penguins, and if all humans were weak-willed, we would always be gay, because gay is the natural order of things? Wait... I don't think I can buy that! I mean, how was Rock Hudson weak willed?
Nutcase Radio (AFR) was trying to claim that the children would be at risk from exposure to gay scoutmasters.
Apparently they think homosexuals cannot control themselves anymore than heterosexuals. Or would that be less?
If you substitute heterosexual for homosexual, by their logic, men and women cannot be in proximity of each other without an assault taking place.
LaVall- so you actively choose to be physically attracted to the opposite sex? Funny, I just seemed to naturally start noticing boys when I was in high school (before you try to skew that- I'm a woman).
As for wild animals- there's a type of whip tail lizard that has no males whatsoever- just females. They reproduce asexually, although they act out 'the act' before producing eggs. I guess they're unnatural and evil for 'chosing' that lifestyle?
I think those that are gay should have their own gay scouting association. There is a difference in lifestyle and choices between being gay and not. The BSA has been an established association for many years and why should thier beliefs be forced to be changed. No gay person would want to be forced to participate in way different to their liking so why should we be forced to do the same. Enough is enough. People come here from all over the world and because our way is offensive to them we need to change. Go back to where you came from and continue to live your life the way it was and happy for you. This country was founded on beliefs, this association was founded on beliefs. If you don't share the same belief start your own group and move forward. If the ban is listed my son is out. I live my life according to God and the bible and this goes against both.
Praise be to the Republic!
EngEsq - I'm trying to understand your position. If you agree that some people's sexual orientation can be fluid, then those people would change their sexual orientation based on environmental factors. Having a gay ScoutMaster as a role model would then could influence their sexual orientation, especially if they were having trouble relating to the opposite sex (like a lot of boys that age do). So how can you say that it would have no effects on the Scouts? Just asking...
Outside of what they do in their bedrooms, what are those differences? Pssst, I bet you do a LOT of the same things. And, by the way, why is what two consenting adults do in their bedroom your business?
Since, you seem to think it is, I guess what YOU do with your significant other is also up for discussion. So, please, do tell...
Don't let the door hit your son on the ass on the way out, I guess. Why you think that makes an iota of difference is beyond me.
Hell Sarah, I bet they do a lot of the same things in the bedroom too.
And I'll try to work this politically correct - really guys, you never have any back-door action with your woman?
There is NOT a big difference in lifestyle between straight and gay. Both have jobs, families, own homes, are active in their communities and churches. Where is the difference?
I find your tense here interesting as if gay people are not forced to participate in way that they don't like everyday. They are not allowed to marry the people they love, or adopt a child, they are not allowed to participate in things like the BSA, they are discriminated against all the time. They are simply asking to be treated like everyone else who happens to be straight.
I'm not sure where you think gay people come from, last I checked is not some country made up of homosexual folks that are invading this county. Homosexuals come from all walks of life, every nationality, socio-economic class and religion. They are not invades from planet gay that are trying to take over! Seriously.
This country was founded on beliefs of freedom of religion and freedom from oppression. What you propose is that everyone should follow your beliefs based on your religion. That flies directly in the face of what this country was founded on.
It is unfortunate that you would remove your child from an activity that I assume he enjoys and that can teach him many life skills just because of your own homophobia.
I am so glad you saved this for last. Based on this statement I can only assume that you are a "Christian" that picks and chooses which part of the bible you follow based on whatever point your are trying to make. Last I checked the message of the bible was love they neighbor, do not judge others, treat others as you would want to be treated, love the sinner hate the sin. Your "beliefs" are in direct opposition to those behaviours.
Sarah. You know, beyond any doubt, that the BSA has a right as a private entity to ban gay leadership. At least I hope that you know that.
I often counter your posts when you try to express your opinion that we are so free that we should embrace everything that we are legally entitled to simply because it is a right. You repeatedly post support for gay rights in every respect, ignoring any argument to the contrary, simply because it is a right. Same thing for gender equality in the armed forces, all the way to women in combat.
I see our country to be more fractured, confused and unfocused than ever precisely because we have no definition of common values. Call them morals, ideals or whatever you may, but we are becoming less distinguishable as a country and as a people because we are bent on supporting everything imaginable to become legally acceptable here. If BSA maintains their right to deny gays in leadership then they may well cease to exist. That's a valid choice for them. Ironically, their fight for their private rights is an ideal and mirrors the focus and resolve that is a common purpose for the overwhelming majority of their ranks. If they fail and become non-existent, give them credit for holding their ideals higher than the pressure of losing funding or membership. That's the sort of resolve that our country needs to see as a refresher of what we need to do nationally. In other words, there are things that we may have the legal right to do but, because we may lose cohesion and identity for the majority of the Americans, we chose not to embrace those things.
Hang on to your beliefs and principals, BSA. Stand up and don't be afraid to be beaten up over your choices. Show the courage and commitment to ideals and values that you espouse in spite of the bullies out there!
Yup, they sure do, but just because they have the right to, does not mean it's the right thing to do. I would also say that the KKK has a right to exist, that doesn't mean their members should be lauded for, "standing up for their beliefs". However, can you please show me where I've ever said the BSA has to legally change their stance, or even change it at all.
Would you make that same statement in regards to the KKK?
You've confused this situation. The difference between those situations and this, is that you argue for limiting rights for gay people and women. I've never once said that LEGALLY BSA shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.
The same way I don't tell you that you can't morally disagree with homosexuality (please quote where I've ever said that), you just can't counter a legal argument with a moral one. Have I presented a legal argument here, or is this a matter of my opinion? Now, imagine how you would feel if I was taking that opinion and attempting to use it to force BSA to stop discriminating? You know, like you do with gay marriage. You find homosexuality is an abomination, well I find discrimination is one.
in sarahs post#2.12 , she stated that men are more likely to act on pedophilia than females. Has she even read the news concerning women teachers lately? I think this is slanted reporting , what male will say , that woman made me have sex,,,,,, lol & then they MADE me eat candy & steak & drink alcohol & then they actually tried making me enjoy it & then that awful woman made my thing hard against its will , wicked wicked woman . Sarah , wake up!!!!!!!
Stimulating,
Read the statistics. And your post, while slightly amusing, doesn't illustrate the lack of consent involved in sex with underage children. It doesn't matter if younger men think it's cool, they still can't consent.
http://www.rainn.org/
stimulatingsolutions,
Those female teachers you are mentioning weren't pedophiles. These are usually cases of hebephilia or ephebophilia, which are sexual attraction to pubescent children (11-14) and mid-to-late adolescents (15 - 19), respectively. I haven't actually read many stories about females touching prepubescent children because that does tend to be a predominantly male affliction.
However, if you want to talk about MEN being attracted to pubescent and adolescent girls, let's take a look at the porn industry. And the fashion industry. And the movie industry. And the music industry...
You really want to claim that's a predominately female issue? @!$%#, it's socially acceptable for men.
Marty S. -
Um, wut? Yes, we know the BSA is not a governmental organization, sort of. I mean, there's the whole military credit you can get as an eagle scout (automatically an E5, I think). And there's the constant support between the military and the BSA, like free use of the land, devoting time and resources of personnel to support, etc. But surely, it's not a governmental organization or anything.
Even assuming that your stance is correct and the BSA has nothing to do with the government, how is what they're doing wrong? This is coming from the BSA leadership. This is not some blowhard politician proposing a law that states that the BSA must take all comers. This is their leadership, which has faced lawsuits over this issue time and again (and won them), rethinking their requirements against scouts and troop leaders being gay. As a private organization, they have a right to freedom of association, and they also have the right to change their mind on it. And the public, though it cannot legislate for the BSA, can and has been putting pressure on them to change their minds. It's like a business that sells widgets and, gradually, finds out that everyone really wants cogs. Are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to switch to cogs?
As far as the country being "more fractured than ever," well, let's look at it. On the surface, it looks like you're just buying into the Golden Age myth. Is it the 50s? When all those Norman Rockwell paintings showed poor white kids playing in the safe streets, with the white man stopping in at a diner for a cup of coffee on his way to work and the white woman watching a white baby while hanging her white sheets out to dry? (I know Rockwell did other works, particularly those with people of other colors, but they never seem to make as much of an impression, and most people haven't seen them) Funny, those of course leave out the race riots, the lynch mobs, the tarring and feathering, the egregious miscarriages of justice, the whole Red Scare and McCarthyism, etc.
Americans have been politicized to greater or lesser degrees over time. There may be a pattern of when a serious issue comes to the fore, like slavery, when the politicization goes so deep (mostly abetted by religion), that we feel the need to fight over it. But, I don't buy the whole notion that we liberals must bow to the bigots' sense of tradition and ignore the rights of minorities so that everything can be nice and peaceful (and white).
You see the fractures, confusion, and lack of focus because you view the country through your own bias. You don't say so, but I suspect you are a religious person who expects the tenets of your religion to be viewed as 'normal' and 'right'. If it is not religion, then it is simply your morals, to the same conclusion.
Our country doesn't run on morals. It runs on laws. They may have the same original basis, but they are not required to be in agreement. We are required to abide by the same laws. We have the right to differ regarding morals. Does that help you to understand why you cannot have an expectation that I will follow your morals?
When I look at the country through the lens of my morals, naturally I see the view as "fractured, confused and unfocused" because so many people have morals that differ from mine. Fortunately I am able to view the US via the lens of citizenship, which is directed by the law, and as such I see a country that is still amazingly whole, clear headed, and well-focused considering the size of our population and it's great diversity. You can view the world through either lens - that is your right. However, once you start to talk about what we as country do or do not allow you are talking about civics, and you must view the world through the lens of law, because that is all we truly share.
If the BSA changes it's stance on this issue, it will not be because they are forced to. It will be because they choose to, regardless of the reason. They are free to choose either way. I have no doubt that the choice will be made based on a much wider range of issues and concerns than that contained in your narrow perspective.
lol , sarah , i dont know what movies your watching or what fashion shows you go to or what porn you watch , but it would probably help if you were a little more selective in your choices & hambone , a pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile , age of the victim is inconsequential & their lack of intelligent or wise participation in the matter is what truly matters. i see a pedophile as abhorent as anyone that would have sex with a severely handicapped adult , so , divide 10 from 12 or 14 or even 16 , most of them dont truly understand all the ramifications of their actions , hell , most 18to 88 yr olds arent mature enough to procreate imo.
AND NOWHERE DID I STATE THAT IT IS A PREDOMINATELY FEMALE ISSUE , i cant hardly stomach your words coming out of your mouth , dont force your words into mine.
Are you serious???
Brittany Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Miley Cyrus, Christina Aguillara... (I believe they were in their mid-teens at the time they reached fame) All sex objects before the age of consent. And that's just to name a few.
The porn industry has entire movies and websites dedicated to the "sexy school girl" or the "naughty babysitter". And that's ALSO just too name a few.
The average fashion model starts their career at age 16, and is unemployed by 25.
That you're so blinded to this illustrates what can only be a willful ignorance.
What ever happened to "freedom of association"?
Freedoms of association is a human right let alone a Constitutional right.
How can gays call people who disagree with them 'bigots' and 'intolerant' when gays are being intolerant of others values and social positions by trying to force their way into other peoples private groups? BSA is a perfect example of a private group under siege.
I was taught when growing up to go where your accepted and celebrated. Is this a bigoted statement? NO!
Gays are free to start their own private scouting groups and celebrate each other. Is that a bigoted statement? NO!
It matters not if a private group discriminates. As a Christian, I'm sure that I could be shot and dying outside an atheist front door and he/she still does not have to let me in.
See, no one here has to accept me or agree with me. See, no bigotry here.
However, everyone here has to accept gays, their sexual behaviors, and must let them into their private organizations, clubs, circles, etc. because if you don't you are a hater, bigot, homophobic, neanderthal, mean spirited poor excuse for a human being!
Now, who is the bigot and who is trying to force themselves on others here?
sarah sarah sarah , what about bieber & all the young boy bands & as for porn , you must be selective in the sites you choose , from what ive come to know , most men will go to girl on girl porn , i dont know if its a thing about saving them from their choice fantasy or lack of desire at seeing another guys junk , shrugs , as for the desire to see youth in porn , most women dont wanna see bald or paunchy guys as men dont wanna see saggy tits , the age has to do with a missed youth thing , thats why alot of extramarital affairs or relationships after divorce involve a younger person , or where ppl in authority (male & female ) seek younger ppl , you know , that whole cougar mentality Y dirty ol man , on both male & female sides of the spectrum. I know of no aged man that wants to see kids or have sex with kids , heck , i raised 8 & can barely tolerate any kids under any circumstance for too long. 1 weekend with all 12 of my grankids & im ready for a yr vacation.
Perhaps because gay people aren't trying to ban you, block you, or keep you out of anything based on something that isn't their business and is completely irrelevant?
Just a shot in the dark their.
And that wouldn't piss you off? And by the way, that WOULD be bigotry.
Please quote where anyone says the BSA doesn't have the RIGHT to discriminate.
You. Give me a call when gay people take over whatever club you want to join and won't let you because you're straight. Or when someone tries to force you to be gay. Then you'll have a point.
& if you think that mileys fame is due to grown guys or brittany or lindseys fame , you are the delusioned 1 here , i only know about miley because her idiotic nonmusical dad & lindsey because of her law snubbing actions . YOU ARE THE 1 THAT NEEDS TO GET A CLUE. As for christine whomever , never seen a movie of hers & dont know who she is.
As for the fashion industry , that is the womens choice , the young girls want to look like them & so do the older women , you dont see many men fixated on how they appear age wise, thats predominately a female hangup.Only age male product im familiar with is stuff for gray hair, mines white & im 100% happy with it.
Stimulating,
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/killing-us-softly-3/
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8495548576543844528&hl=en&oi=scholarr
http://www.westminstercollege.edu/myriad/index.cfm?parent=2514&detail=4475&content=4795
http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/toolkit_on_sexualization_of_women_in_the_media.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/other/2012/07/10/confronting-sexualization-girls-and-young-women-spark-team-members-are-not-afraid-speak-and-take-action/2wVzzrvEeetbBBnqFCgSeL/story.html
http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/index.aspx
Educate yourself, and then get some neosporin for your knuckles.
I'm actually going to step up to Molly's defense here... while this may not have been communicated correctly, I get the meaning here. Hold on - keep reading...
There does seem to be some connection here, just read through the news. How often do we read "Catholic Priest arrested for molesting young girls"? Almost never. It's almost always "Pedophile molests young boys".
Jerry Sandusky: Homo-pedo
Westly Allen Dodd: Homo-pedo and murderer
Michael Jackson: Beat the homo-pedo rap.
And so on and so on...
Now maybe it's just that homo-pedos are more news-worthy than straight pedos, I don't know. I just know that this IS what we hear about most often.
Is there a connection? I can't say with any certainty, but there sure looks like one.
And to borrow from the school of method-acting...
If I were a predatory homo... so far my best option has been the catholic church. But now, if the BSA throws open the gates... now I have a whole new venue to choose from and don't have to go to seminary school. It just becomes that much easier.
--
And yes, I do realize there are some straight-pedos who have made the news - most recently, and just this week I believe, was the story of the coach and his 15 year old team-member he was molesting... but again, for whatever reason, it just seems far less common.
sarah , yesterday , there was a news item about a male dog that liked to hump other male dogs & the redneck owner wanted it put down because of that & the general concensus of the posters stated that a male dog will hump anything , that seems to be your attitude as well , why do you have such an attitude , did your daddy do something to you , have you tried discussing this attitude with him? You seriously need to see someone to rectify this outlook of yours. REgardless of your perceptions , majority of men , dont want a kid, anymore than anywomen wants a kid for sex. The trash is on both sides of the street , thats a fact.
David
You think people "turn gay" because they don't get "looks" from girls?
If that were even remotely true, then every single nerd and geek would be gay. The fact that straight nerds and geeks exist completely discredits this laughable hypothesis.
@David:
I'm atheist. If ANY person was, as you put it, "shot and dying outside my front door," I'd help them.
That's because I don't have some handy little book that forces me either to be cruel to my fellow humans or else risk burning in a pit of fire for all eternity. I make up my own mind about what's right and what's wrong, and I base that on empathy for others and on rational, critical thought. Let me show you:
"Wrong" is usually "something that harms others." "Right" is usually "what doesn't harm others." Anything in-between has to be weighed on its own merits. Morals are situational: what might be right in one case may be completely wrong in another. You know: like how it's wrong to murder, but it's right to protect yourself, even if that protection ends up killing the person trying to do you harm.
The fact that you're religious doesn't mean I'd let you lie outside my door and die. Ever.
The fact I'm atheist doesn't mean I have no morals. It doesn't make me a monster. In fact, in one important way, it makes me a bigger person than you:
I help people because it's the right thing to do. Not because I'm told to by some book, and threatened with punishment if I don't.
This book has a little to say about gay people. It has a lot more to say about your own behavior:
Love your neighbor.
Not: love only those neighbors who think what you think.
Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you.
Not: Do unto only those others who think what you think, as you would have everyone else do unto you, no matter what they think.
Be in the world, but not of it.
Judge not, lest ye be judged, in like manner.
Vengeance is MINE, sayeth the Lord.
How is it you guys can never remember any of that when you start in judging and hating and being fully of the world? The only parts you can remember are the parts you don't fully do anyway! Doesn't your book say gays are to be stoned to death? WELL? So you got the "abomination" part down pat. Where are your Holy Stoning Squads, already? What do you mean, you don't have them? But your book says that's what you're supposed to do!
Your book specifically says you're not supposed to kill. It also says you're specifically supposed to kill gay men.
If you're in the right, if you are correct to hold homosexuality as an abomination, why are you not out there collecting stones?
MY morality tells me both stances are immoral.
What does your morality tell you? Half and half? God was right about the abomination thing, but wrong about the murdering thing?
How can this be? And how can you live with knowing god is wrong?
I've seen more cases of pedophilia in organizations that ban/restrict homosexuals into positions of power. Heads of relgious sects even to members of congress.
A lot of the discussions for anti-homosexuals are quite similar to those that were against integration for African Americans. EXACTLY THE SAME!!
as for the sex slave trade & children , it is a problem for both sexes , altho , it isnt likely that a male under the age of 10 or 12 can erect or ejaculate & they are used mostly by pedophile men or groomed by women for later . Visit any big city & work with the homeless runaways & youll get a clearer picture.
Rip away! I really want to see this one. Where else should a penis go? Knowing full well that evolution has created the penis for two purposes, to urinate, and to propagate. I am waiting to see how you rip with gusto, unless you mean "Rip" another man with your penile gusto. Sicko!
If the "only" purpose of a penis is to urinate and propagate, then why are there so many health benefits associated with an orgasm (chemical secretion) and sex for fun (without propagation)? It is well documented that an active sex life, which does not result in children, is beneficial to both the person and the relationship... regardless of who is involved in said relationship.
Well we have established that Pedophiles are Bisexual in nature and that places them in the Gay community, not the straight community. but that is limited to the pedophiles that pray on same same sex as well as the opposite sex, so Sanduskie is a Bisexual and will never think there is anything wrong with his actions because to him its normal, he was borne that way. and he will never understand why everyone is against him. you might say that he is Queer and you would not be wrong by Websters definition. same applies to the Lesbian waging war with a childrens organization over her lifestyle versus theirs on the issue of morals, ask yourself is this a aproperate battlefield for lesbian and gay rights??? do you think it wll spread to cub scouts? this is important stuff to a six year old. yep its pretty low class draging the nations youth into a grown up confrontation on morals. the gays just want to get at the minds of the youth, mind control starts with the youth, sway them and you control the future.
sarah , u also seem to have the mindset of most moms that push their young girls into pageants & make them dress like sex symbols , you say , thats what most men want & your wrong. This is propogated by women against girls , even within the fashion industry.
Your posts seem to indicate that the only decent male is a homosexual 1.
I don't believe that's actually been established.
@Chadical:
Right, because no straight man has ever asked a woman to let him in the back door. Nope, Never, ever happens. Straight guys just don't even think of something so unnatural. Not ever.
David
You do not "have" to accept gays. The fact that you will be labeled a "hater, bigot, homophobic, neanderthal, mean spirited poor excuse for a human being" is not a factor that will force you to accept them. You are free to accept whoever you want, and society is free to label you as they see fit.
It seems you are more concerned with what people will think of you, than supporting your belief. If you truly hold such strong convictions, then the label attributed to you should be inconsequential.
I find it interesting how the post have changed from the first time this story broke. In the beginning the majority of the posters said the BS was plagued with Homosexuals preying on children when there could be nothing farther from the truth. I applaud NBC for having the courage to allow open discussion in order to illuminate and allow uninformed people to share in the discussions. While there will always be people who are SET in their opinions, perhaps rational discussion will eventually prevail to open a mind.
You see Religion counts on people having "blind faith" and to not question the status qua and accepted social norms. That is why we can go to the Internet and see faithful followers of Islam chopping off hands, executing homosexuals and all the other sinners they deem as deserving death and torture even here in the 21st century. Jews had their days of destruction as did Roman Catholics as they judged sinners to death in God's name. Thank goodness and mercy that the Romans/Christians, and Jews were stopped from their Godly activities of death dealing, but Islam has never had such a social cleansing.b That will need to be realized by the moderate minds within their own ranks or from the outside where the world finally says no to barbaric nature of Islam.
The origin of the hatred for homosexuals is a part of the ancient writings dating back before Abraham and was increased by Moses with his 5 books of laws. The Romans and the Muslims respectively took these outdated laws to use as a tool to control the "Faithful" where the masses were given license to murder sinners. Even today we can see people getting stoned to death, beheaded, strangled, set fire, or torture or death by some other means. I am wondering? Why do you think the religions of Islam, Jews, and Roman/Christians is derived from the same sources, The ancient Hebrew Writings, and they have never stopped hating and killing one another? Their only common ground seems to be the will to kill sinners in God's name.
The Resulting "code of Silence through fear" is the dark place these religions created to allow the pedophiles a place to hide. Children are made to feel guilt and shame because the perpetrators are people of importance. I surmise that the formula for the creation of Homophobic predators and pedophiles are the same. Children are raised in the social structure where they are told they will "go to hell and eternal damnation" for homosexual tendencies and thoughts. But as we all know ALL children experience these emotions at some point in their development. when faced with these thoughts and being told it is WRONG to the point that the whole community and the family will shun them if they are open about their feelings, then the feelings are suppressed. Then in walks a Sandusky to offer "Silent" friendship and compassion that is forbidden elsewhere. It must be right because the whole world loves Sandusky, the Priest, or the Scout Leader.
The way to disarm the pedophiles is to shine light into these dark areas where they hide. An out of the closet, open homosexual would NEVER dare to cross that social barrier because they would know that the world is watching. They would not commit what would equal social suicide by such an act. Children would learn the message that it is alright to be Gay if that is what you are and would not need to fall victim to these monsters.
Also make the laws for these crimes so laden with punishment that they would not just get a label and released back into society. Perhaps take a cue from the Eastern laws and bring back the custom of Eunuchs. Castrate these people as a first strike and death as a second strike for stealing the innocence of a child. If the predators inflict Terror and Murder to their victims, then terror should be the consequences for their actions.
This may sound extreme, but as we have seen many times and know of the thousands and tens of thousands of MISSING children, we know that the terror is out there. I know of a case where the predator literally slaughtered a child like deer after he raped and sodomized the 10 year old child for hours. He was caught the next day with irrefutable evidence so there was no chance that he was not guilty. But this was a "Christian "Community that did not want the publicity. A plea deal was made that prevented the perp from being executed and he lived. The Perp was an illiterate man who attended a church where his moral foundation were preached to him.
Lazarus
Stimulating,
Yes, I top my ice cream with testicles. I don't dislike men, I dislike men who have no social awareness. Like the one's who whine about body image issues and age pressure being placed on them. If you think dudes have it hard, you wouldn't last a day as a woman.
Also, "Just For Men "advocates leaving gray in your hair, can you find a women's product that talks up looking older?
You people do realize that there are gay pedophiles and straight pedophiles right? This has all been verified. Its not attraction to the age. Thats why all the priests molested boys. Im for gay rights, but if you are going to call people ignorant, dont be ignorant yourself. Men who molest boys are not straight men. They may identify that way because who would want to identify as a pedophile? They keep their life style under wraps. It doesnt mean gay people are pedophiles. But there are gay pedophiles.
This doesnt change the fact that gay people deserve the same rights as straight people.
Hi Sarah, Wasn't going to post, but 2.64, forced it.
A fact of nature is females are limited, with most infertile by early to mid 50s, men are fertile into their 80s. We are rigged for procreation, survival of the species. How would it benefit nature for a fertile male to be attracted to infertile (old) females? While young fertile female attraction to older 'gray' male works because they can provide for her and offspring.
Sorry, but this law of nature, was passed by a woman, MaMa Nature.
In closing..be gentle, you know I'm right.
Myown,
I get the anthropological reasons for the why men are attracted to younger females. But alas, we no longer live in caves where we mate by the age of 15. Modern science and society moved us past that a long time ago. Now it's promoted through our culture, bottom line.
And aren't I always gentle??? Although you did insult my boxed wine the other day. :)
SARAH in your post #2.44 you stated
Brittany Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Miley Cyrus, Christina Aguillara... (I believe they were in their mid-teens at the time they reached fame) All sex objects before the age of consent. And that's just to name a few.
How many adult males do you honestly think attended their concerts & why on earth do they wear clothes that arent even decent for adult women? & you also made reference to girl models , you will find that MOTHERS are usually the push behind them & their attire , the same goes for girl pageants & i seriously doubt that youl find many , if any grown men there drooling . The fact remains , every one of your posts reflect a feminist & gay agenda & thats fine , i really dont care , they also assert that a majority of deviancy is male & you are wrong , trash is equal on both sides . Was you daddy wantin a boy to play baseball with & got you instead or was he wanting a girl for the wrong reason , whatever the drive is behind your issues are (might just be penis envy for all i know), a serious counselling professional may help. As for wether i could last a day as a female your ignorance is only excelled by your ego . You have no idea as to what ive endured in my life & I CAN SAY , that you could not endure 1 day of many many days of my life , wether in the usmc or as a construction worker carrying bundles of shingles up ladders or wheelbarrows of concrete . The only thing i cant do is have a child , i HAVE raised children & beentheir major provider of physical essentials & when ever possible , the less tangible needs of love & caring. What exactly do you think i couldnt do that you have endured & dont even go to the pain of childbirth , trust me , there are worse pains , like burns over 30% of my body , try & compare a month of that to 8 hrs of childbirthing . You have no idea what you are talking about , but considering your age & experiences , that is understandable.
How many adult males do you think fantasized about them? And they wear those clothes because they need that attention to remain famous.
Yes, but it's our culture that allows for it. And why do grown women want to look like that? Oh, because they see that men are attracted to it.
I'm sorry, please quote where I said that. I said that this PARTICULAR area of deviancy is, YES, male dominated.
There, I fixed it for you. But seriously, what's NOT to be egotistical about. I'm the @!$%#.
And grasp the concept that social pressures in regard to body image and weight fall far more heavily on females.
And I've never had a kid, so I'm not sure about your child birthing rant. Seriously, go read the links I provided. They may help you.
Sarah,
Yes, we are out of caves, but I believe our 'civilized' is thin & covers the same 'rigging' as then. Promoted, yes, and mostly by your gender (sorry). I've never heard a man tell his wife/gf 'aren't you going to wear/use more make-up'. Can't say the same about her friends.
Sort of..thanks. That's why I didn't let them install that Christian Fundamentalist soul.
AND ANOTHER THING , my youngest daughter is 29 yrs old & weighs about 140 lbs , she has never walked or talked & i am retired with a bad heart & degenerative disc disease as well as arthritis , my wife retires later this yr . I am the one that carries my daughter to the tub for baths , i am the one that lifts her into the van & i change diapers with diahrea & menstrual fluids & i feed her , i am her primary caregiver , what do you think i couldnt handle? My sister also had burns & she doesnt have a puter , but she had 3 children , ill see if i can get her to come online & post to you about comparing pain. Bad burns will make you long to die.
How many adult males do you think fantasized about them? And they wear those clothes because they need that attention to remain famous.
SPECULATION AS TO THE FANTASIZING , im glad you read minds & they wear those clothes because THEY want the fame & attn , they are responsible for propogating this attitude , them and their parents.
Yes, but it's our culture that allows for it. And why do grown women want to look like that? Oh, because they see that men are attracted to it.
again , speculation as to MEN attracted to it , they do it because they know young girls want to be percieved as older & older women want to be percieved as younger , that is not the fault of man. Altho , alot of men dont see saggy wrinkled women as sexy anymore than a bald paunchy man isnt percieved as sexy.
I'm sorry, please quote where I said that. I said that this PARTICULAR area of deviancy is, YES, male
dominated.
you are correct , in that ive only seen you post on this deviant behaviour & since you dont percieve homosexuality as deviant , we cant go there , but if i were to say that bestiality must be primarily a female thing , judging by the mexican donkey shows , im sure youd say that its all men there watching , so again , mens fault.
As for wether i could last a day as a female your
ignorancearrogance is only excelled by your egodont change it , i meant exactly what i typed.
And grasp the concept that social pressures in regard to body image and weight fall far more heavily on females.
they place this stress on themselves in the desire to be loved or wanted or accepted , i value the inside moreso than any external attribute. If they are not happy with themselves , that is their issue , not mans fault. Maybe they need to be more selective in the man they place in their life.
And I've never had a kid, so I'm not sure about your child birthing rant. Seriously, go read the links I provided. They may help you.
you made a remark that i couldnt last a day as a female & i want to know by what criteria you use to establish that premise. ABUSE , hell , u have no idea & dont even go there.
sarah , any abuse , wether physical emotional or sexual can scar for life & to the 8-10-12 yr old enduring it , not alot of difference in the 3 as far as the pain . Granted , females are in the majority of sexual abuse , physical abuse is probably in the male category & emotional abuse is primarily across the board dead even . Whichever is the root of your issue , profesional help may be a benefit for you in rectifying your bias nature or issues. I am aware of abuse issues and i will not engage in a tit for tat comparison of experiences with you , i merely suggest you get some help.
A homosexual couple is incapable of reproducing, so it cannot have offspring who are "usually born heterosexual." Your statements need revision and/or clarification.
They can and do have offspring, Jim; whether those offspring are products of the two of them (which is biologically impossible), or born via IVF or surrogacy, it is no different than heterosexual couples who employ the same methods in order to have children -- do you need any further "revision" or "clarification"?
Once again, your bigotry overrules your intellect (what there is of that).
Now I feel bad for you. How am I supposed to be snide, arrogant and egotistical if I feel bad for you? Damn it.
You're over generalizing my positions. Keep them in the context of what we're talking about and seriously, start with those links. I've never said that abuse doesn't hurt young men equally.
Jim,
Last I heard, gay men's sperm was still capable of fertilizing eggs and gay women's eggs were still capable of being fertilized.
Myown,
Christian fundamentalist soul, is an oxymoron.
i dont want you feelin bad for me , she is my greatest blessing & im not overgeneralizing anything , i merely asked what makes you say i couldnt last a day as a female . I CAN definitely say there were days that you couldnt foot the bill i had to pay & am willing to prove it . I pasted every remark you made & asked definitive questions & made definitive statements ,YOU stated that the pressure women endure as to weight & looks is a heavy burden that men couldnt endure , i state that the need for acceptance & love is equal , regardless of gender , however , there are more avenues for women as to increase there supposed desireability. With men , its striving in the work force & making money & providing , this is more exhibited in male nature. NOT SAYING women dont work , but primarily , the role of provider has been & still is primarily the males responsibility. They will attempt jobs that push them beyond their physical capabilities & grow into a job , ie , steel structure fabrication , mining , the list is endless, primarily male filled jobs & STILL , im not saying NO woman can do or does these jobs , but it is the exception , not the norm.
and please , dont spare me anything , especially facts . If you seriously think your opinion or snide arrogant anything matters to me , you seriously overestimate your relevance . You opinions or acceptance of mine wont put a single bean on my plate or a penny in my pocket . im merely asking you to elaborate on your assertions .
Erin, please, you embarrass yourself every time you engage me--hence why I have you set to "ignore," as you are already well aware. When I see you pop up in a thread near one of my posts, I do occasionally expand your comment to see if it was directed at me, which this one was.
If you think I am unaware of IVF and surrogacy, then that's simply another bad assumption on your part. Doing IVF or surrogacy on behalf of a couple who OUGHT to be able to reproduce biologically is NOT exactly the same as doing it where there is no partner of the opposite sex.
The only situation where you might be able to argue for a similarity is when there is a third-party donor involved, because that is what is required for a homosexual couple to reproduce (which was my point--it is impossible for any homosexual couple to TRULY have offspring, there has to be a third-party involved). IVF and surrogacy typically assists a couple already biologically capable of producing offspring together. For IVF, there are times where an egg/sperm donor is required due to infertility caused by problems with those of the couple seeking assistance. For surrogacy, generally it is used because the biological mother of the child is physically unable to sustain a pregnancy (or, in the case of some very wealthy people, unwilling to change their bodies with pregnancy).
The point he was trying to argue was based on genetics (vice nurture/environment). He said that most homosexuals are born to heterosexual parents, and that homosexual couples usually produce heterosexual children. Since the argument is based on a genetics issue, unless you can show whether the donor egg/sperm that would enable a homosexual couple to have a baby was actually provided by a homosexual, then you cannot logically make such a claim.
Sarah, "homosexual couple" = either all sperm or all eggs. There has to be at least one third party involved in order for a baby to be born in either situation. I don't see anything in his post to say whether he's claiming those third parties are also homosexual. If not, then the baby isn't really the offspring of a "homosexual couple."
Really, Jim? Where did he say anything about genetics? Since he mentioned that they "remain that way through the rest of their life," it would seem that nurture/environment were implications in his message.
The law considers any child born of a marriage to be a "product of the marriage" -- just like when heterosexual couples utilize IVF or surrogates in order to have children.
It's understandable that you would ignore me, Jim, because you certainly don't like having the numerous flaws and inaccuracies in your "arguments" pointed out to you.
Wow, just so much stupid. Okay.
Firstly, the First Amendment does give people the right to freedom of association. And NOBODY is overruling that here. If you're a public business, then you must engage with the public or risk losing your license. Associations are different. If you're an association, the idea is that you're being held together by a certain shared viewpoint, and you are free to discriminate in your membership based on that. And NOBODY is passing a law to force BSA to accept open homosexuals (there are plenty that are in the closet there) in their club.
However, for those of you who equate the First Amendment with the freedom to say whatever you wish without criticism, y'all can go @!$%# y'allselves. The same First Amendment that enables you to be a bigot without fear of physical harm being visited upon you allows me to call you a bigot without fear of physical harm being visited upon me. The First Amendment basically states that words shall be answered with words. Exceptions have been made, the most notable being laws against defamation, revealing national secrets, advocating lawlessness, and inciting a riot. Calling you a bigot meets none of the requirements, as it is protected opinion, just like being a bigot is protected opinion.
So, it seems that the BSA leadership is tired of being called bigots. Either that, or they're upset that so much of their corporate sponsorship is pulling away because of the gay rights issue (much more likely, IMO). You see, the freedom of association also means that corporations are not required to support bigotry if they don't feel like it. As more an more companies announce they will pull funding over this issue, seems to me that the marketplace of ideas (don't you right-wingers love that thing? and boycotts?) has determined that marriage equality is important enough to them (and their customer base) that they have chosen to support groups that don't discriminate. All perfectly legal. As legal as me calling you a bigot for discriminating against a group of people who a) harm nobody in and of themselves, b) have been repressed unjustly through history, and c) who do a lot of good for society.
Shorter version: you're a bigot, that's protected speech just like you calling people "fag" or "homo" or "homo-pedophile"; freedom of association allows the BSA to discriminate IF THEY WANT; freedom of association also means that corporations can pull their funding from the BSA if they want; the BSA has determined that it might be better to allow homosexuals in instead of discriminating against them because of social pressure.
Now, I just want to take a second to address the ridiculous claim that gay people don't have children. Are you that stupid? Really? Really that stupid? I mean, the fact that we have a term called "in the closet" doesn't even hint to you that this is not a new thing? That there have been prominent gay people throughout history? That many lived their entire lives without confiding in anyone that they were gay? Or at least put up enough of a false front to society that they could pass without comment? Ever hear the term "beard?" It's used to describe a woman that marries a gay man in order to help him pass as straight. And they had children, as well. It's not as if a gay man is completely incapable of impregnating a woman. All the parts work, and the sperm and egg don't care what sexual orientation their progenitors are. And lesbian women did this, too. They married men and had children, even though they were not attracted to their husbands. That's what I think you don't get. This is not some new situation. Gay people have existed throughout history. If you'd actually bothered to read and understand history, you might have picked up on that.
Now, Chadical wished me to go ahead and rip into the naturalistic fallacy, so I shall, with gusto.
Firstly, you say nature made a penis to go into a vagina to make a baby. Now, nature made nothing. A series of events, which we call evolution, has led to a species that reproduces sexually with two identifiable physical sexes (some more than others, I'm going to exclude the people born with aberrations of this as they are generally more rare, and often are genetically sterile; that is not to say they are not human, merely not part of this discussion). The production of offspring in this race requires the two sexes to couple before a new member is produced. However, if you truly accept evolution, then you realize that evolution doesn't "make" anything. Mutation occurs. If the mutation is an expressed phenotype, then that mutation allows natural selection to act upon it. If the mutation is within a population such that natural selection does not act upon this particular phenotype, then the mutation is subject to the effects of genetic drift and changes in population frequencies, etc. There is a lot more to it than "nature made us that way." That's more like saying "Goddidit," and that answer is not acceptable on this homework assignment.
Now, assuming there is no design element behind the human body, which if you accept the truth of evolution you must accept that it happened naturally, without interference or guidance of any kind. You can say "we evolved to reproduce through coupling," but that is just reproduction. Honestly, how much of your life is devoted to reproduction? Freud would say damn-near all of it. Many would say most of it. You're either trying to find a mate, trying to provide for that mate, trying to impress that mate, trying to find a better mate, etc. But that is psychological drive, and has little to do with day-to-day reality. You're not thinking "oh, that cup of coffee at McDonald's is sure to win me points with that cutie in the office." (note: if you do think that, you're doing it wrong). Much of your psyche is taken up with survival instincts: food, shelter, security, etc. Mating is there, too, but it's not all of it. In other words, we were not put here just to propagate. That implies we were put here, which we weren't.
The truth is we have evolved as we have. We have created civilizations (completely unnatural environments, by the way). We have built cities, skyscrapers, flown without our own wings, flown off of the planet (something no other animal has done, to our knowledge). We have created "unnatural" things since we evolved our frontal lobe, and probably before. Homosexuality, however, has been observed in much older species than us. And, since there is no guidance to evolution, it shows us that there is no such thing as inherent morality. Morality has been developed to allow us to coexist without killing each other constantly. Proof? There are different moralities in different cultures. It is a learned behavior, although many appear as a result of empathy, like not killing people and helping those in need.
The truth is that morality and ethics are an "unnatural" behavior. They are a system we have imposed on nature, on our human nature, in order that civilization may continue. And it is argued that when we apply morality inconsistently and capriciously, that causes problems with civilization as it operates. The short of it is that people don't like being treated like second-class citizens, and they resort to many different means to express their displeasure.
There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality. It is one of several sexual identities (the big four are hetero-, homo-, bi-, and a-sexual (asexual means they have no desire for sex)). It is a naturally occuring behavior, and for you to label it as "unnatural" means you haven't studied the subject enough. There is nothing unnatural about being xenophobic, either. Generally, in our past, we associated with those who look like us, excepting notable outliers, and those who look like us would band together to protect each other from those that did not look like us. So is racism ethically okay to you? Rape is also a natural phenomenon. Many of all of our ancestors were conceived through rape, and if you deny that, then we're done, you have no business at this conversation because you cannot accept reality. So, if rape is a natural occurence, why ban it?
Ethics have evolved in and of themselves over time. And, ethically, we as a society have determined that certain behaviors are acceptable for civilized people and other behaviors require incarceration, death, or some other form of punishment and banishment from society; this is most visible in our prison system. However, as ethics change and become more broadly applied (instead of in name only), we have determined that a whole mess of characteristics are no longer worthy of condemnation. Being black is no longer acceptable to warrant immediate suspicion or arrest. The same goes with being Irish, or Mexican, or whatever nationality, ethnicity, or race. Being a woman no longer means you must bow to your husband's will, or that he owns all the property you bought. Hell, being a single woman is no longer cause for discrimination or condemnation (at least in most places, and certainly not in the law).
No, homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. As for the penis-vagina thing, well, the penis can fit in pretty much any hole. Why is the vagina special? What is so special about sex that it can only be done one way? There are entire books dedicated to the different ways sex can be performed, and very little of it has to do with having a baby. Sex is an act between 2 (or more) people that should fall within the boundaries of what those people are comfortable with (more specifically, should fall within the boundaries of what those people explicitly consent to). Sex doesn't have "purpose," other than the purpose those who perform the act give it. Many people have sex without the intent of procreation. Is this "unnatural?" No. The bonobo shows us that sex can naturally be about conflict resolution. Many species use it as an expression of dominance. Others show us that we're complete prudes (you want a real education in sex? study fungi).
Yet, with all this evidence that you are wrong, you still insist that sex is entirely about baby-making and therefore penises and vaginas and anything else is wrong? You are blind. Right and wrong are used to determine the outcomes of actions and, thereby, the actions themselves. In consenting homosexual sex, nobody is harmed (like I said, there are other things, but that crosses homo-hetero lines anyway, and is usually performed by consenting adults with fetishes and such). If you think there is inherent harm in it, well, you need to look more into it. More harm is done trying to suppress sexuality than trying to express it. Harm to the individual, and harm to anyone they associate with. Forcing gay men to marry women is wrong, for both the man and the woman and any children they have. Just ask Ted Haggard's wife.
More nonsense perpetuated by the gay community.
The very definition of homosexuality is a sexual attraction to members of the same gender. Accordingly, the gay community would have us accept the illogic of their argument that homosexuality and pedophilia are separated by the age of the object of their attraction.
For example, if a gay person lusts after an individual that is 18 years old, that is considered OK, but if that individual is 16, then the gay person is no longer considered gay but a pedophile.
The truth is that pedophiles share one trait associated with everyone else, and that is they come in both proclivities, that they are also heterosexual and/or homosexual which is why some pedophiles prefer one gender over the other.
Pedophiles prey on whatever gender child is available to them. For example, Sandusky is not gay, yet he abused male children. They were available to him. The Pedophile is attracted to the youth, not the gender. However yes, both homo and hetero individuals can also be pedophiles.
Dennis 2.83
Yes, and also bi-sexual people can be pedophiles. Sandusky?
It is futile to resist the evolution of social consciousness.
As a society, we don't approve of the Inquistion anymore, nor burning of witches, nor slavery, nor banning of interracial marriages. Why?
If you can come up with the answer, then you can see why we are finally beginning to refuse anti-gay bigotry as rational.
Bigots never give up easily, but they do eventually always lose the battle.
Bigot: A person who is utterly intolerant.
Seems to me that both sides are intolerant - I don't know you but the tone of your post seems to reveal your lack of tolerance.
How does one relatively small lobby have the power to bring down a private organization because they had the nerve to stand up for themselves? And we complain about the NRA
This is the USA - we used to be free to speak our minds. We used to be free to start clubs and organizations as we see fit.
I've heard all the arguments - The Boy Scouts were not hurting anyone. Why were they targeted? Start your own group and get all the potential scouts to join your organization - then the BSA will fade away.
Come on, tell us how you really feel - As a society we can longer TOLERATE the opinions of the of the other side. We must battle against their ideals!
Its a sad day - our society has taken a harmless, helpful organization and turned them into something evil.
@NJSteve - the Boy Scouts are hurting people. They're hurting boys who have been part of Scouting since long before they knew what sexual orientation was. Those boys - many of whom started in Cub Scouts at age 6 or 7 sometimes become teens who realize they are homosexual. Boy Scouts gives them one of two choices - hide who they are, or be thrown out of Scouting. An organization that has been a significant part of their lives. These boys are not clamoring to join scouts - they're trying to stay in this organization that has decided their sexuality makes them unworthy of continued membership. What's so wrong with letting local troops and councils decide how to deal with the issue? Especially since many local councils already have gay members - they just quietly ignore National's guidelines. Sex - heterosexual OR homosexual - has no place in Scouting. And for those who fear their sons camping with gay Scouts - I have both a son AND daughter who work and live every summer at Scout camp. But I should only think about the risks to my son from the small contingent of gay Scouts? No, I teach BOTH my children how to handle themselves in situations.
We used to be free to own slaves and lynch people and belong to groups like the KKK with impunity.
Today not so much.
Paraphrasing MLK: It's not about creating legislation to force you to love me, it's about creating legislation to prevent you lynching me.
Tell that to the victims of the Inquistion. How dare they stand up to the authority of the church only doing the work of spreading the love of Jesus.
princessbride - I am much more likely to support the BoyScouts allowing gay scouts then I am for allowing openly gay ScoutMasters who can unduly influence our kids at a very impressionable period in their lives.
How about that compromise?
culheath:
LMAO!
Because it is the bigots who are in the minority....just like the NRA absolutists.
princessbride - I've heard those arguments - there are a few scouts out there that have had this problem, I agree - but those numbers are very small (doesn't make it right).
To me this is about a small special interest group targeting an organization and trying to change it - The organization should be free to do what they want. It's a good group.
Simply put, start your own group - Scouts of the States or whatever. Advertise tolerance and come up with your own code - if people feel that strongly they will put their young boys into your group and the BSA will fade away.
Just my opinion and off topic - you can crucify me over this if you want, it's a more of an observation... Kids at the age of 6 or 7 are kids - they don't know gay, trans, bi or whatever else we have. It's my opinion that teens are just kids too and they don't know what they are either - I have a couple teens, it's a tough time. They have friends that were gay at 14, bi at 16 and trans 18 - I say they are confused kids - give them a few years and as adults they will figure out what they are. As an adult I do not believe we should steer kids, just let them be kids. In today's world they are bombarded with all this gay, trans, bi talk. I think we need to ease off a little.
David: If by influence you mean they influence a gay scout to not kill himself because his family and school are filled with delusional, ignorant, hateful people; than yes, they do influence kids during a very difficult time in their lives. You seem so sure that youth can be coerced into being gay that I'm guessing you experimented as a youth. There is nothing wrong with that and most young people don't feel the shame that previous generations endured.
When I was in the BSA, I was in the Beaver Patrol. No kidding. *****Beavis and Butthead laugh****
@njsteve - so if kids, at 6 or 7, don't know what their sexual orientation is, and teenagers may be confused, then just how do you decide WHO should be in this "Gay scouts of America" organization? Both my son and my nephew started as Tiger Scouts. At age 17, my nephew came out as gay. So according to you, he should be segregated into the Gay scouts - removed from the troop he's been part of for years. But then, if he's "just confused" - he can come back to Boy Scouts? Do you see how ridiculous that idea is? Keep sex out of Scouting. The Girl Scouts have managed to do this for years. Why can't the Boy Scouts? (Maybe it has to do with the male mindset that enjoys the thought of watching two women go at it, while being repulsed by the thought of two men?) I'm confused by your saying we should "steer away" from talking about sex when you're advocating throwing boys out of Scouting over sex. Sex should never have been part of Scouting, and that's what the 2-deep leadership requirements and other safety regulations are all about. Oh, and by the way, I'm straight, as is my husband, and as far as I know my son and daughter are. Yet you're telling me I should start my own group? Would that be the "Tolerant Scouts of America?" Many of us calling for tolerance are already in leadership positions in Scouting, and we've seen what it does to these boys to be ostracized. This is not some external radical gay agenda. It's a grass-roots acknowledgement that the organization should be geared to supporting ALL boys, not just those you deem worthy based on a sexual orientation you already deem may be fluid.
Evolution? how do you figure that degradation can be considered as evolution, is that equal to say when a body dies and turns into a crawling mass of maggots that it has evolved, things are better now!only if you are a maggot! I would just as soon these people would stay away from our youths and not confuse them in their delicate and innocent years, this is not where they should be fighting their battles are you people blind you should be taking up a stick and running the vermin off and away from your child. by Vermin I mean the Queers. the lesbians and the Gays along with the Bisexuals and the Transsexuals with their Pedophiles and transvestites and other non normal perverts you would run off a stray animal or a wild creature wouldn't you where is your sense to protect your child from other potential dangers? yes I said dangers they come in all forms. you would run off a drug dealer wouldn't you after all drugs destroy the mind well so do people, there is a gay culture in the world, the short term for culture is cult people see things differently when the word gets shortened for some reason. if its referred to as a cult then it must be evil. go figure. do you want to see the scouts turn into a gay cult? must everything be pro gay, why? when you start opening cages and letting out the critters you can't stop so don't start.
Wow. Just wow. You should stop now. Seriously. Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds?
You guys are debating Culheath. This guy is the biggest wacko and most intolerant person I've ever seen on the site. And Im for gay rights. But there is no reasoning with him at all.
sarah , you seem to ignore the fact , that behind every girl model & girl pageant , is a mom usually , dressing them to look older , this is a stereotype and abuse perpetrated on girls , by women , you also neglect the fact , that these girl singers/sex symbols , that THEY portray themselves that way . LETS let the trash sit in the appropriate yard please. My daughter never dressed like the girl/models & as far as i know , the girl singer performers concerts were attended by other girls usually & a few boys , if you look on the other side of the street , most young male singers fans are also girls , NOT GROWN MEN AT EITHER VENUE!
Hey culheath, me again. How goes it?
Adults are free to associate in whatever way they choose. How 'bout protections for children? Can't the BSA choose with whom they wish to associate? Why is it appropriate for an "all girls college" to maintain their identity, but all male schools cannot? Why is progressivism permissible but "ALL TRADITIONS MUST BE DESTROYED" ? This goes back to our discussion on the Marxist propaganda origins of PC, planted in our country by an enemy intent on destroying us. It is an all-encompassing propaganda wave that, IMHO, serves no purpose other than propagating its own power, at the expense of the values that have held Western civilization more or less together for the past 2000 years or so.
Why can't the LGBT community have their own "scouting" association?
Unfortunately, I see the evolution of "social consequences" (most of which can't be cured by antibiotics) in clinic all the time...
Right, because the BSA is out there lynching homosexuals, right? Boy Scouts are holding parades saying "kill gays," are they? Sheesh.
Nope, the BSA is just trying to impart traditional values and morals onto our youth, and build them into men of character and good citizens. Oh, the horror!
Wow...so you're uninformed as to who the bigots are, about the BSA, as well as ignorant on the unrelated issue of "gun control?"
Newsflash: the people in the minority are the ones screaming for more useless laws that violate the natural rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution (note I didn't say "granted"--natural rights exist independently of the Constitution or the government). The NRA membership numbers may constitute a minority of the population, but a majority of the population agrees with their defense of the 2nd Amendment.
I suggest that you study the 2nd Amendment, guns, the NRA, and the effects of "gun control" laws before you try jumping into a conversation about the NRA's positions.
Sure, if you consider hatred, prejudice, and bigotry to be "traditional values and morals," and that they are indications of "character and good citizens".
What "useless laws" would those be, Jim? And what "natural rights" do they violate? Oh, you mean the "useless laws" that guarantee equal treatment under the law, which is one of the "natural rights" that EVERYONE is supposed to have, but is denied to homosexuals by groups like the BSA? THOSE "useless laws" that violate "natural rights," Jim?
What a hypocritical, bigoted snob you are.
FYI - OutScouts.com - Social Network Launches to Support Gay Scouts and Leaders.
While I do not care one way or another if a person is gay it pisses me off that a private group has to bow to the wishes of special interest groups. I would rather see the Boy Scouts fold up shop and give their land to a conservation trust than for them to capitulate on their values. Why don't gays just form their own "scouting" organization if it is so important. I will tell you why-they want ot force their lifestyles on others. Most of my gay friends keep to themselves and are wonderful people.
@ Sarg That's the way this country has been headed for a long time. A vocal Minority (<5%) gets to force their views on the rest of us and we have to take it. A private institution like the Boy Scouts that gets no Federal Money should be able to decide for themselves who gets in. I believe free association is in the Constitution but hey we seem to circumvent that document all the time now.
Would you apply that sentiment to the KKK?
How about the ones that don't keep to themselves...are they still wonderful people?
Just like you don't even have to TRY to force your lifestyle on gays and others every day? You just do it, with your PDA's, family photos on your work desk, and every other outward sign of your heterosexuality. We are all humans and need to be treated as such, including being able to participate in any organization we choose to, just like you can.
sarg wants segregation.
Roscoe, it's a VOCAL MAJORITY not a small minority.
The Boy Scouts get federal support.
What the scouts want to do is give the local chapters FREEDOM to choose. Sounds very American to me.
What if you were otherwise a decent man (like the Boy Scouts founder Lord Baden-Powell), but were romantically attracted to your gender (just like the Boy Scouts founder Lord Baden-Powell)? Would you think it's fair to be excluded from the organization?
Fifty shades of gay
The problem with leaving it up to the local chapters is the incompatible moral message. This troop thinks it's okay to discriminate, and that troop thinks tolerance and acceptance are more important. This troop thinks homosexuality is immoral, and that troop thinks homophobia is immoral. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
These boys don't want to force their lifestyle on others - they just don't want to get kicked out of an organization they've been a member of for most of their lives. Where they have friends, and mentors, and responsibilities. I know gay Scouts working on their Eagle, working at summer camp. Why should their sexual orientation force them to give up the years of work they've put in - earning merit badges, taking on leadership roles, advancing rank, just because of their sexual orientation? If sex is such a problem in Boy Scouts, then why do they allow girls to join (Venturing Scouts) and to work at their camps?
oops...forgot the link:
Fifty shades of gay
http://www.ted.com/talks/io_tillett_wright_fifty_shades_of_gay.html
Roscoe, I don't think anyone is "forcing" the scouts to change their views. They are free exclude anyone for whatever reason; in this case being gay. However the federal and state government as well as private business and the general population are also free to not support them financially if they feel an organization is practicing prejudice and bigotry.
It seems to me, they are changing their views to keep the federal and big business funding. Maybe if you, Sarg, and everyone else that is pissed off about this, would step up and replace the lost funding; they would be able to continue being a bigoted organization.
Send them a check! They'll accept it and appreciate it.
I was a long time member of the BSA and we recieved no Ferderal Funding at all. Granted that was the 60's & 70's but as far as I know they are still run with private Donations.
@Jax I do send them money every year and have since I started working at 16. So stick that in your pipe and.............
Roscoe, BSA has held its events, meetings, etc., on publicly-owned properties for years (whether federal or local venues). Those are paid for by taxpayers, so that they receive federal funding in the form of use of such properties at no cost to them.
So stick that in YOUR pipe and....
Roscoe,
The problem is, you're not sending them enough money so that they can continue their tradition as a bigoted organization. If you were, then they could care less about losing federal and state funding and big business donations. It's really that simple; send a bigger check.
"I will tell you why-they want ot force their lifestyles on others. Most of my gay friends keep to themselves and are wonderful people"
Do you keep a cattle prod available for when your "Gay Friends" try to force their lifestyle on you...
ZZZZap get back in your hole, my little wonderful friend.
Is it me, or are the anti-gay bigots the most victimized group on the planet (in their minds).
"force their views on the rest of us and we have to take it"
"we used to be free to speak our minds"
Cheese with your whine?
Sarg, save your "gay friends" the trouble. Every LGBT person has people in their life like you, who treat us as tokens and try to use us as human shields to fend off charges of being prejudiced, though that's exactly what you are all about.
We think your kind are idiots and hypocrites, and we can do just fine without those people who are only our friends if we stay in the closet. Give us a break, and get lost--and take with you all the white people who just *love* to talk about their African American "friends" so long as they don't act uppity in front of Massah Sarg.
In fact it's the same bigotry as the BSA's pre-1974 policy on race, where they allowed each troop to decide whether to be whites-only.
why do you ppl keep comparing the boyscouts to the KKK , the KKK hate & will kill if given the opportunity. The scouts just want to teach their morals which do not include hate or murder . They DO NOT hate gays , they simply state that it is not a lifestyle they will endorse.
@Erin So because the BSA sometimes meets on Public Grounds they are Federally Funded???? We have our family gatherings at a Public Park but that doesn't mean we're federally funded. Those parks will recieve funding no matter what group of tax payers meet there. Nice try but ultimate FAIL......
Our troop met a a taxpayer paid for public school. We never met a a public park unless we went camping at a taxpayer paid for campground.
Well stimulatingsolutions, the scouts may not hate gays, but it sounds like you sure do. And from all of your posts I'm sure you like the KKK also.
i dont hate anyone , i do hate wrongs , not the 1 doing the wrong & i have a spanish son in law to be & i love him as much as my own children , i also have a black brother , adopted by my mom , i dont view him as a "black" brother , just a brother , i only state this because you accused me of racial bias. I judge by actions , not gender or race . I spent 2 yrs in prison in the early 70's on a drug charge & had black friends stand up for me before my white friends that i had known on the street . Some were more honorable than ppl id known for yrs. I had a fight with 1 black man that was like a king in prison , in that he was attending college in prison & was drawing off his dads social security . This means he was recieving 400$ a month in prison. When i got in fight with him , i had 20 black ppl kicking n hitting me & white friends in that dorm just sat on their beds & watched , while 2 black friends of mine stopped me from possibly being killed or shanked. I have no bias preconceptions. Most ppl are cowards & trash & selfish.
YOU MARTO are an IDIOT , look at my post OR ANY of my posts as you stated , where on earth did you draw the conclusion that i would in any way condone a KKK or any racially biased org. Just shut up & keep my name out of your mouth & off your keys , make my name taste like poop in your mouth & dont respond again . You prepubescent ignoramus.
Culheath,
You do realize that the KKK is allowed to exist and choose their own members right?
How is it that that you seem so certain about that? hmmmmm
.edit
I was in the Scouts from the age of 11 until i was 18. I just don't get the stigmas associated with this happening. And to Sarg above, why on earth would you want the boy scouts to fold up shop instead of doing what they are supposed to by giving our young boys a focus, and an outlet that can only help them in the future, just because you fear gays being admitted. That makes no sense, and trust me your supposed gay friends are hurt by you even thinking something like this. How about we get past our own stigmas over these issues which in all honesty rarely effect you or yours and how they live. Why is it in the land of the free we have more hate issues based on biases than ANY other country in the world. Either its your race, (yes I am old enough to remember how having black troop members was a BIG deal) or its religion, (not praying was a big deal then too), and now its your sexual orientation. We need to get over ourselves here, and soon. Put the focus on the positive, and how to integrate and adapt instead of cower and spew such hatred. I hope, more so than anything else that in a century when we as a race of humans look back on our past we wonder how we ever lived this way.
Shawn - you seem like a rational person
How about we get past our own stigmas over these issues which in all honesty rarely effect you or yours
It's a two way street - How have the Boy Scouts hurt anyone or effected anyone? I personally believe the stigma of political correctness is a little out of control - the forcefulness of a small group has created an uproar over an issue that "rarely effected" a few. Funny, many on hear disagree with mob mentality and majority rule, unless it fits their agenda/ideals
Why is it in the land of the free we have more hate issues based on biases than ANY other country in the world.
Great question - lots of anger over this Boy Scout thing. I see it in these posts - and it comes from both sides. I've never been to Iran. Are they more tolerant than the US? Do they have less hate? Do we lead the world in hate? Are we the land of the free? If so then we are free to "battle" the Scouts and the Scouts are free to run their group as they see fit.
they are supposed to by giving our young boys a focus, and an outlet that can only help them in the future
The Scouts had focus, but their group was targeted by a small group and shown as evil. Now because of a small special interest the Scouts are being told what their focus should be.
If you feel that strongly about it, start a new club - it's really that simple.
NJSteve,
why yes, because we've learned as a society that separate really is equal !
why didn't those pesky young black boys start their own club instead of bullying their way into the BSA ? they should have just started their own club too - it's really that simple, right ?
we should go back to the days of separate drinking fountains too.. its really that simple :)
see how simple it really isn't ?
Phoenyx13 - Discriminating against somebody becuase of something they are born with (like Race, Gender, National Origin) is wrong. Having separate, but equal is preposterous! But contrary to what the "Born Gay"ers say, sexuality, as well as religion, is something that is at least partially environmental, and is a lifestyle choice/preference. Next thing you are going to be telling me is that a Christian Church is wrong to require that their members (not just visitors) actually be Christian, instead of Buddhist, Muslims, or Athiests for that matter.
David,
you are correct, its wrong to discriminate against someone about something they are born with and if you look up epigenetics - scientists are discovering that you are born with your sexuality, whether its homosexual or heterosexual, its something you are born with
i had no idea there were so many muslims who regularly attended christian churches or atheists who went regularly attended christian churches. i'd be happy for the church if this were the case, of course i would wonder why a muslim or atheist would want to attend a christian church when it doesn't share their belief.
regardless, if the church does include members of other faiths - then its including people who made a choice and if your argument is that sexuality is a choice - then you should be happy BSA is including them :)
bottom line - discrimination is wrong, period.
Gee, David, since you say that it's wrong to discriminate against someone because of something s/he's born with, does that mean it's OK to discriminate on the basis of religion? After all, religion is chosen -- just as whether one worships at all is a chosen behavior.
Since you also seem to believe that sexual orientation is chosen, tell us when you chose yours.
Well, if the scouts are not allowed to discriminate on who they choose to associate with (even though the Supreme Court has totally upheld their RIGHT to do so, and was absolutely recognized by the Founding Fathers) then we need some white guys in the Congressional Black Caucus. We don't need any all black groups. It's not right for them to be bigots and discriminate. We need some 15 year old boys in the Girl Scouts too, and male leaders as well. While we're at it, we don't need any all women's groups either. They need to quit being bigots against men and allow men to join their groups. And dammit, those daycare centers should not be allowed to discriminate against known pedophiles who wish to to work there. I mean really, why would any liberal parent want to discriminate against those people? After all, liberals incessantly tell us how "tolerant, and open minded" they always are. What are they afraid of?
If you believe the Scouts should accept gays, but believe that any of the other examples I gave should be allowed to continue to discriminate, then you are hypocritical beyond belief and clearly have an agenda and have no concern about dicrimination, only getting your way.
I have the absolute right to be a part of a private organization, as well as discriminate against anyone I choose to in a private setting. We have an absolute right to associate with others of like beliefs and discriminate against those who do not accept those beliefs. You don't have to like it. You don't have to approve of it. But you do have to accept it. And that will still be the case, regardless of whatever decision the National Council for the Boy Scouts reach.
The LGBT Community has suffered enough.
Why we can Hate no more.
Upon the rise of Adolf Hitler, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians, were two of the numerous groups targeted by the Nazi Party and were ultimately among Holocaust victims. Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, who were compelled to sexually conform to the "German norm."
Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced.[1] Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps.[1] It is unclear how many of the 5,000 to 15,000 eventually perished in the camps, but leading scholar Ruediger Lautman believes that the death rate of homosexuals in concentration camps may have been as high as 60%. Homosexuals in the camps were treated in an unusually cruel manner by their captors.
After the war, the treatment of homosexuals in concentration camps went unacknowledged by most countries, and some men were even re-arrested and imprisoned based on evidence found during the Nazi years. It was not until the 1980s that governments began to acknowledge this episode, and not until 2002 that the German government apologized to the gay community.[2] This period still provokes controversy, however. In 2005, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Holocaust which included the persecution of homosexuals.
Gay men suffered unusually cruel treatment in the concentration camps. They faced persecution not only from German soldiers but also from other prisoners, and many gay men were beaten to death. Additionally, gay men in forced labor camps routinely received more grueling and dangerous work assignments than other non-Jewish inmates, under the policy of "Extermination Through Work". SS soldiers also were known to use gay men for target practice, aiming their weapons at the pink triangles their human targets were forced to wear[citation needed].
The harsh treatment can be attributed to the view of the SS guards toward gay men, as well as to the homophobic attitudes present in German society at large. The marginalization of gay men in Germany was reflected in the camps. Many died from beatings, some of them inflicted by other prisoners. Nazi doctors often used gay men for scientific experiments in an attempt to locate a "gay gene" to "cure" any future Aryan children who were gay.
Experiences such as these can account for the high death rate of gay men in the camps as compared to the other "anti-social groups." A study by Rüdiger Lautmann found that 60% of gay men in concentration camps died, as compared to 41% for political prisoners and 35% for Jehovah's Witnesses. The study also shows that survival rates for gay men were slightly higher for internees from the middle and upper classes and for married bisexual men and those with children.
Is what we (LGBT) are asking for in equal rights due to our community now?
Have we not suffered enough?
Have we not been beaten and killed enough?
Have those that died in the death camps given their life in vain?
We wear the Pink Triangle in Honor & Remembrance of our brothers that passed before us.
We wear the Black Triangle in Honor & Remembrance of our sisters that passed before us.
We wear them also as a symbol of pride, and to never forget.
A Question,
It is illegal to discriminate based on sex. Does that mean,
Sex as in Gender?
Sex as in who you sleep with?
Just asking.
You're "just asking?" Have you ever tried to find answers for yourself, instead of asking strangers to spoon-feed you knowledge?
Sex, gender, and sexual intercourse are three different things.
Now, go forth, and find out what the differences are for yourself! You can do it! I'm pretty sure you can read!
The Family Research Council is a hate group, plain and simple.
I hate you for saying that, but I love you (or at least don't have any contempt for you). Does every group that doesn't agree with you automatically qualify as a hate group?
Only if they demean, subjugate, bully, kill, imprison, or deny others the same rights they themselves enjoy. Would that be ok with you? Or do they have the right to do these things with impunity? Or worse yet - in the name of God? Talk about blasphemy!
REALITY CHECK: The Boy Scouts is not about sexuality. They only "ban" gays who are openly advocating the lifestyle. They don't ban anyone just for "being gay".
The HETEROSEXUALS in the Boy Scouts don'y get to advocate their sexuality either.
This is all about shoving the gay agenda down everyone's throat at every opportunity until American morality is destroyed.
That is incorrect.
The Boy Scouts would kick someone out just for BEING GAY. They were practicing the don't ask don't tell policy. Even if the person did not advertise it but was identified as such by another they were asked to leave.
Scenario: The troop is going on a camping trip. You are being dropped off by your wife and another scout leader who just happens to be gay is being dropped off by his husband. Both of you lean into the car and give your spouse a kiss goodbye. Tell me would both of you be "forcing" your lifestyle on all the scouts watching, would neither of you be forcing anything on anybody, or would only the gay scout leader be forcing his sexuality on the scouts? What would happen to you for an open display of your sexual orientation? What would happen to the gay scout leader for his open display of his sexual orientation? Please defend your answers.
You have to understand that when motoricker says reality-check, he does not mean "reality reality", but "Fox News reality".
Well Im thankful that the law will never pass were I live. If you are gay and want to join the BSA than join and keep your sexuality to yourself . And there would never be a problem . And meetings take place inside churches. So gay people should respect what we Christians believe . Sodom and Gamorah proven history same thing as today . Well I have explained to my kids what Homosexuality is and that it is not natural and it was forbidden . I have an uncle who is a Dr that is gay and I love him and pray for him daily.But I do not agree with hislifestyle . and he is aware of that , . Oh and he was molested as a child . And many states will never pass Gay Marriage .
You are wrong.
My only experience with boy scouts was when one of my kids wanted to be a cub scout. I insisted he make his wooden car himself. It was clear that none of the other kids did. When the cub scouts insisted on blue socks and the school on white socks, my son decided that cub scouts were not his kind of thing.
My impression is that scouting is more concerned with badges and how things look to others, while 4Hers are more concerned with actually accomplishing things. They are photographed with the cow they raised. Boy scouts with uniforms and badges.
As I understand it, this change would leave it up to the local group to decide what they wanted to do. It's a step in the right direction.
My view on it is this. If BSA initially does not let people because of something they can't control, (and yes sexual orientation is not something you chose. Why would someone chose to be gay?) they're not good people in the first place. Why even bother. I don't see the Homosexual community trying to get themselves into the KKK or American Nazi party, same vein here.
Of course many kids are already in the scouts before they realize that they're gay, so the question is more complex than "why would you join a group which hates you."
Big, When I joined the cub scouts , girls were "icky", camping was awesome and my main love was cars. I never got to run the natural course because we started moving around so much I never landed anywhere long enough to join a troop. If I had, I would have been a scout about the time I discovered "certain things" , being Gay being just one of them.
There is no Gay community ticking off an agenda to "infiltrate" or join BSA. But when stories come along of intolerance we rally to them just like any other group does.
I've changed alot from that scout. Girls are no longer icky, just incompatible, camping gear includes beer coolers, and my second love is cars.
Let's not forget that most pedophiles are heterosexuals.
Really, what was John Wayne Gacy?
John Wayne Gacy was not "most pedophiles", or even a pedophile at all. All but two of his victims were 15 years or older, with most being 19-21 years of age.
I wonder what JWG would have become if he were not taught to suppress his homosexual identity.
Bob, was he or wasn't he a homosexual and a pedophile?
Lets see, less & less kids want to join so they do not make as much money. Lets change the rules so we can make money. Capitalizm strikes again
Because the BSA informs (propagandizes) people in our culture and one of their central claims is to represent moral rectitude. Bigotry toward gays is antithetical to that proposition and therefore makes the organization hypocritical and that is what is being called out. It's not unlike supposed Christian groups choosing hate and banishment over love and inclusion.
So the 1st Amendment means nothing???? Freedom of Association LOOK IT UP.............
You can associate freely all you want, but there will be restrictions imposed on the actions of that association if they are dangerous to the public welfare or individuals and/or are illegal.
Roscoe,
Freedom of Association is a right. But if enough people don't want to associate with you anymore for your methods, you can either wither away or rethink.
Well there's nothing illegal about what BSA was doing and they had more than enough of a membership to keep it going. So according to the First Ammendment they are the ones being discriminated against. It's funny how the Constitution gets thrown out the window when it doesn't fit an agenda........
Perhaps, but their unwarranted discrimination against gays was and is harmful to groups and individuals.
Sure. It means plenty.
In this specific case, it means there will be scouting troops that allow gay scouts and leaders, and troops that do not.
And you will be free to associate with the specific troop that you choose. There will be a group for *everyone*, but it won't be one massive group that you will be forced to attend, or not attend at all. You know, like gay kids have had to do all this time.
Roscoe, did you get the part of the memo where THEY (BSA) decided to change the rules? It has nothing to do with the Constitution. As you point out freedom of association is just that. BSA has changed how they choose to associate. I think they would be wiser NOT to leave the decision to local authorities, but that is their choice as long as they do not seek government support.
Leaving the decision to local councils is a big mistake. For the past several decades, BSA has tried to keep pedophiles out of leadership positions through various means (lists, background checks, strict rules such as 2 deep leadership and who may be in tents with whom). Even this has not always been successful, as several lawsuits have proved. The local council is not going to have the resources for good background checks, or for forwarding lists of those who fail checks to other councils.
Once parents lose confidence that their sons (and high school age daughters) will be protected from sexual predators (of any preference) on outings and camping trips, those programs will die. Which is probably closer to the true aim of the homosexual lobby. The Girl Scouts and Big Brothers/Big Sisters have shown this already. Girl Scout outdoor programs - especially camping - are a tiny percentage of what they used to be. When single parents could no longer be assured the assigned Big Brother/Big Sister wasn't gay, they lost interest in having their children participate.
As shown by the Catholic Church and Penn State scandals, the scale of child molestation (and the associated coverups) by gay men is much larger than child molestation by heterosexuals. Any molestation of any kind is too much, but the numbers of victims of gay men is way out of proportion to their numbers in the general population.
Other practical fallout from losing the ban on open homosexuals in Boy Scouts:
- the Promise - "do my duty to God and my country" will fall next. "Keep myself morally straight" no longer means anything when a moral standard doesn't apply.
- boys who are not siblings will no longer be able to share a tent when camping. Each will have to have their own tent. Some of the camaraderie, friendships, or just learning on how to get along with others will be lost with everybody being separated at night.
- bullying within the Scouts will likely increase, with sexual orientation now being another issue to use in bullying (I can see both directions, depending on the orientation of the 15-17 year old boy leaders). Volunteer adult leaders will have yet another issue to deal with and make themselves miserable over. Finding sufficient good adult leaders has always been the limit to the capacity of the Boy Scouts, and the key to keeping younger Scouts from quitting.
The thought police are out in full force on this one. When a private organization can be forced to change its stated beliefs to suit the whims of some of the public, we are all losers in the end.
Non sequiter argument. The prohibitions on sleeping in tents, background checks, leadership structures etc. will not be changed as a result of allowing gay people to participate.
Girl scout membership decline is mirrored by declining membership in boy scouts and similar organizations. This eliminates their stance on homosexuality as a causal factor.
1) a few high profile incidences are not valid samples in which to draw statistical inferences, and 2) real research has shown that homosexuals are just as likely as heterosexuals to be pedophiles. No more, no less.
Nobody is forcing a Private organization to do anything.... This is an INTERNAL vote precipitated by internal debate over the direction of the organization.
Actually, approximately 90% of all pedophiles/child molesters are heterosexual, married men. They are attracted to the age, not the gender, so they will prey on whichever gender is available to them.
Being homosexual does not automatically mean that one is not "morally" straight. Morality is subjective, and I find your bigotry -- as well as that displayed by the BSA -- to be extremely immoral. Personally, most of the homosexuals I have known have much better morals than many of the heterosexuals I've encountered.
@Hates - Your theories aren't back up by the available data.
Study after study shows that homosexuals make up only a small portion of pedophiles. According to a study called the Abel & Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study published in 2001, the typical pedophile is religious, white and straight with little sexual interest in adult men:
Leaving the decision to the local troops would be preferable since they would actually know the people they are working with.
Where have the "Morals" been when they have been actively hiding the identities of known abusers?
And as for you "bullying will increase" supposition, the biggest bully in my troop was the Scout Leader and his son!
Funny thing that every single notorious serial killer that sodomized and and killed dozens of young boys each were ALL GAY. Google it . Google Gay serial killers and look at the list with probably 50 or more on it ALL GAY!
Thats some coincidence! Gays have Broken Minds. They need to be kept away from NORMAL children.
There are christian groups who go overseas to get countries to make stricter laws against gay men & woman including in Uganda where they pressed for the death penalty if your gay. The taliban by any other name.
The taliban by any other name is the tea party.
Christians are the Taliban? Were you raised by a couple of bull queeers? 85% of the nation is Christian you moron.
Shovelface,
Sounds like you need to stay away from shovels and quit digging that hole you're in.
Even if the whole world PROMOTED homosexuality (with the same vigor that it does heterosexuality), the fact is people will--by and large--gravitate towards their innate proclivities as they do now. So, don't worry. Humans--whose population on this planet will reach unstable numbers within this century, causing famines, wars and political unrest--aren't going anywhere because of gay people. Our risks as a species are from far more pernicious sources. Spend your time worrying about nuclear proliferation, pollution being dumped in your back yard and the very real fact of human over-population. If not, then just be a good person and enjoy your life and take care of your family. Those are actually fruitful pursuits.
Damit Ray your too smart for this article.......Hey, is smelling womans shoes a proclivity....I love your intelligent words....I mean in a man sort of way! GREAT POST BUDDY!
It should be no surprise that this large number of adults involved in the Boy Scouts organization are homophobic and ignorant about the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual. When you raise children in ignorance and to fear diversity, they grow into ignorant and prejudiced adults. The Boy Scouts organization is reaping what it's sown. The uproar within the Boy Scouts about ending this ridiculous ban is the perfect illustration of why they need to end it.
Having successfully prosecuted several Scout Masters for child molesting, I can guarantee that any male homosexual placed in close contact with a child will go for it. They are not pedophiles they are gay males. The term "pedophile" was created to allow the gay population to continue to pursue young boys while claiming innocence when they were caught. I bet your happy that you will no longet have to spend thousands every year to visit Thailand.
Atelier, your bull@!$%# would make sense -- if it weren't for the fact that approximately 90% of pedophiles/child molesters are heterosexual, married men (probably a lot like you).
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your homophobia.
Keep repeating the lies, atelier. Eventually you'll be a real boy.
What's that fella in the statue got his hand wrapped around, anyway?
To be honest it looks like a turd, but im betting it's a walking stick.
That is exactly what it is.
I wonder if NAMBLA will get their own special chapter of Boy Scouts.
Could replace the "Eagle" badge with a "chickenhawk" badge.
Ok..I'm all for equal rights for all, however if this is such a big deal on both sides why not just start an organization called 'Gay Scouts of America'? They take pride in their differences so its not like it should be a big deal? Why must they shove themselves where they are obviously unwanted?
It's odd how i only here that when it's followed by some sort of but.
The whole point of this is that homosexuals arn't trying to change the way scouts operate in terms of activly promoting or even talking about homosexuality, the point is that people are being rejected or kicked out because of the simple fact that they are homosexuals.
That's actually a funny idea.
They could replace the Boy Scout uniform with something more "fabulous". Maybe replace the caps with leather caps.
Funny that you mention that.....shortly after the BSA was founded there were "Negro Boy Scouts" organizations during the time when the BSA prohibited blacks entirely, then a few years later the BSA had "special troops" which were black-only, while most troops were white-only. Then in 1974 the BSA dropped its racist policy of allowing each troop to decide whether to be whites-only, and fully integrated.
What you want for gays is a return not just to the pre-1974 type of policy, but to the pre-1916 policy.
http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/african-americans-boy-scout-movement
No, whatwe want from Homos is leave us alone, why do you have to force yourself on a private organization.
If I wan't wanted in an organization, I would go where I was wanted.
I cant believe at their age there would be any youth whom would have chosen to be gay on thier own with
without gay influence, which should be considered a form of abuse?
Hey George. If the BSA wants to continue to exclude gays, they have every legal right to do so. Gays cannot "force" themselves on the BSA. They only ask for the opportunity to participate. And since BSA isn't a sex club, there is no reason for sexuality to even be a factor. The only people who care are people who are scared. Are you scared George? I'm not.
Why is it the BSA needs to change? Wouldn't it be more realistic and democratic to create another organization to promote different beliefs? Isn't that the American way?
Yeah, it could be called the GSA - no wait, the Girls already have that one.
Because separate but equal is the American way, right?
While we are at it, why did they let black people join? Wouldn't it be more realistic and democratic to create another organization to promote different beliefs? Isn't that the American way?
ezrsp: What you describe is called segregation. I think we have determined as a country that segregation is not an appropriate solution to social pressures.
Gay people are welcome in the Boy Scouts. It's the Fags, Queers, Homos, Sexual Deviates, and Politicians that are Unwelcome.
Excuse me but I find Politicians to be very offensive.
The BSA is going to lose either way. I have a few friends that have their sons in the boyscouts, 3/4 of them will withdraw them if they change it to allow gays.
Call it what you want, but they are doing what they feel best for their kids.
Right on. It will become the Gays Scouts of America.
I prefer the new name be the Tolerant Scouts of America. Your friends' kids can call their new group the Bigoted Scouts of America. Replacing the bigots with homosexuals will make the organization much, much better.
meanwhile the least tolerant among society are the GLBT communities themselves. how ironic....and convenient for them.
If you are saying that we will not tolerate you forcing your bigoted, outdated beliefs down our throats, you are right. We will not tolerate your intolerance. It's kind of like we are America and you are the KKK during the Civil Rights era; America did not tolerate the KKK's racism.
The gay community has long dreamed of having unsupervised access to young boys. They will now save thousands every years since they will no longer have to pay to go to Thailand to have access. As the Catholic Church incident demonstrates, you place a gay male in close contact with a young boy and, as far as the homosexual is concerned, nature takes its course. That's why leading gay organizations like NAMBLA have argued for dropping the age of consent to 14 (or less). So if a parent wants their children to experience a gay lifestyle experience join the new Boy Scouts.
All the Fagots and Queers (suedo GAYS) want with regard to the Boy Scouts of America, is to have a new souce/opportunity to prey on innocent young boys. The Fagots and Queers can't stand it that others do not have a sick "anal" mentality that having male on male sex is something to be desired as Bob "Freebird" does.
Bob Freebird is SICK and intolerantly Filthy!!!
Once parents lose confidence that their sons (and high school age daughters) will be protected from sexual predators (of any preference) on outings and camping trips, those programs will die. Which is probably closer to the true aim of the homosexual lobby. The Girl Scouts and Big Brothers/Big Sisters have shown this already. Girl Scout outdoor programs - especially camping - are a tiny percentage of what they used to be. In contrast, the Boy Scout camping programs have generally remained strong. When single parents could no longer be assured the assigned Big Brother/Big Sister wasn't gay, they lost interest in having their children participate.
As shown by the Catholic Church and Penn State scandals, the scale of child molestation (and the associated cover-ups) by gay men is much larger than child molestation by heterosexuals (typically onesies and twosies). Any molestation of any kind is too much, but the numbers of victims of gay men is way out of proportion to their numbers in the general population. And Boy Scouts are a magnet for would-be gay pedophiles.
Again, it’s all about the parent’s confidence that their child is safe, and that the child’s participation in the program is worthwhile. As soon as parental confidence in either assumption is lost, the program dies.
Putting the decision on admitting openly gay leadership to the local level is an abdication of responsibility by central leadership. The background checks, the rules for adults and camping, the lists of those failing background checks, etc., all need to be kept at the central level. Otherwise, it becomes too easy for the pedophiles putting their selfish pleasure over the welfare of youth to go "troop shopping".
As for keeping known gay scouts, it will cause issues for camping. Not many parents who currently support Scouting are going to allow their boys to sleep in a tent with a gay 16-17 year-old - or even shower in a gang shower. And if the parents find out it happened without their express permission, law suits will fly (and should). So the camping rules will have to change if openly gay scouts are allowed - just to keep the confidence of the parents. The only feasible rule I can see is one person per tent, period. Not quite the Scouting ideal of brotherhood and sharing of the outdoor experience I grew up with - or that most parents seek for their Scouts.
Unfortunately, the attacks on the Boy Scouts (and other groups that don't approve of homosexuality) are not about inclusion. I suspect in reality that the number of gay teens that would seek to join the Boy Scouts would be rather small. As Scouts advance, they are questioned repeatedly on their support for the values in the Scout Law and Promise. Most who cannot support the values (includes atheists) will leave, or not join in the 1st place, rather than pretend. No, the fight is not about inclusion - it is about the destruction of the lives of those whose values are different.
Kids are almost always the biggest losers when adult selfishness prevails. Divorce, homosexual agendas, cohabitation, etc., are all examples of adult selfishness taking precedence over the best interests of children.
WHICH children? Not the gay kids, right? You're leaving them out entirely, in favor of what you consider the only legitimate group: straight kids.
THIS IS in the best interests of kids. ALL THE KIDS, damn it.
By the way, try to guess how many gay scouts there already are. If your "issues" were actually real, they'd already be happening, because there are already gay boys in the scouts.
So why aren't we hearing about all this Camping Rape, eh?