Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Boy Scouts to Admit Openly Gay Youths

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I am happy the Boy Scouts have finally allowed gays. Gay children need guidance and exposure to character building outdoor activities just like straight children do.




posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Well I think this is just bad news.

If the Boy Scouts had decided on their own that its now time to allow homosexuals in then that would have been fine.

As it is though, they were forced through public pressure by homosexual groups to take this action against their will and were demonized everywhere when they fought this change.

They had no choice so that is why I feel its very bad. Certain groups should be allowed to set their own rules without being criticized for it.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Having followed this issue for a long time, including being at ground zero when this started, the following can be stated:

This decision was the wrong one. Before you flame or boo me, please read the reasoning for such. Too many times we give in cause it is believed to be the correct action. No one thinks that just maybe that the correct action is not to persue a course that would fundamentally change an organization. The primary complaint is that a group, that has always been an organization, with has heavy religious overtones, has excluded those that do not fit into that world or belief. And time and time again, the courts have upheld that it is a private organization, with the full right to decide who it will and will not let in.

After all of these years, and all of the amount of money spent on trying to change an age old organization, the one question that has always been present on my mind and yet no one who wanted this changed were willing to answer, or did such with disgust, is why could not they create a scouting organization for those that the BSA excludes. Would it have been such a bad thing, to have 2 scouting organizations, after all there has been such before, with a scouting organization for the boys and one for the girls. Would competition be such a bad thing, and let the public decide by funding the organization that it finds to be idea for teaching their children?

This was a bad decision, with ramifications that will affect the organization for years to come. Support that it had, will soon dry up, people will leave and take their children out of the organization.

So after all of this fight, forcing an age old organization to change its traditions and mold in the name of social justice, is it worth it? Probably not.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Did I miss the point in time where it became acceptable for 12 year old boys to openly talk about their homosexuality? I guess I also skipped over the point where 12 year olds even knew they were gay.

I'm gonna start my own new boy scouts and sexual preference isn't going to even become an issue. This is all politicized bullmess.Also, I would probably pull my kid out of scouts out of principle. They were a conservative, moral and upstanding organization that buckled to pressure.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Her concern isn't about encountering a gay person and her question wasn't asked in that sense. It directly concerned the camping aspect. Like I pointed out in my initial post she would not want her son to camp with girls since he is attracted to them. Her question isn't confusing it's really simple. If I don't want my child camping overnight with (in this case) members of the opposite sex due to the attraction and increased possibility of issue because of that. What is the difference if a kid that is attracted to the same sex being put in the same situation.

You seem to be reading into it that she is trying to say there is more of a lack of control or higher risk simply because it's a homosexual child and that isn't what is being said at all. She is stating she does not see the difference between the two situations because of the attraction. So please don't turn it into a gay hate, lack of control, or whatever type of question because that isn't what it is. Simply a very straight forward concern and question without prejudices.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by drivers1492
 



Originally posted by drivers1492
What is the difference if a kid that is attracted to the same sex being put in the same situation.


It's not different. If she hasn't taught her 12-year-old to respect other people, and the rules of his organization, then maybe she should pull him out.

Also, as I said in my last post, he is exposed to girls everywhere. Does she have any reason to believe that his exposure to these girls are causing any kind of sexual issues in his life?
edit on 5/26/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


If it's not different do you understand what she is asking and why? I realize the structure and rules of the scouts do temper things from taking place, but if there is no difference between the two situations then parents actually do have a valid concern in this issue outside of all the stupid bs that is usually thrown forward.(ie...predators, pedo's, god said it's bad)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


If they had their way they would have gay pride scouting badges and rainbow neckties everyone was forced to wear..

All to promote tolerance, of course...



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by drivers1492
 


I elaborated on my answer above.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Again, we are not and were not talking about her child meeting girls everywhere. She was referring to a specific situation. And, I 100% agree that if the child is taught respect for rules and respect for others he shouldn't take part. BUT, she was asking about the other parents and the parent of the gay child. Outside of rules and such which everyone hopefully knows are not followed all the time.

Please understand I'm not arguing or trying to sway anyone one way or the other on this but I did find it interesting and have yet to see someone address the point.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl

IMO, this is good news and long overdue. I'm sure there will be a backlash from the conservative groups, and that is understandable. My guess is those who disagree might form their own version of Boy Scouts which does not allow homosexuals to join. That is their right, of course.

Not much more to add, except I see this is a big step forward.


You see people this is the ignorance of the current progressive movement, which truely needs to be relabled as the "hypocracy" movement. It forces groups into their midset and their ideas without impunity towards anyones feelings but their own. To state that they can now form their own group which is their right is about the most hypocrytical thing you can say. It was their right in the first place to be how they were and yet selfish people decided it wasn't their right and forced change.... Why did the gay comunity not make their own group and leave this group alone? Ohhh thats right it is the gay rights movent who doesn't believe in acceptance of others unles others accept them... The first rule of earning acceptance is to accept others. This idea is failing the progressives on a massive scale.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


I'm a fairly conservative person, but I don't feel that a person should be defined by a sexual orientation.

If that is how an individual wishes to define themselves, that that it the individuals prerogative.

I think that the less time we spend focusing on just one aspect of human nature, we can move on to more important things.

Just my take on it.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by drivers1492
 


I don't think you're arguing.
It's just hard to come to an understanding.

My position is that her concerns don't make sense to me. If ANY parents are afraid to allow their children exposure to other children because of possible sexual encounters, they should keep them at home. Because children DO experiment sexually. I did. Every kid I know did. Most adults, if they are honest, "played doctor" when they were a kid. It's a natural part of childhood and teen development.

Keeping gay kids out of scouts isn't going to change that one bit. It may make the parents have a false sense of security about it, but in reality, nothing changes.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I do not feel one should be defined by anything other than their actions... with that being said, to say one must accept me without me accepting them and their feelings is wrong. Yet it is the basis of the current progressive movement.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 



Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
... selfish people decided it wasn't their right and forced change....


I hadn't been following this story too much, so I don't know how it started or why the Scouts made the decision they did. So I have a couple of questions I'd like specific responses to.

A. Who are the "selfish people" in your sentence above?
B. How did they "force" this change on the Boy Scouts?



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I sort of agree with you. I actually do see her point and feel it is a valid one. I do not see it as fear more of a parental concern. I say that in this particular woman's statements only since I know her. Most parents aren't blind to the fact that kids will "play doctor" and such but putting them in situations that would increase the availability to whom ever you find sexually attracted to for overnight excursions is not a good idea. That has nothing to do with fear. Me personally, I have no issue about gay kids in scouts it was a stupid rule to start with but as with any private organization it was there right to have it.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Forcing a group to accept another group is wrong. On that I would agree. I would also agree that the progressive movement uses social engineering to manipulate society to force certain ideologies upon a culture.

But ignoring or not accepting an individual because he/she is different (in some aspect) is not a fight against progressivism, it is denying an individual access to something that should be available to all.

Progressives would want everyone to be gender-neutral as to not offend any gender or gender orientation.

Libertarianism would want everyone just to be accepted as who they are. No biases either negative or positive should apply.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Originally posted by beezzer
Forcing a group to accept another group is wrong.


Hey beez.


I think forcing the boy scouts to accept gay people is wrong.
Do you know who forced them and how? I'm curious about this now.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer
 



Originally posted by beezzer
Forcing a group to accept another group is wrong.


Hey beez.


I think forcing the boy scouts to accept gay people is wrong.
Do you know who forced them and how? I'm curious about this now.


As far as I know, no-one. They voted (as a private organization should) and voted (in my humble opinion) correctly.

The scouts chose to look at the whole individual instead of just one aspect of the individual.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


The gay community preach tolerance but practice selective intimidation by any means necessary to reach their end on any given target. It's not got ANYTHING to do with gay people....but the scumbag way they advance their cause. Any means to the end.


Oh sweet Jesus. I'll never understand how people think the "gay community" is so damn organised. You'd think by now we would've convinced middle aged men to stop wearing leather pants at the very least.

This isn't the entire gay population chiming in on the next issue on this supposed "agenda". This is a small number of gay people from a variety of places who disagree with the organisation's policies and are vocal about it. You might feel that they are "bullying" an organisation. They, however, feel that they are fighting an organisation that is acting as the bully itself. Tell me, who do you want to protect? The organisation or the child? Which one actually has feelings? Which one has the tragic suicide rates that is higher than any other group? Which one is really worth fighting for? Who is going to mourn the loss of a "value" in an organisation? Who's family will be ruined by it? Who will have the bury their child because of it? Drop your predetermined, partisan sociopolitical stances and really think about that for a second.

These people just remember what it's like to be a kid and feel excluded. If an organisation wants to exclude people, they can go right ahead, but they are FAR from immune to criticism about it--especially from those people who know damn well what it's like to feel that same exclusion. Stop screaming murder about it. It's incredibly adolescent and an embarassment to 100,000 years of evolving human dignity. My bet is that these kids couldn't care less about it; I wish I could say I was shocked about their levels of maturity as compared to some of these "people with values".






top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join