Bring on the Gay Boy Scouts

reply to post by Kali74


SO, you get decide whats should be offensive and whats not to MY children huh? I love your utter arrogance that you, master of the world, are the "decider" on what is offensive and whats not.

I don't want my kids seeing homosexuals making out or any other nonsense for the same reason I don't want my daughter seeing prostitutes walking the streets. I find it immoral and it will just raise questions that kids don't need to be worrying about.

So please, please don't tell me how to raise my own kids. I don't pelt your kids with bibles or my ideology, show the same respect.

reply to post by KnawLick

6% of the population is gay. 40% are struggling to pay their bills!! Why are we even ever talking about gays?!

This.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
If I'm wrong, you will find that you can silence me far more effectively, by employing legitimate rational argument.

I can't prove a negative Sir.

If you'll notice, I didn't say that I could prove it, either. That was actually my point.

I was saying that I'm genuinely curious to see what the result of at least some gay advocates achieving their goals concerning equality will be, so that I can finally discover who is correct; gays for holding the position that homosexuality is ultimately harmless, and it is merely discrimination that is wrong, or Christians who themselves think that sexual equality will mean the end of the world.

For the record, as a straight individual, I actually do support the concept of gay marriage; mainly because I once knew a homosexual man who died as a cumulative result of many different elements of his lifestyle...of which promiscuous homosexuality was one, but not the exclusive, element.

I have come to believe, however, that allowing homosexual people to experience stable monogamy will literally save lives; theirs first, and others through controlling the spread of AIDS second.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
As or the boy scouts, I think it's dumb they didn't allow LGBT into their ranks, but it should be their right as a private organization.

Last I saw, both the boy scouts and the girl scouts were church orientated.
So it shouldn't be surprise to anyone that they'd want to run their scouts according to their church.
The girl scouts here meet in the different churches.
When I was a kid, and a girl scout for about 6 months (I thought it was lame!!), we met in the
Congregational Church in town. (No, I didn't go to that church).

So are the scouts church-orientated still ??
Does anyone know??

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by Kali74

 

SO, you get decide whats should be offensive and whats not to MY children huh? I love your utter arrogance that you, master of the world, are the "decider" on what is offensive and whats not.

Yes, but the only reason why your kids are likely to find homosexuality offensive, is because as a parent, you've presumably brainwashed them to do so yourself.

Also, Kali isn't so much arrogant, as she is Marxist. A big part of the definition of that, is an assumption that a] superior morality is self-evident, b] the Left hold the moral high ground, and need to educate everyone else, whether they want said education or not, and c] the perception of literally everyone in society, other than heterosexual white males, as a victim of said heterosexual white males; in which case, unity of the rest of the population in a general, violent revolution against said heterosexual white males, is of paramount importance to securing human wellbeing.

reply to post by petrus4


Fair enough, I do believe that gays should be allowed to marry, I just don't think they should call in marriage.

There's no poing in stepping on the toes of religious folk for no reason. Most Christians would be very happy with civil unions I would think so long as they kept their marriage term to themselves.

As for the saving lives part, the only reason that AIDS is higher among LGBT folk is that we are more likely to get tested, therefore the numbers are higher on that basis.

I won't disagree that back in the day the gay community had a very big issue with STD transmissions due to all the promiscuous sex, but in today's society there is far less of that in the gay community, the youth are actually really well educated and quite responsible with those aspects of it.

At least that's what I've seen working with LGBT youth in my community over the last 10 years.

~Tenth

I think Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon needs to work on her argument a bit more.


She writes this post and gives what appears on the surface a good argument but she gives two examples/situations that don't really support her stance.

But though there are still miles to go before we attain anything like true equal rights, this business of shutting gay and lesbian people out of the stream of American life just isn’t as popular as it once was. So last year when Iowa resident (and Salon’s 2011 sexiest man) Zach Wahls spoke proudly about his two moms before his state’s legislative hearings to ban same-sex marriage — and about his status as an Eagle Scout — it struck a deep chord and renewed the debate. Wahls went on to form Scouts for Equality to “lead a respectful, honest dialogue with current and former Scouts and Scout Leaders about ending this outdated policy.”

Zach Wahls isn't gay. His female parents are. He himself was perfectly acceptable in the Scouts. [Great Video by the way. If you haven't seen it, please take the time to watch it. Great Speech by him]

And then Jennifer Tyrrell, “a devoted partner, mother, friend and community leader in Bridgeport, Ohio,” was dismissed as a Tiger Cub den leader for her son’s Cub Scout troop on the grounds of her orientation, or, as the Scouts told her, because she did “not meet the high standards of membership that the BSA seeks.” The high standards of being, you know, not so gay.

The second, Well was she acting too gay? A heterosexual male leader could be dismissed for acting too macho or overtly sexist etc. So these two examples should be tossed out. For each in my opinion do not add any weight to her argument.


This last bit here just makes her sound bitter and makes one question why she wrote this in the first place? If she feels the organization is so bad then why in the hell would she advocate being a part of it?

Because the Scouts are a private organization – one of the largest in the nation, in fact – its long-held argument goes that it has the right to set its own criteria for membership. Which is a steaming pile of crap.

I have no issues with the Scouts allowing gays. How about a compromise? Say the Boys or Girls scouts should offer "Gay troops" If one chooses to be open about their orientation at that stage of their life then why not?

Originally posted by Kali74

Do you hide heterosexuality from children? No. Does seeing a man and woman walking down the street holding hands or kissing destroy young children? No. Neither does seeing a man and man or a woman and a woman doing these things destroy a child, what does destroy a child is when the adult they are with has a knee-jerk reaction to seeing homosexuality as if they just witnessed a murder.

Hmm.. I thought that not all heterosexual expressions to US kids are allowed: en.wikipedia.org...
Hey kids, anyway:

reply to post by KnawLick


I asked a question and offered my opinion, I in no manner told you how to raise your children. However let's be clear about something because metaphorically speaking you and others like you do pelt my child with bibles and your ideology. I want him to grow up in a world where seeing two men holding hands and the adults around them aren't sneering or shocked or disgusted. What makes your ideology more important than mine? People should be free to be who they are.

That said I don't agree that BSA should HAVE to accept gay children or children of gay couples, I think it's disgusting that they don't but as a private group they're free to be as fascist as they want to be.

reply to post by petrus4


I am not a Marxist, just because I reject the incorrect definition of the word by other posters does not make me so. If you need to define me at least do it it correctly. I'm a left-libertarian.

reply to post by Kali74


I see your point and your correct BUT where is the line then? Should just anything go? If I want to marry 3 women is that okay? Or if I want to marry a horse is that okay?

And before you say it, I will "oh those are just tired old stereotypes and ignorant points" but I have never found a support of the "gay agenda" to be able to actually answer these questions. If more than 1 man and 1 women are entitled to get married then legally I don't know how you can deny the others.

And personally, right now I'd rather have the preferred treatment at jobs that gays enjoy than the right to get married...

Gay Boy Scouts will look better, be more fit, march straighter, hike farther and keep a prettier campsite than the average Boy Scout. The will have cleaner, neater uniforms. Their lockers will be squared away and their gig lines will be straight. The meals they make will be tastier and more challenging to cook and the cooking area will be sanitary and neat. They will treat their leaders and fellow scouters with respect.

The Boy Scouts should let them in because if they have to form their own Scouting organization, they will make the Boy Scouts look pretty bad.

reply to post by KnawLick

And personally, right now I'd rather have the preferred treatment at jobs that gays enjoy than the right to get married...

Do you have documented proof of such? Hint, you won't find any because it doesn't exist. While it may be true that minorities and the disabled might be hired due to tax incentives, gay's do not fall under that category of "equal opportunity". Seriously, what would stop anyone from claiming they were gay?

Also I don't personally see any reason polygamy is against the law either. It's certainly not against the law to live with or date multiple people why should it be illegal to "legalize" such?

A better suggestion might be to take away the special privileges legal marriage offers to heterosexual couples.

reply to post by Kali74


www.cbn.com...

Gays are a protected class, no different than blacks.

Well we will agree to disagree, thats whats great about America (for now at least) we have a federalist system where, in Virginia, we can disallow this type of abhorrent marriage and you, in Maryland, can give all the rights to gays you deem fit!

reply to post by KnawLick


That has to do with hate crimes not equal opportunity employment. That legislation means that if you beat up a person for being gay you will be punished, if found guilty, more harshly than if you beat someone up because they looked at you funny, same is it is for minorities.

reply to post by Kali74


And you also can't be fired from your job based on sexual orientation. So I slack off and claim and I gay and they shutter at the thought of a lawsuit. Of course it doesn't happen often.... Now.

But blacks have been getting this special treatment for years and boy do they abuse it.

Rules were made to be broken

reply to post by KnawLick


Blacks abuse it? lol
Employers abuse it. Cash/Tax incentives...the employee never sees whether they were hired based on skill or ethnicity they never see a dime of the incentive either. That said, I think we still live in a world where minority unemployment would skyrocket should those incentives not be there, even if the best applicants.

reply to post by Kali74


See, now thats the definition of liberal racism. So minorities aren't smart enough to get jobs on their own or are white people so evil we wouldn't hire them?

God forbid we take the ethnicity question off application forms and just hire solely on qualification.

reply to post by KnawLick


See that's what we call assumptions.
I didn't say it was right, to clarify I think we still live in a world where a common scenario would be an unqualified white person gets a job over a qualified minority should those incentives disappear. I also think what tends to happen is that an employer goes for a win win which would be, a good employee and a tax rebate.

I say let them have their rules about homosexuality because soon those rules will become a silly objection. People may even look back embarrassed, just as they did when it came to segregation between blacks and whites. Society is changing and if you don't change with it you will get left behind.